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

[DeutschDachs]

Hate it. I played Humankind and I found that changing cultures to another that's drastically different was really jarring. It never felt like a linear history. I get the idea behind it in adapting your culture to fit the map, but going from being Chinese to French is just strange and too game-y. I could never develop an attachment to my nation/civ because it would change so frequently - although at least it was an OPTION to keep my culture from the beginning of the game until the end. It being required here just feels constraining.

I want to play a game as Poland? Well I either have to skip the age of antiquity entirely or play another Civ and grind through to get to the Age of Exploration. I want to win a space race with an antiquity or exploration Civ? Well it's (likely) not possible, you can only win in the modern age with those Civilizations. Civ games have always been great because they can feel like a sandbox version of history. You can choose which nations you want to match up. You can do a TSL map and see how the world develops. You can have the ancient Babylonians survive into the modern era and become a space-faring Civilization. Now if you want Alexander the Great to go toe to toe with Suleiman the Magnificent, it's not even an option. I. hate. it.

 

[Gambito]

Something I didn't get, or maybe it's still an unknown. Take Napoleon for example. Would you be able to start with him on Antiquity and it would be something like Gauls -> Franks -> French. or would you have to wait until the Modern Era to be able to pick Napoleon?

Seemed to me all leaders are available from the start and what mutates is the Civilization?

 

[DSYoungEsq]

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.

I'm VERY much hoping that the limited versions we've seen represent the fact that they made the videos at a time the demo build was far from complete in terms of available civs/leaders. I know that, when Firaxis had the Youtubers in to play a demo version, it was limited to four civs in the Antiquity Age. Certainly, civs like China MUST have continuity options; what is not clear is how you get to, say, South Africa as a Modern Age civ.

 

[TempusFugit]

Hate it. I played Humankind and I found that changing cultures to another that's drastically different was really jarring. It never felt like a linear history. I get the idea behind it in adapting your culture to fit the map, but going from being Chinese to French is just strange and too game-y. I could never develop an attachment to my nation/civ because it would change so frequently - although at least it was an OPTION to keep my culture from the beginning of the game until the end. It being required here just feels constraining.

I want to play a game as Poland? Well I either have to skip the age of antiquity entirely or play another Civ and grind through to get to the Age of Exploration. I want to win a space race with an antiquity or exploration Civ? Well it's (likely) not possible, you can only win in the modern age with those Civilizations. Civ games have always been great because they can feel like a sandbox version of history. You can choose which nations you want to match up. You can do a TSL map and see how the world develops. You can have the ancient Babylonians survive into the modern era and become a space-faring Civilization. Now if you want Alexander the Great to go toe to toe with Suleiman the Magnificent, it's not even an option. I. hate. it.

I am a lot more excited about the game than you, but I definitely get where you are coming from. An alternate history of the world, playing out as I play my strategy game, is what I usually want from this series as well.

If these three eras are connected with each other technologically, so that the Classical Era roughly ends when the Exploration Era starts, I will probably mostly play single-era games, instead of three-era ones. Bu if the eras are not connected with each other technologically, and a lot of time seems to have passed by between each era-change, then it leaves room to interpret it like a lot of things have happened while you were "away", which could include your own and other civilizations getting conquered by other people, which would explain why culture and even the people themselves have changed. Of course it is a little funky that the number of cites you inherit are exactly the same as the ones you left, and the military strength and other strengths the same, but that sort of thing is something we are used to suspend our disbelief in anyway.

Even if single era games is what I am mostly going to play, it sounds like a lot of fun still. Firaxis specifically mentioned this method of playing as one in the video, so they may have tweaked things so that you can get a very long and exiting game, just by staying in one era. But it could well be that you would want to wait until there is at least one expansion pack, or its equivalent, if you are going to play single age only. So you get enough variety of civs.

 

[muhtesem insan]

from Romans to Zulus and after to Japanese

I do not believe it will be possible.

 

[moondog385]

I'm VERY much hoping that the limited versions we've seen represent the fact that they made the videos at a time the demo build was far from complete in terms of available civs/leaders. I know that, when Firaxis had the Youtubers in to play a demo version, it was limited to four civs in the Antiquity Age. Certainly, civs like China MUST have continuity options; what is not clear is how you get to, say, South Africa as a Modern Age civ.

