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

[Pedro P]

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.

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.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Not really okay to me. but if it means Civ evolutions (similiar to HUMANKIND but it has to be more associative to root civs. like if you begin as Phoenicians in First era, you can either keep Old Phoenician or evolve to be Carthageneans next, and not Han Chinese!. also when aging up to Middle Ages, player must either revert to Old Phoenician (cultural bonus), Keep Cartagenean, or switch to Moors, (and not Norsemen).

 

[Dr_Crosbert]

Voted “strongly dislike”. Huge disappointment. This specific feature was the primary reason I didn’t like Humankind. No idea why it’s necessary for Civ. Talk about fixing something that isn’t broken. Dislike/strong dislike is currently sitting at 50% of votes. Hope the devs take note.

 

[fy00sh]

i really really REALLY dont like the civswapping system, which is a huge shame because basically everything else about civ7 looks like its almost tailor made to appeal to me. this one thing however is completely preventing me from wanting to even buy the game at all. i might consider it if it's confirmed at some point there'll be a classic mode where you pick one leader and one civ and play the whole game like that. otherwise this entire game is probably going to be a skip for me, at least until theres a few waves of dlc and then a major sale. which sucks because so much of the rest of the game looks like exactly what i wanted

 

[Nikolai II]

I think it can work well.

 

[Disgustipated]

I voted neutral, but I'm leaning towards dislike. I mentioned this in the other thread, but it's my most disliked feature of the game apart from the "quests" leading you towards a victory condition.

Now that said, as I mentioned elsewhere, it makes civs like Canada and the U.S. less "weird" and you won't find too many people arguing they shouldn't be in the game anymore.

It certainly feels like it will be 3 separate games "loosely" tied together. I'm not sure if there's anything they can do to change that feeling. They even said you can play just one age. There's a lot of cool things in this game, this isn't necessarily one of them.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

Choice . the most important word for me after watching the video. what choices will i get to make. as long as they make the decision continue with your civ to the next era OR choose another when released i am fine with it. otherwise i hope mods will make it available. having all leaders for all civs could be fun since again it is a choice.

 

[rocksinmypath]

A lot of the complaints about this feature seem to be about how immersion-breaking not being able to see out a game with one civ is. A counterpoint to this is that the civ swap feature puts an end to silly business like the Aztecs starting the game with Eagle Warriors and the Koreans building Seowons in the ancient era. I dread playing as France, Sweden, or even the Ottomans in Civ 6 because their bonuses kick in way too late. If Firaxis had tried to make the Aztecs, the Koreans, Gran Colombians and Americans all peak when you'd expect them to peak based on their historical backgrounds, they'd all just be boring.

 

[Glassmage]

So terrible just like the civ6 policy card switching. You think you should have more fun being given more options, but in reality you get a bunch of meaningless minor bonuses with no unique flavor. Devs defense for this is “better for balance”??? Please that’s the whole point of playing Civ game. That you know Aztec is strong military early game but they drop off by midgame, that Brazil is meh until mid game then their culture game becomes strong. Asymmetrical gameplay is fun and engaging.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

The reaction to this particular feature reminds me why I left the forum a few years ago. It's so knee-jerk negative, hyper critical, and conservative.

I am glad the dev team are trying new things, I don't want every Civ game to be the same, but I voted neutral because we haven't seen enough yet; it has the potential to be really excellent, but it could also be a little janky if not done properly.

I do think fixing the end game grind is more important than the notion of leading one civ from antiquity to modern, and I think having a persistent leader stops the problem of feeling disconnected from your civ. I hope that the civ choices we get in each age feel natural and connected to the game we are playing.

 

[Human Crouton]

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.

Transport yourself 4000 years into the past. You are born an immortal. You become ruler of the Babylonians.

Now it is 2000 AD. You are now the ruler of The United States of America. The USA is made up of several different predecessors, including Babylonians. The Babylonians themselves have dispersed into nearly every extant nation, as has every other ancient culture.

