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

[Paideia]

I voted neutral. It's simply to early to say whether it will work or not. I'm wary of the mechanic - for the same reasons as most other people, but maybe it could work..

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I do wonder whether the terminology is a bit wrong here, and that is causing some of the dissatisfaction.

The idea that you "switch civs" with each age, moving from Egypt to Mongolia, is a bit jarring. But the idea that your civ evolves based on its surroundings is sensible. I.e., if you start as a river based civ inspired by Egypt but evolve into a horse based civ inspired by Mongolia (because you happen to have a lot of horses / did some horse warring in antiquity, whatever), this is fine. It's not that you become Mongolia, which is kind of how it has been presented so far, it's just that your Egypt has developed along those lines based on its location. I don't know if I'm making sense, but I hope so

 

[Brackenspore]

I do wonder whether the terminology is a bit wrong here, and that is causing some of the dissatisfaction.

The idea that you "switch civs" with each age, moving from Egypt to Mongolia, is a bit jarring. But the idea that your civ evolves based on its surroundings is sensible. I.e., if you start as a river based civ inspired by Egypt but evolve into a horse based civ inspired by Mongolia (because you happen to have a lot of horses / did some horse warring in antiquity, whatever), this is fine. It's not that you become Mongolia, which is kind of how it has been presented so far, it's just that your Egypt has developed along those lines based on its location. I don't know if I'm making sense, but I hope so

But for this, in principle, it is not necessary to change the civilization. It was much easier to implement all this by changing the Government (as in Millenia). If you have a lot of horses, you can switch not to Mongolia, but to the Nomadic Empire (but the Egyptian Nomadic Empire!)

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

But for this, in principle, it is not necessary to change the civilization. It was much easier to implement all this by changing the Government (as in Millenia). If you have a lot of horses, you can switch not to Mongolia, but to the Nomadic Empire (but the Egyptian Nomadic Empire!)

Right, exactly. But that's more an issue of terminology than gameplay mechanic. From what I can tell, this "switching civ" idea in gameplay terms just means that you choose the unique civic tree / unit / infrastructure thay you want in each Age?

 

[V. Soma]

Well, I guess, we'll have to live with this civ-switching

I just hope, that:
- AI will switch kind of "historically" or "reasonable way"
- I hope that whenever I face my opponents, I will face leaders, like in the different info displays and such.
I would hate to find out that my rival/neighbor changes to something else

 

[Chiyo]

What about city names?

This could be solved if they just overwrite the city names. Then Babylon becomes Washington, for example. In reality London used to be Londinium, Paris Lutetia and Istanbul Konstantinopel. But then again, it would still be very confusing as you would not know the cities you founded anymore. I do not see how they will make this work properly.

 

[Siptah]

This could be solved if they just overwrite the city names. Then Babylon becomes Washington, for example. In reality London used to be Londinium, Paris Lutetia and Istanbul Konstantinopel. But then again, it would still be very confusing as you would not know the cities you founded anymore. I do not see how they will make this work properly.

I don‘t think automatic renaming needs to be a thing. Players that cared about city names, homogeneity, or immersion presumably always renamed conquered cities since civ 1. Why not leave the choice to the player? On the other hand, it could be interesting when a new era means you have to found a new capital anyway - even if you found it right on top of your old one!

 

[Cerilis]

But for this, in principle, it is not necessary to change the civilization. It was much easier to implement all this by changing the Government (as in Millenia). If you have a lot of horses, you can switch not to Mongolia, but to the Nomadic Empire (but the Egyptian Nomadic Empire!)

Huh, I kinda like that idea. Imagine you could play a civ through all ages, but only in their "ideal" age they get to activate their unique boni (though i suppose they could still retain some aspects of these afterwards, or have a small unique boni before), and in all other ages they have "generic" civilization type traits.

That being said, no illusions here. They are not going to change anything significant anymore now, and I also have my doubts on how optional things are going to be.

 

[bitula]

Strongly dislike, its not a "Civilization" game. Its like in Cities Skylines 3 they tell you, that the game has three phases: build cities on earth, then on the Moon, then on Mars. Could be fun, but that is not what CS games were about.

 

[Giskler]

Not a fan. I like better the idea of changing leaders throughout the ages rather than civilizations.

 

[Manol0]

The Mayans didn't persist as a civilisation for 4,000 years.

