(POLL) What do we think of the change to playing multiple civs per game?

[TheGrayFox]

Predevelopment would have started well before Humankind was announced. If we want to point to Amplitude's influence on Firaxis, I'd point to Influence instead, which has been a thing in all of Amplitude's games going back to the original Endless Space. City sprawl, too, is reminiscent of Endless Legend. I think changing civs is just an interesting and unfortunate coincidence.

Let's not fool ourselves. This game has not been in serious devolopment since before 2019 (when they showed Humankind's gimmick off)

...I'm sorry, do you really think it takes two years to make a game?

Nice strawman. No one said it only takes two years to make a game and by your own logic, Humankind's production would had to have also started years before its first showcase

 

[SeelingCat]

I guess technically it's "half-baked" in the sense that the cake is still baking - the game doesn't come out for another 6 months!

 

[Zaarin]

Let's not fool ourselves. This game has not been in serious devolopment since before 2019 (when they showed Humankind's gimmick off)

Elinor agreed with it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition.

 

[Krikkit1]

It would make sense IF the available civilizations were not coupled with what happened IRL.

But if you play Rome, even if you are stable and well defended, you must follow the route of a Rome that was defeated.

If you are Maya or Aztec, even if you are undefeated, the biggest country in the map, with a massive tech lead... You are still en route to become a post conquest Mexico in the next era.

Especially the later man, how can I say my civ stood the test of time if I am forced to go through a demographic change that happened through the genocide of the people of my age 1 and 2 civs.

Not necessarily... Rome->Byzantium/HRE isn't necessarily a defeated Rome... Just one where the balance of power shifted... Imagine a Byzantium/"Germany" as the stronger partner in an East-West Roman Empire, where the West did not fall.... Then Byzantium->Turkey because while the Turkish invaders were defeated, the massive migrations and religious changes led to a new center of power and a different culture.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Elinor agreed with it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition.

nice cope. eveyrone with a brain can see they copied Humankind's gimmick, just like VI copied districts from Endless Legends.

If you want to entertain nonsense assumptions about Civ 7 having been began serious production over a decade ago without any evidence at all, feel free but as i already pointed out Humankind's " pre-production" must've started years before 2019 showcase (which is still half a decade ago) too by your own silly logic.

 

[Zaarin]

nice cope. eveyrone with a brain can see they copied Humankind's gimmick, just like VI copied districts from Endless Legends.

If you want to entertain nonsense assumptions about Civ 7 having been began serious production over a decade ago without any evidence at all, feel free but as i already pointed out by your own silly logic, Humankind's " pre-production" must've started years before 2019 too then

I defer to your obviously superior inside sources and vast knowledge of the industry. Tell Ed I said hi.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I defer to your obviously superior inside sources and vast knowledge of the industry. Tell Ed I said hi.

You're literally the only one making ridiculous assumptions here but please do keep coping champ.

How silly of me to even question that you didn't know exactly when Civ 7 began serious production and for even doubting that you could tell us with absolute confidence that they started before Humankind showcase in 2019 (5 years ago). Silly me for ever doubting your omniscience

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Technically, the Sea people where there before the Romans, and after the Roman Empire collapsed, Sardinia, then formed an alliance with Piedmont, known as the Sardo-Piedmont reign, with the Savoia as the rulers, invaded Sicily, with Garibaldi expedition, and thus Italy was born...

So historically, Rome never was a precursor civ, but rather an amalgamation of earlier Italic civs.

So either, get the historical facts correct to an high degree, or just don't even try.

Strongly dislike was my vote, but this has a lot to do with Hystorical accuracy. It's just not there.
One might argue that Sea people and alikes, ended the Bronze Age.
So we might assume Antiquity start after the end of the Bronze Age?
It's a mess.

 

[Krikkit1]

Technically, the Sea people where there before the Romans, and after the Roman Empire collapsed, Sardinia, then formed an alliance with Piedmont, known as the Sardo-Piedmont reign, with the Savoia as the rulers, invaded Sicily, with Garibaldi expedition, and thus Italy was born...

So historically, Rome never was a precursor civ, but rather an amalgamation of earlier Italic civs.

So either, get the historical facts correct to an high degree, or just don't even try.

Strongly dislike was my vote, but this has a lot to do with Hystorical accuracy. It's just not there.
One might argue that Sea people and alikes, ended the Bronze Age.
So we might assume Antiquity start after the end of the Bronze Age?
It's a mess.

That is what Humankind tried to do with 7 eras (Rome was in the second era: Classical)

However, that meant 7 different 'civs' in your development. Less identity.
3 different "civs" in your development means less disruption to your identity.... and by adding Crises at Era changes it provides a bit of an in game reason for the shift in your identity/bonuses, etc.. (as well as a potential anti-snowball measure)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That is what Humankind tried to do with 7 eras (Rome was in the second era: Classical)

However, that meant 7 different 'civs' in your development. Less identity.
3 different "civs" in your development means less disruption to your identity.... and by adding Crises at Era changes it provides a bit of an in game reason for the shift in your identity/bonuses, etc.. (as well as a potential anti-snowball measure)

If Humankind did it too much, I think Civ 7 also might be doing it too little. The Exploration Era for example is supposedly supposed to cover a wide timeframe and lump Medieval Civs with Enlightenment Era Civs.
I'd much rather that be split into two different ages. The Medieval Age already covers about 1000 years roughly, if we look at the fall of Rome to fall of Constantinople.

 

[Zaarin]

If Humankind did it too much, I think Civ 7 also might be doing it too little. The Exploration Era for example is supposedly supposed to cover a wide timeframe and lump Medieval Civs with Enlightenment Era Civs.
I'd much rather that be split into two different ages. The Medieval Age already covers about 1000 years roughly, if we look at the fall of Rome to fall of Constantinople.

