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

[leif erikson]

For me, the game of Civilization has always been about "what if's". We play on a map that is not historically accurate.
Civilization, while based in historical context, has never been historically accurate. It is not a simulation of history. It is an enjoyable game we all play, in whatever version we prefer.

 

[ezzlar]

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!

On the contrary, I would very much prefer a non-important Spain in the modern age. But that is mainly because I am interested in the real world history in large with the option to deviate from it.

 

[DukeSammael]

My preferred mechanic for this would be: as the disasters pile up and age comes to a close, depending on the size of your civ it can either split (and you choose which splinter to control), or merge with a neighboring civ (you chose which one, and which culture becomes dominant - or if an entire new culture arises as a blend of the two). New civs rise from the ashes of old ones, or small independent nations that seize the opportunity to grab cities/resources during chaos.

I think this is what they are aiming for in a way, but the execution looks a bit clumsy.

 

[AriochIV]

For me, the game of Civilization has always been about "what if's". We play on a map that is not historically accurate.
Civilization, while based in historical context, has never been historically accurate. It is not a simulation of history. It is an enjoyable game we all play, in whatever version we prefer.

This is true to an extent, but what I enjoy most is trying to remain as thematically true to the historical civ as possible. So it doesn't bother me when you're not forced to play this way, but it does bother me when I'm prevented from playing this way.

 

[Xandinho]

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.

I wait Spain, Portugal and Netherlands for the age of exploration. There is a challenge to make them distinct from each other, however. Maybe Spain is colonization, Portugal is exploration and Netherlands is maritime trade.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I wait Spain, Portugal and Netherlands for the age of exploration. There is a challenge to make them distinct from each other, however. Maybe Spain is colonization, Portugal is exploration and Netherlands is maritime trade.

Yes, I meant Spain as an Exploration Age civ makes sense. I wouldn't be sold on playing a Modern Age Spain, Portugal or Netherlands.

 

[Krikkit1]

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.

It doesn't reset everything.... you keep your cities buildings/etchs etc. (unless cities etc. get lost in the crisis) but you have to switch your civ bonuses and uniques. Its not a hard reset.

 

[Thormodr]

It doesn't reset everything.... you keep your cities buildings/etchs etc. (unless cities etc. get lost in the crisis) but you have to switch your civ bonuses and uniques. Its not a hard reset.

I believe some of your buildings are destroyed, IIRC.

 

[Krikkit1]

I believe some of your buildings are destroyed, IIRC.

More they go obsolete.

 

[Red Adept]

I think the transitions we've seen in-game so far (Egypt to Songhai/Mongolia to Buganda) are pretty hokey and I don't expect the others will be much better. So I think it will be a fun novelty, but I'll probably stick to era-specific gameplay unless there's more of this mechanic we haven't seen.

The info on the reveal as well as the games the YouTubers played were on a vertical slice of the game, not a full release. They only had minimal numbers of Civs and Leaders available. The fact that the 'historical' was from Egypt to Songhai (closest matching civ available) shouldn't make you feel bad. If there were only 5 choices and it didn't recommend someone like Portugal or The Netherlands instead, that should show you SOME of the logic involved. The Mongols were situational... if you had a truckload of horses available, then moving to a horse based Civ might have been appealing. What if you had a ton of gold around you... gold and desert... Mali could have been next up.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I believe some of your buildings are destroyed, IIRC.

I don't think it's clear. Sounded more like the district building cap is reset, so you can build over the old buildings - not that anything gets destroyed.

 

[TheGrayFox]

The info on the reveal as well as the games the YouTubers played were on a vertical slice of the game, not a full release. They only had minimal numbers of Civs and Leaders available. The fact that the 'historical' was from Egypt to Songhai (closest matching civ available) shouldn't make you feel bad.

Well it does

 

[Cywil]

Strongly dislike. For me playing Civ is like taking a journey or part in a race on a favorite horse. At the end when crossing the finish line I can pat the horse and say "we did it, buddy, you and me". You don't jump from one horse to another during a race, right? In Sid Meier's Civilization I-VI you choose a civilization and try to stand the test of time. It doesn't matter that in real history the civilization didn't survive - in this game it has a chance to survive from the beginning to the end. That's the point. What's wrong with that?

I understand many people buy or get the game as a gift and dont play it for more then like one hour or so. Stats for Civ VI (PC on Steam) show only 37.5% of owners won the game on the lowest difficulty level and only 14.8% of them on King level. Stats for Civ V are not better - only 27.2% of owners won the game on the lowest difficilty level and only 9.9% of them on King level. On consoles numbers are even worse probably. Firaxis and 2K are looking for money from casual players who need something new and fancy even if unplayable/unreplayable I guess. Civ fanatics can play still Civ IV or V or VI after all.

It seems strange to me that Firaxis is abandoning their stronghold though. They owned the main mode for a 4X historical game - "single civ/full history" - and their competitors were forced to try succeed with less obvious modes: "single civ/partial history" (Old World) or "multiple civs/full history" (Humankind) or "no civ*/full history" (Millennia - *no civ because you "creating" your civ by playing). Is it business-wise valid?