Where are the Babylonians? What did you do? What distinguishes your work from the whims of nature? Why did you even exist?

 

[Thormodr]

Strongly dislike. A hamfisted solution to a problem that wasn't there.

Hopefully, one can totally shut it off and mods will set things straight.

 

[Thormodr]

Voted “strongly dislike”. Huge disappointment. This specific feature was the primary reason I didn’t like Humankind. No idea why it’s necessary for Civ. Talk about fixing something that isn’t broken. Dislike/strong dislike is currently sitting at 50% of votes. Hope the devs take note.

They won't care. Civ "Fanatics" are not their target audience. It is the console players and more casual players.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Strongly dislike. A hamfisted solution to a problem that wasn't there.

Hopefully, one can totally shut it off and mods will set things straight.

How can you possibly know it's a "hamfisted solution" from what we've seen so far? There's really no need to be so emotional about it, why don't we give the team a chance to show us how it works in more detail before writing it off completely?

And the problem of late game monotony was very much there, by the way. My biggest gripe with Civ VI, by some distance.

 

[Vilvatiktan]

The Indonesian Civ, for the past 2 iterations of the game were overtly generalised and highly watered down in terms of personality, with having Gajah Mada and Gitarja leading a nonexistent modern country at their time. However, this feature would work perfectly and amazingly if the evolution goes like Majapahit>Mataram>Indonesia led by Gajah Mada, Srivijaya>Malacca>Malaysia led by a YDP Agong, or even Sunda>Dutch Indies>Indonesia led by Pieterszoon Coen, oh so many great possibilities with this.

And I agree with everyone, if it goes down to Mauryan>Qing>Indonesia led by Genghis Khan, then it will be an awful awful feature to have.

 

[Human Crouton]

They won't care. Civ "Fanatics" are not their target audience. It is the console players and more casual players.

Yeah, but I don't think they'll like it either. Every game will blend into every other game and they'll tire of it quick.

I don't know what they'll do about it though because I'm sure they already have a ton of leaders and :"Discovery era only" DLCs ready to go so I think this nonsense is cemented in even for future expansions. Game is cooked. I think it's going to be a dud.

 

[Thormodr]

How can you possibly know it's a "hamfisted solution" from what we've seen so far? There's really no need to be so emotional about it, why don't we give the team a chance to show us how it works in more detail before writing it off completely?

And the problem of late game monotony was very much there, by the way. My biggest gripe with Civ VI, by some distance.

You missed the point entirely. They have tried to counteract late game monotony by implementing this abomination. That is the hamfisted solution.

You may like going from Egypt to Mongolia but it is absurd to me and many others. Yes, the game has always been pseudo historical but that is bizarre.

 

[Thormodr]

Yeah, but I don't think they'll like it either. Every game will blend into every other game and they'll tire of it quick.

I don't know what they'll do about it though because I'm sure they already have a ton of leaders and :"Discovery era only" DLCs ready to go so I think this nonsense is cemented in even for future expansions. Game is cooked. I think it's going to be a dud.

They don't have to like it. They just have to fork over the $$$.

Yeah, I am not optimistic. I never thought there would be a worse game than 5 but a new contender has arisen.

Mods did somewhat salvage 5, though. Perhaps they can go the same for 7.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

You missed the point entirely. They have tried to counteract late game monotony by implementing this abomination. That is the hamfisted solution.

You may like going from Egypt to Mongolia but it is absurd to me and many others. Yes, the game has always been pseudo historical but that is bizarre.

I don't see what point I have missed, all I see is someone reacting far too emotionally to a feature that we still know very little about.

 

[Razpor]

I don't see what point I have missed, all I see is someone reacting far too emotionally to a feature that we still know very little about.

Issue is you can't "stand the test of time" as an ancient Civ ,which was one of the most fun aspect of Civ.
I don't want to play as egypt that is later absorbed by songhai.