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

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

I assume that's one path considering that both Egypt and Aksum can go directly into Songhai, while Egypt also has the chance to go into the Abbasids. So there are diverging historical paths for you to take.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

I'm trying to stay open-minded but this sounds like a terrible idea.

 

[AriochIV]

I assume that's one path considering that both Egypt and Aksum can go directly into Songhai, while Egypt also has the chance to go into the Abbasids. So there are diverging historical paths for you to take.

From what I understand at this point, there is one "natural" progression path that's automatically available for each civ, and then there are additional options that you can unlock through certain achievements. The example for Egypt is that you can unlock Mongols through having enough Horses, and it's implied that there are other possible unlocks.

 

[Somebody613]

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.

You want me to be honest?
This is LITERALLY "limiting your DEMO to 200 turns, then you MUST switch to another civ and another era (read: restart the DEMO for another run)".
Just with a tiny smidge of "Advanced Start" for the "later era starts".
It's outright HORSE_PRODUCT, period.

 

[TheGrayFox]

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.

You need 3 horses nearby to become the Mongols in Exploration age. Let's not try to create an intricate headcanon out of these completely arbitrary conditional requirements

If you have to justify game mechanics by going "well maybe the horses represent being conquered by horseback barbarians!" its kind of silly, especially when you realize that such a justifications for gimmick mechanics which are the complete antithesis to the very core foundation of Civilization, which is creating a civiilization that stands the test of time.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

From what I understand at this point, there is one "natural" progression path that's automatically available for each civ, and then there are additional options that you can unlock through certain achievements. The example for Egypt is that you can unlock Mongols through having enough Horses, and it's implied that there are other possible unlocks.

Here's a screenshot from the other thread. As you can see on the bottom two of the possible criteria of going into Songhai are by playing Aksum or Egypt. Which means that even Rome might have another natural progression.

View attachment 699828

 

[ombak]

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

Civ 6 shipped in 2016. Expansions were early 2018 and early 2019. They have talked before about how their cycle works and how the lead for the release or expac usually moves on to the next thing. This is in line with other big studios and franchises as far as I know.

So some higher-level designers were probably working on ideas for Civ 7 before the expansions were released. Once the second expansion was released, I would imagine portions of the dev team began being moved to the next iteration of Civ, with one consideration being making sure those left on 6 could handle the new DLC approach.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Civ 6 shipped in 2016. Expansions were early 2018 and early 2019. They have talked before about how their cycle works and how the lead for the release or expac usually moves on to the next thing. This is in line with other big studios and franchises as far as I know.

So some higher-level designers were probably working on ideas for Civ 7 before the expansions were released. Once the second expansion was released, I would imagine portions of the dev team began being moved to the next iteration of Civ, with one consideration being making sure those left on 6 could handle the new DLC approach.

This entire argument is framed on pure assumption.

The only stated fact we know about this game's production is they started* production right before Covid (so roughly 2019, the year HK was first *showcased*). Production was formely announced in 2023 and the game still looks to be in an completely alpha state in 2024. Those are the facts we know about Civilization 7's production cycle

I don't know where this narrative that the civilization devs have been secretly sitting on Civilization swapping as a core mechanic for nearly a decade is even coming from other than the imaginations of people who don't want to admit that the game first showcased in 2019 (5 years ago) probably introduced it first . Even besides the silly assumption/argument of whether Humankind did it first, AAA games with hours of cutscene and photorealistic graphics typically take around 5 years to devolopment meaning Firaxis saw HK market itself on this gimmick and fail and still doubled down

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

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 know where you're coming from here but for me, what you're describing is exactly the problem with the entire Civ franchise; if you build up the strongest economy, the most capable military, and half the world speaks your language, and it's turn 60, what is the point in the rest of the game? This snowballing, which has been fundamental to Civ, is precisely why the end game is pretty terrible, and barely anyone bothers to complete a game. It is also entirely unlike the flow of human history.

Whilst unavoidable crises are perhaps a little over engineered, I am relieved that they are taking this point seriously and trying to create a structure that keeps the game interesting from start to finish. They've done the snowballing thing, there are 6 great games based around this principle that aren't going anywhere - let's try something new!

