Playing One civ through the Ages

[stealth_nsk]

It was also ridiculed immensely when it was in civ 3, afaik. Besides most people not taking the game so seriously back then as people are since civ V onwards.

Yes, it was ridiculed, but without negativity. It was ok to be silly.

 

[Evie]

It was also ridiculed immensely when it was in civ 3, afaik. Besides most people not taking the game so seriously back then as people are since civ V onwards.

God I miss the days of people not taking the game seriously.

The sheer level of single-minded apoplexy people go into over who deserves or not deserve to be a civ, a leader, etc is beyond nonsensical for a game that is fundamentally about "What if Comrade Julius Caesar and his Crusaders captured the Pyramids that were built by King Abe Lincoln of America".

These days, who gets or does not get included and who is or is not playable at what point in the game is treated as some sort of national insult that a lot of civ fans would actually wage real war over if they had an army to do it with.

Where did the chill go?

.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

God I missed the days of people not taking the game seriously.

The sheer level of single-minded apoplexy people go into over who deserves or not deserve to be a civ, a leader, etc is beyond nonsensical for a game that is fundamentall about "What if Comrade Julius Caesar and his Crusaders captured the Pyramids that were built by King Abe Lincoln of America".

.

Civ is ses bsns

 

[Evolena]

To me, leaders are what give a single civilization its internal diversity. Take Peter the Great and Stalin. Both could represent Russia, yet they relates to vastly different eras, ideologies, and leadership styles. Same civilization, but radically different vibe.

What is a civilization to you? "A group of people inhabiting the same geographic space"? I don't see Imperial Russia and USSR as the same civilization, and that's not a mere matter of leader's identity.

 

[untitledjuan]

The main issue, in my opinion, is age reset, which disrupts game continuity regardless of civ switching. The concept of civ switching could have worked without age reset and with a well structured and designed path with coherent civ transitions and the option to keep your civilization when transitioning to the next age.

Also, the base game should have included regular staple civilization and leaders, to kind of soften the impact that civ switching might have had at the beginning, then introduce more interesting/new/different civs and leaders in future DLCs

Also, even if mix matching civilizations and leaders was the rule, there should at least exist a corresponding civilization for each leader introduced (even if not the other way arround), mainly to avoid awkward situations such as "Mexican Bolívar" or "Hawaiian José Rizal".

 

[Gorbles]

The main issue, in my opinion, is age reset, which disrupts game continuity regardless of civ switching. The concept of civ switching could have worked without age reset and with a well structured and designed path with coherent civ transitions and the option to keep your civilization when transitioning to the next age.

It's a common opinion that history in layers didn't require an "age reset". But what you're describing in bold is Age Transitions as they exist. You need some form of UI / UX to structure that path. You need UI / UX to give the player the options you're asking for. This requires gameplay to stop while these things are given to the user, and the user responds.

Is your issue the loading screen? The fact that your units are upgraded? That the ingame age UI increments by however many decades / centuries? A combination / all of the above?

If you think you can do away with X, but you actually want to keep aspects of X, then you need to be more precise about what does work, and what doesn't.

(small note: I am asking untitledjuan here because I don't know their opinion. Anyone can of course chip in, but if folks I already know your opinion, I know not everyone is going to have the same one!)

 

[stealth_nsk]

What is a civilization to you? "A group of people inhabiting the same geographic space"? I don't see Imperial Russia and USSR as the same civilization, and that's not a mere matter of leader's identity.

That's a very tough question. On one hand USSR is not even a legal successor of Imperial Russia, so USSR didn't pay imperial debts (but also lost imperial gold, which was transported to France during civil war). Unlike Russia - USSR where Russia is the legal successor, including position in UN security council. On the other hand, there were a lot of continuity. Stalin's treatment of peasants was not much different from serfdom, they didn't even had passports. And a lot of bridges were made to connect present with past, so historical figures like Alexander Nevsky or Ivan the Terrible became part of Stalin's propaganda together with revolution heroes.