That's certainly possible. Either way, there are a ton of other changes like settlements, crises, and the apparent existence of an economic victory that I'm excited to play around with. This is just one (albeit major) aspect of the new game.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Something I didn't get, or maybe it's still an unknown. Take Napoleon for example. Would you be able to start with him on Antiquity and it would be something like Gauls -> Franks -> French. or would you have to wait until the Modern Era to be able to pick Napoleon?

Seemed to me all leaders are available from the start and what mutates is the Civilization?

I believe you'll have to wait until modern era to pick him. Unless somehow he will be picked by an AI first (as it works in Humankind, where different civs can advance a bit faster into new era, but ages advance at the same time for everyone in Civ VII, so maybe human player will be able to pick his desired civ first).

Note that they seem to make a point of having each age be potentially standalone with victory conditions so you could for example play Greeks vs Romans in antiquity as a complete game; and the next day play US vs Russia in the last era.

Of course each game would be shorter and you wouldn’t get the full arc of history, but in a way it’s more realistic and could scratch that itch …

That's absolutely not what I want from a civ game, so it won't work for me. Mods or adding a "classic" option by devs is the only satisfactory solution for me.

Sarah from Firaxis said that civ7 has been in developed for "the past few years". So it is very possible that Firaxis came up with these ideas first, before Humankind did.

Humankind was released 4 years ago. It was announced earlier than that and planned even earlier. I'm pretty sure they came up first with it.

 

[GeneralZIft]

On the bright side I can play Antiquity Era only and it'll presumably feel like a full game... Time to play age of empires 4x edition

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I believe you'll have to wait until modern era to pick him. Unless somehow he will be picked by an AI first (as it works in Humankind, where different civs can advance a bit faster into new era, but ages advance at the same time for everyone in Civ VII, so maybe human player will be able to pick his desired civ first).

No, you still choose your leader at the beginning of the game. If you want him to lead France you will have to presumably wait for the Modern Era to change into France.

 

[Zaarin]

I voted dislike, but I'm really leaning towards neutral if more historical options are provided and if the AI defaults to making historical choices. However it turns out, it'll be better than HK because that is an absurdly low bar to cross, and Ed Beach is better than that.

 

[Xandinho]

I voted dislike, but I'm really leaning towards neutral if more historical options are provided and if the AI defaults to making historical choices. However it turns out, it'll be better than HK because that is an absurdly low bar to cross, and Ed Beach is better than that.

The civs switching I think it's something I can get used to, but civilizations not having their iconic leaders leading them is a difficult thing indeed. Anyway, I also believe this will be done better in Civ than in HK, which I never got any real immersion in.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

No, you still choose your leader at the beginning of the game. If you want him to lead France you will have to presumably wait for the Modern Era to change into France.

That sounds... bad. Napoleon of ancient Egypt. Feels so wrong.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

On first blush it seems like a bit of an unforced error. I like most of the big game changes from what I've seen. If they had just allowed players (?) to keep the same skin and civ name throughout the game, keeping all of their other changes the same, I bet there would have been a better reception.

 

[Bridog7]

I feel it would be much better received if it were historically accurate. I know civ is not about historical accuracy but in this case it would make much more sense and would actually be pretty cool

 

[Razpor]

Stongly dislike.
Roleplaying as a civ through the ages was the real fun of Civilization which has been taken away in this one,i doubt i'll end up buying it unless they add a classic mode with the more than 3 ages as well.

 

[King Jason]

They've been telling us for 30 years to "Build a Civilization to stand the test of time" and now you literally can't.

 

[xphantomx]

They've been telling us for 30 years to "Build a Civilization to stand the test of time" and now you literally can't.

Yes you can. Whatever you as your leader end up with at the end of the day is the society you have developed, evolved, and led influence from.

This idea of a civilization growing and surviving and giving off a vibe of an overall culture mixture, rather than a branded national state, makes more sense to me.

Saying “my American civilization stood the test of time”…really doesn’t make as much sense.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

A "Name your game" type field in the game set up might go towards smoothing things over a bit with this.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Dislike. I like my campaigns to be grand affairs, with 20-30 civs (unless I intend to go for a Domination Victory). In Humankind, once you knock out 2-3 civs it gets very lonesome very quick

 

[King Jason]

Yes you can. Whatever you as your leader end up with at the end of the day is the society you have developed, evolved, and led influence from.

This idea of a civilization growing and surviving and giving off a vibe of an overall culture mixture, rather than a branded national state, makes more sense to me.

Saying “my American civilization stood the test of time”…really doesn’t make as much sense.

Nice, maybe I'll check out Firaxis' new game, "Leader", then.