 

[logtoad]

More items for strong reject
Many have already made a good case against the artifical linkages of civs and nations in some sort of linear fashion, What happens to the the many civilizations/cultures that did not "win" in our timeline? I think it is fun to play these and see where they go? not possible in this proposed framework because there would have to be a real world analogue to connect to. Using available terminology is like despotate of, republic, islamic republic of, united.., kingdom of, democratic peoples republic.. , etc lots of terms to use from our own time line that are not dependent on having an entire civilization. At the same time

the developers have a rather simplistic concept of history and seem to ignore even the bigger academic debates that are easily accessible. For example the interplay of systemic and great person understandings as key drivers. These can be easily modeled on the civilization attributes and the impact of various larders with their own values foci. or cultural attributes like issues of individualism vs communalism , societal income inequality and disparities.

the ages seem blatantly Eurocentric and or based on our current timeline. Not very creative for a game posing a what-if question. Age of exploration?? more like the age of expansion and domination and exploitation. So will the game model the spread of disease wiping out unexposed populations? Will we play the doctrine of dominion that all your stuff is mine by right of god? Will chattel slavery be modeled as a strategy for colonial expansion vs locked into early stage economic development? how to capture the land-labor-capital interaction

Some pet peeves
I wish they would fix cultures/civs with distinct terrain based specializations that are useless based on start position. Why can't a civ acquire terrain based advantages as an extra bonus/ or research technology based on their context and needs. Also should not be restricted, civs should be able to acquire more than one set.

I always like the unit building function in Alpha Centauri where you could build units with specific capabilities rather than being locked into vanilla or UU choices. btw I like UU as they do add interest.

BTW we are almost at 2050. should this be changed too as far as endgame?

 

[DWilson]

I can see why the dramatic age shifts are a mechanism chosen. It's really hard to design a system in which you can prevent snowballing without making the initial systems feel meaningless. By making it that the distinct phases are nearly games in and of themselves, they're taking a compromise solution so that mid and late game is given meaning, at the expense of benefiting from the earlier phases' successes as much. But even that much is speculation at this stage

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

the developers have a rather simplistic concept of history

I doubt this very much, given that we know at least one of the people involved is a doctor of anthropology.

I would guess it is quite hard to accurately depict all of human history in a videogame, so whilst I think it's perfectly fine to raise concerns over various design choices, I do not think it is ok to conclude therefore that the developers either don't know what they're doing or do not understand history.

 

[ombak]

This entire post is framed on pure assumption.

The only stated fact we know about this game's production is they started* production right before Covid (so roughly 2019, the year HK was first *showcased*). Production was formely announced in 2023

I actually agree on these, see below.

and the game still looks to be in an completely alpha state in 2024.

This is opinion, not fact, it's also hyperbolic and sounds more like a gamer rage insult than anything else. The idea that this game looks like an alpha is laughable and not a fact at all.

I don't know where this narrative that the civilization devs have been secretly sitting on Civilization swapping as a core mechanic for nearly a decade is even coming from other than the imaginations of people who don't want to admit that the game first showcased in 2019 (5 years ago) probably introduced it first . Even besides the silly assumption/argument of whether Humankind did it first, AAA games with hours of cutscene and photorealistic graphics typically take around 5 years to devolopment meaning Firaxis saw HK market itself on this gimmick and fail and still doubled down

Just to be absolutely clear: I don't know when the mechanic was conceived, when it became a core mechanic (though logically it probably always was once it was decided upon just because of the nature of the game) nor how long Civ 7 has actually been in development.

What I want to do with my reply above and here is twofold:

1. Point out that the timeline for a game like this is in fact likely to begin early in the previous game's cycle. You are aware of this and indicate as much, but not everyone is. Also, the pre-covid statement is an explicit statement of when production began, but not the only indicator from Firaxis itself as they have talked about their development cycles.

I'm going to call out your "alpha" opinion again here though because it makes discussion more difficult. That seems more like an emotional rage than anything else. Conversations with insults like that thrown around are not productive.

2. Push back against the idea of this as a "gimmick". Regardless of when they decided to try this, and to be clear I think it is likely after they saw it in Humankind, but I also don't think we'll ever know unless someone says so one day, these things don't work like that. What I find much more likely, based on my experience, is that before production even began (i.e. possibly even before the "pre-covid" moment when "game production" specifically started) they were probably having high-level discussions about where to make changes (I base this on their 1/3rd approach, the approach to changing leads they've described and what I've seen from my own experience). I also think it's very likely that the complaints about tedium in the late-game, and snowballing, as well as statistics about how many players complete games, led to looking at how to fix those things.