So, I think in the end it's all about subjective view.

 

[Crashdummy]

The main issue, in my opinion, is age reset, which disrupts game continuity regardless of civ switching. The concept of civ switching could have worked without age reset and with a well structured and designed path with coherent civ transitions and the option to keep your civilization when transitioning to the next age.

Also, the base game should have included regular staple civilization and leaders, to kind of soften the impact that civ switching might have had at the beginning, then introduce more interesting/new/different civs and leaders in future DLCs

Also, even if mix matching civilizations and leaders was the rule, there should at least exist a corresponding civilization for each leader introduced (even if not the other way arround), mainly to avoid awkward situations such as "Mexican Bolívar" or "Hawaiian José Rizal".

I disagree. Civ switching would never have worked in Civilization because it goes against the soul of the franchise, which is to take a Civilization from stone age to space, and make it stand the Test of Time

Civilization as a franchise will always be that, and i think its sad that the Devs couldnt identify that on time

Ages resets are bad for gameplay reasons, but the one thing that goes against the very soul of Civilization is civ switching

 

[Lebo44]

What is a civilization to you? "A group of people inhabiting the same geographic space"? I don't see Imperial Russia and USSR as the same civilization, and that's not a mere matter of leader's identity.

To me its the same civilization. With Slavic roots, winter traditions, with patriarchatic social and authocratic governmental system since ages.

Same as Roman Republic and Byzantium (they still saw themselves as Roman right? just Eastern) or Germanic Tribes -> HRE -> Prussia -> Germany.

For this reason my dream Civilization game should have i.e. Germany or Russia or Rome as civs that evolve through ages (having different uniques each era). Rome could be Militaristic in Ancient and Religious in Exploration to reflect the importance of Orthodoxy in Byzantium. Russians could be Commercial in Exploration (to reflect the features of Novogrod) or Religious (Kievan Rus) and Militaristic later on.

 

[Evie]

As most modern historians - actual historians - would point out - most of those "continuities" are created by writers in a "present" (ie, a later time period, which may be the past from our point of view) trying to connect their culture in the here and now to a culture in the past, by emphasizing similarities (and clichés, in the case of the USSR/Imperial Russia and winter), while quietly ignoring (numerous) differences, because it suits their political interests.

Some have more ground to stand on than others, but what we consider "cutting off points" and what we consider "continuity" tend to be very questionable in the best of times, and to be more about who we *want* to include and exclude from our National History, which can very well vary as national priorities change (see: the Chinese-Barbarian-Chinese-Barbarian dance around the Yuan and Qing dynasties in China).

It's more in the nature of national mythmaking than in the nature of serious anthropology or history.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

But a lot of those times it's the same people out in the fields and living their lives though, right? I mean often they're not too.

 

[Lebo44]

As most modern historians - actual historians - would point out - most of those "continuities" are created by writers in a "present" (ie, a later time period, which may be the past from our point of view) trying to connect their culture in the here and now to a culture in the past, by emphasizing similarities (and clichés, in the case of the USSR/Imperial Russia and winter), while quietly ignoring (numerous) differences, because it suits their political interests.

Some have more ground to stand on than others, but what we consider "cutting off points" and what we consider "continuity" tend to be very questionable in the best of times, and to be more about who we *want* to include and exclude from our National History, which can very well vary as national priorities change (see: the Chinese-Barbarian-Chinese-Barbarian dance around the Yuan and Qing dynasties in China).

It's more in the nature of national mythmaking than in the nature of serious anthropology or history.

No offence, but you wrote "God I miss the days of people not taking the game seriously" just few posts above and now this.

 

[Evie]

I don'T take the game seriously. Anything can be a civilization in the game.You can have a civilization that is Imperial Russia and the USSR and modern Russia all rolled into one. Or a civilization for each of those. Or a Slavic civilization. ANY of them could exist, and it doesn't matter. Worrying about which of them the game has is ridiculous. I played when the Civ was Russia and included all of them, and I'd play if the game had Muscovy and Russia and the USSR as three separate civilizations (well, maybe not the later, because I'm not super into adding another age). It doesn't matter, and nobody shoudl care.