There are some flaws in Civ VII design visible already. Boesthius in his YT review made comments about how you as a leader interact with other leaders - you don't look at them with your eyes and they don't look at you like in Civ V or Civ VI - they look at your avatar on the stage and your avatar on the stage looks at them and you as a player/leader can feel disconnected. Someone designed/approved it. Switching civs makes you disconnected again. And leaders themselves? I always start my first game of new Sid Meier's Civilization as Rome. But this time, oh boy, look at Octavian - his body, his gestures, his facial expression - as for a leader he looks very weak both physically and mentally. I would feel disconnected playing as Octavian. And again someone approved this design. So I'm not sure they know what they're doing. Yeah, I know, there is this nice gentleman who says in Firaxis video something like "I'm Sid Meier and I approve this ad", but I'm still not sure. Is this Sid Meier's Civilization VII or this should be rather Firaxis Ages of Empire (last time I checked this name hasn't been taken yet by any game so why not)?

 

[DukeSammael]

I must be the only one who absolutely doesn't give a rat's arse about civ leader animations. The less of my time they waste, the better. If I could do all diplomacy via a spreadsheet UI, that would be fantastic.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

For me playing Civ is like taking a journey or part in a race on a favorite horse. At the end when crossing the finish line I can pat the horse and say "we did it, buddy, you and me".

I see what you mean but I'm not sure it will necessarily feel like such a big change. Your civilization may change (from what we know, in gameplay terms, this just means you get new bonuses with each Age) but it sounds as though there is still continuity within the world and your empire over the course of the full game; cities would remain the same, your land will remain intact, your leader remains (including the attributes you choose to give them), and your neighbours remain. In practice, you may feel just as strongly about the journey you've had in VII as you do with I-VI.

And to counter this slightly, in my own experience, by the end of a Civ VI game, I have entirely lost touch with my civilization; I am mindlessly clicking end turn and I could be any civ, it doesn't matter, because they all feel the same at this point. The roleplaying side is great in the early game but with poor AI and a weak diplomacy system, it's hard to maintain interest in the roleplaying aspect (for me) when the game becomes tedious. Maybe, just maybe, this new approach will improve that?

 

[Psychotronics]

Unfortunately it seems there will be no such mode, unless devs will be convinced to make it available after noticing a huge negative reaction to it. The devs seem to be too convinced it's a great feature just to remove it, just as Humankind devs were convinced and refused to change it to this day (there's a mod, but it's broken and unbalanced).
The only hope will be in the modders and in devs making it not too hard to implement such change (like hardcoding civs to particular eras).

At this point, it's not really about what they think of the feature. It seems to be a core feature of the game, it isn't something they can remove this late into development due to public reception. I strongly dislike this feature, but if they were to remove it now, I think we'd get an even worse game.

 

[Thormodr]

I must be the only one who absolutely doesn't give a rat's arse about civ leader animations. The less of my time they waste, the better. If I could do all diplomacy via a spreadsheet UI, that would be fantastic.

I would prefer stills. Then they could easily make more leaders and modding would be easier.

 

[Somebody613]

I must be the only one who absolutely doesn't give a rat's arse about civ leader animations. The less of my time they waste, the better. If I could do all diplomacy via a spreadsheet UI, that would be fantastic.

Me! Me! Me!
I was explicitly weirded out by some people DEMANDING high-end graphics for the leaders and going as far as "we can't have MORE Civs/Leaders, because they have to be PRETTY".
And me like: What. The. ****oo?!

 

[Somebody613]

I would prefer stills. Then they could easily make more leaders and modding would be easier.

THIS. I don't care what some weirdos want from Civ - I want maps and units, not Animated Heads. WTH?!

 

[TheGrayFox]

I see what you mean but I'm not sure it will necessarily feel like such a big change. Your civilization may change (from what we know, in gameplay terms, this just means you get new bonuses with each Age) but it sounds as though there is still continuity within the world and your empire over the course of the full game; cities would remain the same, your land will remain intact, your leader remains (including the attributes you choose to give them), and your neighbours remain. In practice, you may feel just as strongly about the journey you've had in VII as you do with I-VI.

It will feel like a huge change detaching leaders from civilizations and adding min/max swap mechanics for civilizations. That is simply undeniable. We've already seen how different it felt with the failure of Humankind.

It's not that your civilization "may" change, you have no choice the entire game is being built around these mechanics and your Ancient Eygpt WILL change because artificial crisis and you WILL have to pick another one, either "historical" (like Songhai for some odd reason or Arab invaders) or something completely arbitrary and conditional (I am a mongol because I have horses!) The entire design philosphy/mantra this series is built on and sense of identity involved in taking a civilization and standing the test of time gets thrown in the garbage when my ancient Eygpt is forced to suddenly become an Arab Caliphate, which eventually morphs into Burundi for some odd reason.