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

[comatosedragon]

Well, I voted strongly dislike, just based on reading several threads on this forum.

Then I went and actually watched the Official Gameplay Showcase, and I have to say I am super optimistic. I think Firaxis just might have pulled this off. I am super excited.

 

[ombak]

I think it looks a lot better than the Humankind implementation even with what little we've seen so far.

Calling it Humankind 2 is laughable for several reasons. For one, all games borrow from each other, particularly within genres. I don't know any developer who wants to make the same game over and over. The challenge is always to do new things and to do things better than you did before or better than others did when they tried.

I still have a ton of questions, most of which have been brought up in this thread, and I'm eager to see how they are answered by future reveals and gameplay.

One that was touched upon, but not enough, I feel, is just how much of a complete game will one age feel like? The use of campaign to describe playing through all 3 ages is interesting. So far content creators only got to play the Antiquity Age. Once we see more complete campaigns we'll have a much clearer idea of how that feels and we'll have answers to many of the questions about civ-switching.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Anyone noticed the wording have changed on the steam page?

now it doesn't sound so much like we'll choose a new civilization but rather we'll get to change our civilization specials, which is very different

time will tell i guess

Interesting. I assume this is what they were always going for. It can function exactly as they envisage without it being about "changing civs", I think dropping this rhetoric would go a long way to appeasing some people.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Anyone noticed the wording have changed on the steam page?

now it doesn't sound so much like we'll choose a new civilization but rather we'll get to change our civilization specials, which is very different

time will tell i guess

It's quite unlikely they changed their mind after one day and after making top devs talk about it in a video and proudly presenting it as one of the main new features they're so excited about. My bet is that they saw the rather negative reaction and changed it to reduce negative reactions. It's preordering time after all.

But I really, really, REALLY hope they will add a "classic" mode to the final game, even if it won't be balanced in the first few months.

 

[ButtBillionaire]

now it doesn't sound so much like we'll choose a new civilization but rather we'll get to change our civilization specials, which is very different

I don't know. This theory doesn't really line up with what was shown in the showcase.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm not happy about the culture swapping mechanic. It was poorly done in HK. But I think Firaxis may have done it a little better by having leaders stay through the game, and by only having two swaps instead of five. That should allow you to inhabit each civ a little longer and maintain part of your identity through the age changes.

I'm willing to give Firaxis a chance to prove themselves with this.

 

[Lord Lakely]

The key to making the Culture Swapping work is by providing logical Cultures to transition into for every Civ. Rome into Normandy as stated by IGN isn't quite an example of that. Rome into Byzantium, HRE or Venice however, are examples of transitions that would be easier to stomach as each can be imagined as a successor without much strain.

Same deal with Egypt. Egypt and Aksum into Songhai is weird, and not in a good way. Abbasid, which is the second default option for Egypt <,makes a lot more sense historically and will be my choice in most games. Hopefully there will be an Abyssinian option available for Aksum to transform into at Ages 2 and 3.

So far I'm casually optimistic? But knowing more about the full roster of available Civs would alleviate some of my concerns. I don't know how deep the pool of available choice can be at release, but it needs to be deep indeed.

EDIT: Oh, and the Culture Swapping is my only true concern about the game, tbh. Civ7 looks visually stunning (UI and Diplo Screen excepted but both are a Work In Progress) and the Devs have done their best to remove micro and clutter, which hopefully results in a game that is easier for an AI to play effectively as well. The Settlement limit doesn't look awful as multiple techs and civics expand your settlement limit and it's not even a hard cap to boot.

 

[Siptah]

I actually dislike that the available options in each age are limited. And especially that they are limited by previous civ choices. That should not be a reason in an alt-history game. Instead, I would prefer if civs are unlocked by what you do in the era. E.g., have x coastal tiles worked, y harbors, and z ocean tiles explored: England unlock for the Age of Discovery. Playin Egypt but not settling rivers and deserts, and not getting trade up? No Songhai for you. Still, some requirements can be made that they are more likely to be achieved by certain civs (see EU4s model: almost everybody can become Tibet, but it's much more effort for England compared to Guge).
I'm ok with leaders unlocking civs though.

Reading through the dislike posts here, I want two add two points:
1. Immediate civ switching has been a thing for decades, just on a different level: cities. Whenever you capture/conquer a city, the population immediately changes to your civ, forgetting their old traditions, units, techs, etc. Other games handle this much better, e.g., Age of Wonders. So now that we've introduced civ switching, please, as a next step also have cities actually be part of a civ (similar to how it already worked for religion in civ 6, where each pop had a religion).
2. I wonder how many people that complain that Egypt > Mongols > Brazil makes no sense really play that way. I never thought that, when playing Mongols, I cannot conquer the Egyptian cities because it didn't happen in history. And actually, seeing what paths some people (including FXS) describe as historical, I think it's equally plausible that the Mongols would have conquered Egypt, some stayed there and made it the base of their Khanate. And I also never shied from exploring and settling new continents as the Mongols in my games just because they did not colonize historically (but honest question: what would they have done with Japan if they were more successful?). So, for me, and this is for sure very personal, Egypt > Mongols > Brazil is less offending to how I play and the stories that develop compared to playing against Canada who built the Pyramids and Borobudur. That's a whole different level of implausible to me.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The key to making the Culture Swapping work is by providing logical Cultures to transition into for every Civ. Rome into Normandy as stated by IGN isn't quite an example of that. Rome into Byzantium, HRE or Venice however, are examples of transitions that would be easier to stomach.