But I do take history - the big picture of it - seriously. And history wise, the concept of continuous, lasting civilization...is pretty much a myth.

Which is all the more reason not to take seriously whatever definition the game use for "civilization".

But a lot of those times it's the same people out in the fields and living their lives though, right? I mean often they're not too.

Not really. It's (at best) the long-time descendants of those people, speaking at best a loosely related language that the ancestors would struggle to understand if they could at all, with traditions and cultures that would, over the course of centuries and millenias, become completely alien to one another.

The past, as they say, is a foreign country.

 

[luca 83]

The main issue, in my opinion, is age reset, which disrupts game continuity regardless of civ switching. The concept of civ switching could have worked without age reset and with a well structured and designed path with coherent civ transitions and the option to keep your civilization when transitioning to the next age.

Also, the base game should have included regular staple civilization and leaders, to kind of soften the impact that civ switching might have had at the beginning, then introduce more interesting/new/different civs and leaders in future DLCs

Also, even if mix matching civilizations and leaders was the rule, there should at least exist a corresponding civilization for each leader introduced (even if not the other way arround), mainly to avoid awkward situations such as "Mexican Bolívar" or "Hawaiian José Rizal".

I agree, the change of civilization must be exercised, but with a structure created by artificial intelligence and by the paths that are created in the game with a whole series of game factors: player choices, random events, natural environment, technology, leader's attitude, population's attitude,

 

[Leucarum]

The biggest annoyance for me with the age transition (even with continuity) is that it resets all your resources and unit orders so that the first few minutes of any age become boring micro. I don't mind the pause in gameplay too much.

 

[Yzman]

I think they should spend the minimum amount of effort on this. You get your unique units and buildings and abilities for the age your chosen Civ falls in - before that you are playing a generic Civ and use the graphics appropriate to your region. I cannot see this being an issue because this is how it worked in Civ 5 and Civ 6 and we keep being told those are vastly superior to 7.

Yeah why do there need to be any ither bonuses? There weren't before and that's what people are asking for. If you want America, play generic civ America with whatever leader you want and get their bonuses when modern comes. Literally how previous games played.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I mean, either form of historical narrative--one that emphasizes continuity or one that emphasizes discontinuity--is a construct.

And in both cases, there's some present ideological driver that motivates the historian to opt for the structure he or she adopts.

 

[luca 83]

I mean, either form of historical narrative--one that emphasizes continuity or one that emphasizes discontinuity--is a construct.

And in both cases, there's some present ideological driver that motivates the historian to opt for the structure he or she adopts.

Then what? In the Soviet Union fini aglo ani 1980 communism was considered a science an altenztive to capitalism then times change until that period communism was a valid altenztive in crisis but valid and artificial intelligence the task of simulating the eras on the course of the game

 

[Crashdummy]

The biggest annoyance for me with the age transition (even with continuity) is that it resets all your resources and unit orders so that the first few minutes of any age become boring micro. I don't mind the pause in gameplay too much.

The gameplay interruption has a huge impact for manty of us. I cant think of anything more immersion breaking than that honestly. I still cant understand how this went past the design table, let alone any kind of QA

I agree the stuff reset is bad (and also break immersion) but the game interruption to take you to a "game start" menu...

Both Age resets and Civ switching hurt the franchise so, so much that its impossible to understand to me how they were developed and released

 

[Evolena]

The biggest annoyance for me with the age transition (even with continuity) is that it resets all your resources and unit orders so that the first few minutes of any age become boring micro. I don't mind the pause in gameplay too much.

I can relate to that. I love ages in CIV 7, but the first turn is always as when I enter a big new city in a RPG... so much new PNJ, places, quests, shops, items, decisions... that it's often a risk to stop playing just there.