Yes; but what if Mayans had never been conquered and survived the test of time?? ... That was the purpose of Civilization as a game franchise... to challenge the player to keep alive a civilization through the ages of history.....

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

I voted "like". Thematically I don't think any ONE civilization survived from antiquity to modern age. They evolved over time, and as a french I can't say medieval France is anything like Renaissance France, and even less less modern France. At least they lock part of the civ you can evolve into, but some can be apparently unlocked if special conditions (which is good, since that means the player can use the territory to his best, if it happen to go into a different direction due to abundance/lack of certain ressources).

Also, one of the great plus I see to it (and it was mentionned in the trailer) is equilibrium. In CIV 6, most modern civs are weaker than early civilization, all because their bonus come far later... So it is difficult to balance all those civ... With 3 civ per game, you don't have that problem. Sure, some choices will be stronger depending on the place you start, but all player will benefit from adequate boosts all game long!

Also, they added quite a lot of personnalisation choices in the leader capacities, so each game should be unique, you have a lot of pro/co to balance when "building" your civ.

 

[McSpank01]

I'm quite confused by it, because I still am not sure how they are planning to implement it.

On the face of it, I really hate the idea. Civ has always been part role play for me and each civ should have a flavour, that adds to the replay value. If you take all that away there is little point ever playing as a different civ.

However, depending on how they implement it, I could eventually like it. For instance, if I start as an ancient civ and over the course of the eras I am evolving it and moulding it so that it becomes unique in the next era, then that might be ok. If the change really is as big as switch from Egypt to Mongolia overnight, then that is terrible and stupid. If the change is going from Ancient Egypt to a new name or skinned civ that I can create in the exploration age, then maybe I can live with that. It should make sense however, and be culturally consistent with some historic trend.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

A have a feeling this Civ will be very much three games on top of each other. So beginning a new era as a new civ will probably don't feel as confusing as it was in Humankind. Having said that the whole thing feels a little drastic. I mean, the whole thing could have been done (I guess) without changing civs, just giving the player new options, mechanics and bonuses built on choices made in earlier eras. But we'll have to see. Civ 7 will be my first civ game (except 1) that I won't be buying on launch day. I'll have plenty of time to figure out if this is something for me or not (which the last two instalments regrettably wasn't)

 

[mackintosh]

Words cannot express the loathing I have for this mechanic. If I wanted my civ to evolve and morph into a completely different one I'd play Humankind (which I did, and abandoned weeks after release). If I wanted a slightly historically accurate twist, I'd have played CK, Europa Universalis or Victoria. There are reasons why I loved Civilization and why there are other games to scratch different itches. Now the thing that made Civilization unique to me is seemingly gone, or at least it's altered in a way that I no longer wish to play it.

Fortunately, no one is taking my old Civilizations away, so I can always go back to those.

 

[SG-17]

It's a deal breaker for me. Shame, because I have usually liked odd numbered Civs more than even, but I guess I'll just stick with Civ5 for another decade.

 

[McSpank01]

Another bone of contention is that your research tree just kind of stops at the end of an era?! So does this mean there will never be a situation where you attack a bunch of archer with your tanks?! Isn't that the main highlight from all Civ games?

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Another bone of contention is that your research tree just kind of stops at the end of an era?! So does this mean there will never be a situation where you attack a bunch of archer with your tanks?! Isn't that the main highlight from all Civ games?

To me this split is the more concerning aspect of this whole thing than the civ switching.

 

[Brackenspore]

Looking at other turn-based strategies, I conclude that Firaxis for some reason does not want to develop the Government System. As I said above, it is the Government that reflects the evolution (or degradation) of your nation. It is the development of Government mechanics that will allow, on the one hand, to keep your nation unique from the beginning to the end of the game (not to change the Greeks to the Mongols), and on the other hand, to adjust it in accordance with various factors (geographical, technological, cultural, diplomatic, etc.). Let's remember Civilization 5, where the choice of Ideology allowed you to actively influence other civilizations. Ideologies allowed you not to change the Mongols to the Americans, but allowed you to change the Autocratic Mongols to the Democratic Mongols.

In civilization 6 they took a step in the right direction (Evolution of Governments). They needed to expand and deepen this system, then there would be no need to do the evolution of civilizations (what we see now).

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

i think they want to also move away from humankind by having your leader level up get more perks and stay the same picture. so the game becomes does your leader stand the test of time no longer your starting civilization