I read in an interview that Ed was inspired by the fact that London itself was first a Roman city, before it became what it's known as today. So, I take it that the Normans are supposed to represent the ones who came over with William the Conqueror to create Medieval England.

 

[GeneralZift]

I'm just weary that they talked loads and loads about this culture swap thing but they just so happened to NOT showcase it, and all of the testers happened to stop just before they would get an actual handle on how it works.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I read in an interview that Ed was inspired by the fact that London itself was first a Roman city, before it became what it's known as today. So, I take it that the Normans are supposed to represent the ones who came over with William the Conqueror and Medieval England.

Yes, but it still strange that Rome gets to transition into Frankified Vikings It's the same sort of hare-brained fanfiction that gave us Rock Bands and Giant Death Robots

I have no problems itself with the choice of Normandy as an Era 2 Civ. They cover England, France AND The Vikings all at once, which gives them logical evolutions for Act 3 (Great Britain, France and Sweden respectively)

 

[Zaarin]

Rome into Normandy as stated by IGN isn't quite an example of that.

I don't mind it. All the Romance-speaking peoples are indirectly the successors of Rome, even if not as explicitly as HRE or Byzantium. I certainly dislike it less than "Egypt becomes Songhai because they're both African, right?!"

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't mind it. All the Romance-speaking peoples are indirectly the successors of Rome, even if not as explicitly as HRE or Byzantium. I certainly dislike it less than "Egypt becomes Songhai because they're both African, right?!"

Was honestly expecting the Iceni would become England. Trade one red haired queen for another.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

I read in an interview that Ed was inspired by the fact that London itself was first a Roman city, before it became what it's known as today.

The thing is that London is what it is today not because Britons decided to evolve it that way, but because city that became London and its vincinity was conquered by Romans and then switched the owners few times again - by Anglo-Saxons, Norsemen and Normans.

When was ancient Egypt conquered by Songhai? Or Mongolia?

 

[Zaarin]

Was honestly expecting the Iceni would become England. Trade one red haired queen for another.

Boudicca isn't allowed to come back until the art department realizes "tunic" does not mean "kilt-themed lingerie."

 

[Lord Lakely]

Was honestly expecting the Iceni would become England. Trade one red haired queen for another.

What isn't the case now, can always be solved in a future DLC or Xpac...x

I don't mind it. All the Romance-speaking peoples are indirectly the successors of Rome, even if not as explicitly as HRE or Byzantium. I certainly dislike it less than "Egypt becomes Songhai because they're both African, right?!"

I am just going to completely ignore that and assume it's a default choice because both have bonuses from Navigable Rivers

and then I'll still pick Abbasid as my second culture every time ^_^

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

When was ancient Egypt conquered by Songhai? Or Mongolia?

I mentioned in another thread that it's probably gameplay reasons, not that I agree with it.
Egypt and Songhai are both African kingdoms that thrive around navigable rivers in the desert.

 

[Shirotora Kenshin]

What? Multiple civs per game?

Can someone please wake me up?

 

[seasnake]

I was playing Through the Ages last night, and in that game you change leaders in each new era to get an Era bonus. Typically in a game your empire will have been led by Sun Tzu, Eleanor Aquitane, James Watt and Sid Meier (yes, he's in that game). There's a real choice each era about synergizing with past strengths or compensating for past weaknesses.

I was thinking about this change, and I like it. It's like a relay race now, and the fact that previously built wonders/cultural buildings will be present will give your final civ a feeling of antiquity. I was in Italy last year and it was amazing how quickly you could see something from 0 BC, 1500 AD and 1940 AD all a stone's throw from one another. So long as each era feels like a complete experience itself, I think it will be a lot of fun.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The thing is that London is what it is today not because Britons decided to evolve it that way, but because city that became London and its vincinity was conquered by Romans and then switched the owners few times again - by Anglo-Saxons, Norsemen and Normans.

When was ancient Egypt conquered by Songhai? Or Mongolia?

York would be an even better example than London. It was Briton, then Roman, then Early English, then Danelaw, then Norse, Early English again, then Norman, and then what we think of as modern English. It was a long evolution with many overlaying cultures contributing to the modern city.