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

[Sana Kan]

No one forces you to choose Mongols, though. So if you play as Egypt to Mongols, it's because you made the choice to do so.

Eh, I get you, but it is still too weird for me. It makes civs less unique and the game less historically authentic. But at least there'll be mods for this.

 

[pokiehl]

Eh, I get you, but it is still too weird for me. It makes civs less unique and the game less historically authentic. But at least there'll be mods for this.

Why is this so weird to you, but you're not bothered by building the Pyramids as Benjamin Franklin in 2000 BC, or "nuclear Gandhi", or Rome teaming up with China to defeat France?

 

[Zaarin]

Eh, I get you, but it is still too weird for me. It makes civs less unique and the game less historically authentic. But at least there'll be mods for this.

I understand. I didn't like the mechanic in HK at all. I'm optimistic that only three eras will give civs time to feel more unique, but we'll have to see.

 

[Sana Kan]

Why is this so weird to you, but you're not bothered by building the Pyramids as Benjamin Franklin in 2000 BC, or "nuclear Gandhi", or Rome teaming up with China to defeat France?

Who says I'm not bothered by that lol. I'm just saying my 20 cents. If you're fine with the game, ok.

 

[pokiehl]

Who says I'm not bothered by that lol. I'm just saying my 20 cents. If you're fine with the game, ok.

My point is that Civ has an endless amount of 'unrealistic' features. If stuff like that bothers you, I'm surprised you can find a way to enjoy the games at all.

 

[Sana Kan]

I understand. I didn't like the mechanic in HK at all. I'm optimistic that only three eras will give civs time to feel more unique, but we'll have to see.

I hope so! I'm gonna play Civ 7 nevertheless, loved the units and the map

 

[Professor Phobo]

I like to keep in mind most Civ games are set on alternate Earths and the Civilizations have always been sort of "inspired by analogs" rather than directly the real life counterpart. When you switch from Egypt to Mongolia, you're switching to a civilization that would remind a traveler from our Earth of Mongolia, but they're not actually the Mongolians.

When you build the Great Library, it's not a brick-for-brick remake of the Library of Alexandria, it's just a fudge off big library that got famous back in the day, like the Library of Alexandria. So whose to say the "Hey that looks kinda like Egypt!" Civilization isn't in a position to evolve into something that looks kind of like the medieval Mongolian Empire on any given alternate Earth?

 

[Siptah]

When you build the Great Library, it's not a brick-for-brick remake of the Library of Alexandria, it's just a fudge off big library that got famous back in the day, like the Library of Alexandria.

Greatly helped by many wonders not looking like they do/did in real life or being modeled after the "wrong" buildings altogether

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I like to keep in mind most Civ games are set on alternate Earths and the Civilizations have always been sort of "inspired by analogs" rather than directly the real life counterpart. When you switch from Egypt to Mongolia, you're switching to a civilization that would remind a traveler from our Earth of Mongolia, but they're not actually the Mongolians.

When you build the Great Library, it's not a brick-for-brick remake of the Library of Alexandria, it's just a fudge off big library that got famous back in the day, like the Library of Alexandria. So whose to say the "Hey that looks kinda like Egypt!" Civilization isn't in a position to evolve into something that looks kind of like the medieval Mongolian Empire on any given alternate Earth?

That's how I rationalise stuff too. If I'm playing as Japan fighting against China and get Sun Tzu as a Great General, it's not a case of Sun Tzu fighting his own compatriots, rather its the Japanese version of Sun Tzu. The game calls him Sun Tzu for my (or any other passing universe-traveller's) understanding, but the Japanese call him something else, Tojiko Isoruku or something.

 

[durfal]

I always see the wonders, the quotes, great writers, artists, generals, engineers, prophets etc as an honering to their historic achievements or splendor and not to literal that building or that person but something or someone with that kind of achievement/splendor and fits in the what if this civilization became so great that they build these kind of wonders or produced these levels of famous people.

 

[playshogi]

I voted neutral because I'm playing a game. I would be just as happy with fictionalized names of leaders and civilizations as in a game set in the far future.