I sympathize with this sentiment because I love Medieval history, but I think FXS has found the most salient breaking points in history--and I don't want to change civs more than twice.

 

[Somebody613]

Well I would wager that they are not going to. That's a core, fundamental design choice which literally the entire game revolves around.

Your dislike of that mechanic doesn't make the idea half-baked. It just means the game probably isn't for you if you can't get past it.

I just realized the aforementioned switch is even stupider than it sounds at the first glance.
Egypt itself already used horses aplenty, so "requiring more horses in order to become Mongolia" is not merely randomly non-sequitur.
It's outright redundant, because you are switching from one "horse-using civ" to another "horse-using civ", except they have nothing in common beyond that point.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Rome<Venice/Tuscany<Italy,

Sea people<Phoenicians<Carthage<Lybia
Sea people<Rome<Papal State<not Italy (Rome was a French colony at one point, bc of the Pope)
Etruscan<Rome<Tuscany<not Italy (Tuscany had no kings, Piedmont did, and the biggest army too)
Sea people<Rome<Sardo-Pedmont<Italy
Venetii<Rome<Venice<not Italy ( Venice by itself could have well switched to Austria rather than Italy if given a choice )
Magna Grecia<Rome<bunch of city states<not Italy (i.e Malta, Borbonic reign of the two Sicilies , etc)

 

[pokiehl]

I just realized the aforementioned switch is even stupider than it sounds at the first glance.
Egypt itself already used horses aplenty, so "requiring more horses in order to become Mongolia" is not merely randomly non-sequitur.
It's outright redundant, because you are switching from one "horse-using civ" to another "horse-using civ", except they have nothing in common beyond that point.

Egyptians didn't use horses for riding, but for chariots. Mongolia's culture literally revolved around horses in many ways, and horses in fact outnumbered Mongolians. It's fair to say the degree of emphasis is far different.

At any rate, it's no stupider at face value than America founding Washington DC in 4000 BCE and staying there til 2500 CE.

You're not going to make a history game that spans 6000 years realistic in every measure.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I sympathize with this sentiment because I love Medieval history, but I think FXS has found the most salient breaking points in history--and I don't want to change civs more than twice.

I guess you're right. Plus considering there is no way of keeping your civ in the next age then you could never have the Aztec or Inca interact with Spain unless the former weren't Medieval.

 

[Somebody613]

You're not going to make a history game that spans 6000 years realistic in every measure.

Hence why I keep talking about "Me_Leader and My_Civ", which both aren't historical in any sense and instead let YOU "create history from scratch".
Otherwise, you WILL end up with a ton of civs that "don't fit this era", OR with a direct demand to "switch from Egypt to Arabia", because only this would let you "span the whole timeline".
It's a lose-lose situation in ANY case that doesn't allow for a Custom Civ solution.
Admit it, lol.

 

[Moriarte]

About those crises.

Something doesn't seem right to me here. Example: I am a terrible leader - I've wasted hammers on pursuing wonders, failed to build roads and aqueducts, built 0 army and offended Alexander the Great on few occasions. The crisis comes. Fair? Fair. But what if I am the opposite? I've built up the strongest economy, the most capable military, I am knocking on my neighbours gates with a spear and half of the world speaks my language with the other half on the fast track. The crisis still comes? With the change of name, regalia, bonuses. Seems to me like the scripted nature starts to get in the way of the flow of history created by the player. Why should I stop being Egypt despite my successes in trying to further glory of Egypt? This hand holding and theme parking player through scripted legs of the game does sound less like Civ's freedom of choice and more like one of those games where they have all the angles figured out for you. Just press x.

I wouldn't be saying any of this if there was a believable transition from Etruscans to Romans to Italians, Slavs to Russians, Aztec to Mexicans. Preferably without the scripted crises. But planned transitions displayed are just random and, in my opinion, take away from immersion and continuity of results within the flow of history. I mean, it's probably a nice idea for a mod (civ-flipping), but the POLL upstairs is also definitive in that only a minority of experienced residents finds this civ-swapping appealing.

 

[AriochIV]

Considering the big crisis around the end of the age of Antiquity focuses on the historical fall of Rome by invasions, leading to the Middle Ages, I would almost guarantee that the Byzantines would be an Exploration civ.

Even if development started around 2019, that's when Amplitude showed off Humankind right? It's not hard to imagine that they at least looked at their idea.

According to the IGN preview, the normal Exploration Era progression for Rome is the Normans.

I'm not sure Normans make any more sense as an Exploration Era civ than Byzantium, but there we are.

 

[Somebody613]

About those crises.

I'm still confused: Are they calendar-locked or tech-tree-locked?
As in, "it happens always in the year 1234, no matter what you do"
OR
"it happens always the moment you research Breathing, be it year 1234 or year 4321"?

 

[Krikkit1]

I just realized the aforementioned switch is even stupider than it sounds at the first glance.
Egypt itself already used horses aplenty, so "requiring more horses in order to become Mongolia" is not merely randomly non-sequitur.
It's outright redundant, because you are switching from one "horse-using civ" to another "horse-using civ", except they have nothing in common beyond that point.

I think the Horses to Mongolia means that horses nearby and you get conquered by some horseback barbarians. (rapidly enough that a lot of your culture becomes the conquerors culture... ie all in one turn)


As for the crisis locking it appears once anyone gets 200 points it triggers a global crisis/era change.
and taking a turn earns you 1 point (other points may be for techs, wonders, etc.)... so every 200 turns at the latest, but you can probably speed run.