I don't appreciate your condescending tone. Kindly take a hike.
(POLL) What do we think of the change to playing multiple civs per game?
Apparently that is too emotional. Be careful or you'll get lectured too.
Mr Jon of Cheam
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,358
I have to admit when i watched the clip my initial thought was 'ugh'
For me the civ series is about telling a story, moulding the civ i started with into my vision for it.. and i didnt like the idea of my civ changing.
However i have probably clocked up literally years of game time since i first played civ (back in 1992) so i will go into it with an open mind and hope to be pleasantly surprised.
What i really want to see in civ 7 is better map generation and more map options.
For me the civ series is about telling a story, moulding the civ i started with into my vision for it.. and i didnt like the idea of my civ changing.
However i have probably clocked up literally years of game time since i first played civ (back in 1992) so i will go into it with an open mind and hope to be pleasantly surprised.
What i really want to see in civ 7 is better map generation and more map options.
Moderator Action: Alright, everyone knock it off. If you can't discuss this civilly then move on.
Mr Jon of Cheam
Emperor
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2017
- Messages
- 1,358
That wasn't my intention, sorry.Apparently that is too emotional. Be careful or you'll get lectured too.
All I'm saying is: we still don't know enough about exactly how this works.
There appears to be a lot of people who are upset about the feature, which is an emotional response.
I understand the concern but perhaps we should just take a step back and wait for more information before condemning the entire thing as hamfisted. I don't think that is unreasonable.
Brackenspore
King
- Joined
- May 5, 2015
- Messages
- 628
A terrible plague that began with the Humankind. How can Mayans turn into Mongols? I have always been amazed and irritated by how completely different races, different cultures can turn into each other.
There is such a thing as migration and diasporas. This is another matter that has not yet been presented in Civilization! Nationalism or multiculturalism, assimilation or melting pot. How many sharp and interesting mechanics can be created from this social phenomenon. But instead we are given the path of the Chimera...
There is such a thing as migration and diasporas. This is another matter that has not yet been presented in Civilization! Nationalism or multiculturalism, assimilation or melting pot. How many sharp and interesting mechanics can be created from this social phenomenon. But instead we are given the path of the Chimera...
Opera at Sea
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2024
- Messages
- 17
I'm neutral because I'm not opposed to the idea in general. My concern for now is the way it's implemented. I don't like that it seems to be mandatory. Progressing with ancient Rome to the medieval period and given the choice to morph into the Byzantines if certain conditions are met, I would love that. I don't have enough data yet to fully judge how VII is going to implement this and what our possibilities will be re: historically plausible transitions, so I'm not fully committed to an opinion yet. Generally speaking: Civ switching is not a bad idea.
I do agree it is too early to say it will be a mess.That wasn't my intention, sorry.
All I'm saying is: we still don't know enough about exactly how this works.
There appears to be a lot of people who are upset about the feature, which is an emotional response.
I understand the concern but perhaps we should just take a step back and wait for more information before condemning the entire thing as hamfisted. I don't think that is unreasonable.
People do of course get different things out of the game, for many i imagine it is a tactical strategy game (so they dont mind any 'board game' elements)
For me it has always been primarily a roleplaying game. Half my games have been TSL to be honest. But i am completely aware i may not be the target audience.
This has potential. Especially for modders.
Brackenspore
King
- Joined
- May 5, 2015
- Messages
- 628
Yes, this is another adequate and even a bit realistic option. For example, Rome -> Byzantium -> Russia (surely many have heard the phrase "Moscow is the third Rome") or Scythians -> Mongols -> Chinese (the Mongol Khan Kublai founded a new Chinese dynasty). But still, with many cultures such chains of transformations are very difficult to make. Therefore, is such mechanics necessary at all?
BuchiTaton
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2019
- Messages
- 1,261
Well, personally the idea of change civs could be acceptable, and it is true that some of the problems from Humankind's implementetion of this concept could be solved by CIV's aproach, but I still have a lot of doubs about the details and options for this system. Still to me it seems like trying to solve Humankind's problems CIV ended creating their own problems that are putting me off equally. From what we already know CIV7 model feels forced, limited and tacky.
By the way beyond the obvious similarity to Humankind's change of cultures, CIV7 eras also resemble Millennia's ages, and the worse part is that the reduction of the eras remind me to EE3 and definetely I dont like that.
By the way beyond the obvious similarity to Humankind's change of cultures, CIV7 eras also resemble Millennia's ages, and the worse part is that the reduction of the eras remind me to EE3 and definetely I dont like that.
Modders saved the abomination that was 5 and made it somewhat decent.
Hopefully they can neuter or refine the Civ switching in 7. There definitely is potential if they make it as modder friendly as possible.
canadamufc
Prince
They made a solution nobody asked for to a problem that didn’t exist.
There were many other ways to innovate the civ franchise.
There were many other ways to innovate the civ franchise.
Lord Lakely
Idea Fountain
I like that the transition between Ages makes sense and is tied to your leader, the Civ you played in the previous Age and any additional accomplishments you made in the game so far.
It's probably the best way to handle it.
Personally, it does not bother me and i maybe even like it? My gripe is that it just doesn't feel very Sid Meier's Civilization-like, you know?
It's probably the best way to handle it.
Personally, it does not bother me and i maybe even like it? My gripe is that it just doesn't feel very Sid Meier's Civilization-like, you know?
Love it. Finally, no more monolithic cultures that don‘t evolve, have a single peak and are completely ahistorical. No guarantee that it will turn out great, but this opens up so many possibilities for a much more interesting and flexible gameplay that I just have to love it for now. Also less but distinctive ages seems to be a direction that is connected to this and also opens up so much more possibilities. I just wish they would have dropped the leaders altogether.