 

[Zaarin]

I voted neutral because I'm playing a game. I would be just as happy with fictionalized names of leaders and civilizations as in a game set in the far future.

There are plenty of those games on the market, but they're not Civ.

 

[Professor Phobo]

If they do an expansion that adds a Future Era, I'm interested in them spinning up a bunch of fictional "future versions" of modern Civilizations. Kind of like how the factions in Beyond Earth were depicted as they were on Earth. You could take, say, America, and evolve it into Cyberpunk Dystopia America or Automated Luxury Communist Canada. Get weird with it.

 

[Cywil]

I just cannot understand the need to "identify" with a Civilization you play. My country was never in any Civilizations - rightfully so, it's not significant enough. I play Civ with different factions to experience different gameplay styles and mechanical advantages, as it's a puzzle to be unlocked. Sure, I can appreciate that some people identify with an avatar of Laurier or whoever, but to me this just seems weird and a bit problematic. Think about it - if you identify with Ghenghis Khan or Julius Caesar, these are people who conducted massive genocide. Earlier civs had Stalin and Mao.

It's not about identifying with RL civs or RL leaders. It's about beeing connected to my original choice in the game.

Let's say I want to start a new game in Civ and to do it more challenging (I play only deity) I choose Laurier's Canada (yeah yeah, I know in CIV VII Canada wouldn't be a civ for the Antiquity Age, but let me finish my thought) and I go for a domination victory wasting almost all my peacekeeping bonuses and I raze foreign cities being worse than RL Stalin & RL Herr A.H. combined (remember this is a game - is this make me a bad person in the RL btw?). And in Civ VII with the start of a new age I would have give up my Canada (my Canada in the very playthrough = a warmongering Canada and not a peacemaker RL Canada) and because I razed 3 cities I would be offered by devs to continue play as Third Reich with bonuses to raze even more cities. I would feel disconnected then. And I need to be connected to my original choice, I need to care about my original civ. A late game is usually boring and I need be motivated as strongly as possible to finish the game.

If there would be leaders for me to identify with them in some way then I would choose JFK ("we choose to do things not because they are easy, but because they are hard") or Frank Sinatra ("I did it my way").

 

[Siptah]

If they do an expansion that adds a Future Era, I'm interested in them spinning up a bunch of fictional "future versions" of modern Civilizations. Kind of like how the factions in Beyond Earth were depicted as they were on Earth. You could take, say, America, and evolve it into Cyberpunk Dystopia America or Automated Luxury Communist Canada. Get weird with it.

Afaik, the modern era ends with WWII. So, a hypothetical fourth era afterwards would probably be 1950-2050 with Nigeria, Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, South Africa and Chile… some room for SciFi but not too much. And with the emphasis that civ has put on the last 120 years of history in the last games, I think such an additional er is likely to come.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Afaik, the modern era ends with WWII. So, a hypothetical fourth era afterwards would probably be 1950-2050 with Nigeria, Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, South Africa and Chile… some room for SciFi but not too much. And with the emphasis that civ has put on the last 120 years of history in the last games, I think such an additional er is likely to come.

Oh that's an interesting stopping point. I figured the game would end around 2050 with near future stuff.

 

[Zaarin]

Afaik, the modern era ends with WWII. So, a hypothetical fourth era afterwards would probably be 1950-2050 with Nigeria, Singapore, Australia, Switzerland, South Africa and Chile… some room for SciFi but not too much. And with the emphasis that civ has put on the last 120 years of history in the last games, I think such an additional er is likely to come.

I suspect the third era will end in the 21st century like it always has.

 

[Siptah]

I suspect the third era will end in the 21st century like it always has.

I would have suspected so, too. But then I read/heard that about WWII. Can't say if it is true, tough.

 

[Leucarum]

I wonder what will happen with multiple players choosing the same civ. Since it sounds like everyone progresses together, and your leaders are unique - it sounds like duplicate civs might be fine?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I would have suspected so, too. But then I read/heard that about WWII. Can't say if it is true, tough.

We've seen rockets launching too, though.