Whether that led to independently coming up with this, or latching on to it strongly when they saw it in Humankind is irrelevant to me. Labeling it a "gimmick" is dismissive in a similar way to calling what we've seen so far "alpha". I wouldn't be surprised if this is the feature they most iterated on, got internal feedback on, had tough conversations about, etc.

All that means is that I will wait and see how it plays out, I won't label it just Humankind 2.0 and I'll give them a chance. I'm optimistic about the idea. Whether I like the implementation or not is a conversation I can't really engage in until February next year.

 

[DeckerdJames]

Further thinking about this topic. I think that the civilization that we choose is the identity we assume, but the leader choice is an agency.

I get what they are trying to do (i think) and perhaps sometimes history happens to you.

One thing that bothers me is that this all happens across the world at once when the age changes. So, to make sense, there must be a transition in time between ages. A large jump forward in time. Perhaps then each age we play in does not span as many years as in previous iterations.

Then, if the age of antiquity has only civilizations that do not exist in later ages, perhaps it will seem ok. Then each age after the age of antiquity will feel like starting a fresh game, but building on what you did the age before or over it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I know where you're coming from here but for me, what you're describing is exactly the problem with the entire Civ franchise; if you build up the strongest economy, the most capable military, and half the world speaks your language, and it's turn 60, what is the point in the rest of the game? This snowballing, which has been fundamental to Civ, is precisely why the end game is pretty terrible, and barely anyone bothers to complete a game. It is also entirely unlike the flow of human history.

Whilst unavoidable crises are perhaps a little over engineered, I am relieved that they are taking this point seriously and trying to create a structure that keeps the game interesting from start to finish. They've done the snowballing thing, there are 6 great games based around this principle that aren't going anywhere - let's try something new!

Crisis are a fine gameplay mechanic. Forced crisis all at once that result in mandatory civ changing for the next era to me is going overboard.

Something else that caught my attention, which was pointed out in another thread by someone who lives in the Netherlands, is the possibility of Exploration civs like Spain, the Dutch, and Portugal etc. will be expected to turn into another group of people in the Modern Age, when it's quite clear that those nations still exist today.

 

[DWilson]

Clearly they all converge into the European Union civ

 

[ombak]

Crisis are a fine gameplay mechanic. Forced crisis all at once that result in mandatory civ changing for the next era to me is going overboard.

I would agree with this if I hadn't played games that tried that. Quests often are underwhelming, whether they are crises, bonuses or just flavor. Allowing one player to reach a certain point first and then force everyone into that tier (whether it's an era in civ or anything else) is one type of snowballing and unfun. (EDIT: And letting some players lag behind, is even more unfun).

Gameplay wise it may work out to be better to "force" that crisis to happen and level the playing field. The trick is for the devs to do their best at implementing the crises, or the forced leveling of the playing field in such a way that players enjoy the process too, not just the result of playing through relevant (hopefully) quests and a game that (again, hopefully) doesn't snowball.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Crisis are a fine gameplay mechanic. Forced crisis all at once that result in mandatory civ changing for the next era to me is going overboard.

Something else that caught my attention, which was pointed out in another thread by someone who lives in the Netherlands, is the possibility of Exploration civs like Spain, the Dutch, and Portugal etc. will be expected to turn into another group of people in the Modern Age, when it's quite clear that those nations still exist today.

Not sure we've seen enough on the Crisis point yet really. But it would indeed be very odd if Spain etc. are not Modern Age civs. So much we still don't know or understand!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Not sure we've seen enough on the Crisis point yet really. But it would indeed be very odd if Spain etc. are not Modern Age civs. So much we still don't know or understand!

It would be odd if Spain was not an Exploration civ, which at that time was when they were at the peak of their empire.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

It would be odd if Spain was not an Exploration civ, which at that time was when they were at the peak of their empire.

Agreed. But we don't know that there aren't two versions of Spain. This is really why I keep trying to suggest people calm down - we just don't know enough yet!