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 10,093
The Civ 3 mods CCM1, CCM 2 and now CCM 3 show since more than a decade, that different leaders for different eras can work very well. The nonsense with the immortal leader who is coming with the start of a game - and therefore mostly even in the scale of time completely wrong - is not needed any longer. Think of the civs as the people, who are living in a certain geographic space of earth. Therefore in CCM you have civs like Maghreb (consisting of Carthage in era 1, the Berbers in era 2, Maghreb in era 3 and 4), Scandinavia, Indochina, a civ Rome/Italian city states/ Italy and so on. Argumentations in the Civ 7 threads, that civs were conquered, per example Egypt, loose their weight when the civs are the people, who are living in that "conquered" part of the earth (in the animation below you can see, that the leader for Egypt in era 2 is the Sultan Baibars). The people in the same geographic space nearly mostly were melting together.
The new Civ 3 mod C3X by Flintlock even offers the options to give those civs and their era-specific leaders different era-specific names and titles.
You can read more about the multiple leader system in CCM here. Here is an animation about eight of the era-specific civs and leaders in CCM 3. CCM3 holds 31 era-specific civs and their leaders. Different to Civ 7, Civ 3 holds four eras. The multiple leaders in CCM 3 are limited to the available leaders for modding Civ 3 and in some cases CCM 3 uses iconic leaders of "neighbouring" eras or the first existing iconic leader of a civ, even if that leader was living in a later era (per example for the USA which are a special case).
A special version of this mod, giving those era-specific leaders a kind of an "individual personality" by special great wonders, which can be created by the civ in that special era, is in work.
How much better can this be done by Firaxis themselves, without the limitations that a simple Civ 3 modder has to respect (per example only 256 buildings in a Civ 3 game).
Edit 25.08.24: I changed my vote as I strongly liked to play a civ with different leaders in different eras (as shown above) and now it seems that one should keep a leader and play different civs in different eras - a setting that I don´t like.
The new Civ 3 mod C3X by Flintlock even offers the options to give those civs and their era-specific leaders different era-specific names and titles.
You can read more about the multiple leader system in CCM here. Here is an animation about eight of the era-specific civs and leaders in CCM 3. CCM3 holds 31 era-specific civs and their leaders. Different to Civ 7, Civ 3 holds four eras. The multiple leaders in CCM 3 are limited to the available leaders for modding Civ 3 and in some cases CCM 3 uses iconic leaders of "neighbouring" eras or the first existing iconic leader of a civ, even if that leader was living in a later era (per example for the USA which are a special case).
A special version of this mod, giving those era-specific leaders a kind of an "individual personality" by special great wonders, which can be created by the civ in that special era, is in work.
How much better can this be done by Firaxis themselves, without the limitations that a simple Civ 3 modder has to respect (per example only 256 buildings in a Civ 3 game).
Edit 25.08.24: I changed my vote as I strongly liked to play a civ with different leaders in different eras (as shown above) and now it seems that one should keep a leader and play different civs in different eras - a setting that I don´t like.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 1, 2017
- Messages
- 914
Just to answer that: the game isn't designed for you to switch "peacefully" from one civ to another. Each Age will end with a crisis (that will intensify, amplify and culminate) until the Age ends, so it will represent this moment of turmoil that makes a civ change. Lots of independent powers that will attack you, lots of natural disasters that will cause mass migrations (and thus switches in cultures), stuff like that. You won't just be playing peacefully, click a button and hop! You're now the Japanese in the Exploration era. Rather, from what has been revealed, it would be more: you go through a crisis that becomes more and more impactful until the world change ages and you, as the phoenix, rise anew from the ashes, keeping some of your old features but evolving through it.
Hearing what a lot of people are saying, the only innovation players would have accepted would have been not changing anything. Now, I don't really qualify it as "innovation".
I hate it. Having the option to play my chosen civ from start to finish is a make or break feature for me.
It could have been bearable if there were reasonable civ trees, that would at least somewhat keep the identity of your civ intact. So for example you would start in antiquity as the Germanic Tribes with a German path (Germanics -> Prussia/Austria ->Germany), an English path (Germanics -> England -> Great Britain/USA/Kanada/Australia), a Norse path if you had a seafaring focus (Germanics -> Jylland/Svealand/Hordaland -> Denmark/Sweden/Norway) and a French path (Germanics -> Normandy (should also be able to develop into Britain)/Lorraine -> France). Then you would also need an overlap between some of the paths (France should be achievable through a gaulish, roman and germanic path) and then you need some thematic consistencies between ages, because it should make a visible difference whether you arrived at France through a gaulish or a roman path. Civ changes COULD work, but they need congruence and a lot of investment. Egypt -> Mongolia -> Japan is an absolute travesty and, as someone who is usually very open to change, destroys the game.
It could have been bearable if there were reasonable civ trees, that would at least somewhat keep the identity of your civ intact. So for example you would start in antiquity as the Germanic Tribes with a German path (Germanics -> Prussia/Austria ->Germany), an English path (Germanics -> England -> Great Britain/USA/Kanada/Australia), a Norse path if you had a seafaring focus (Germanics -> Jylland/Svealand/Hordaland -> Denmark/Sweden/Norway) and a French path (Germanics -> Normandy (should also be able to develop into Britain)/Lorraine -> France). Then you would also need an overlap between some of the paths (France should be achievable through a gaulish, roman and germanic path) and then you need some thematic consistencies between ages, because it should make a visible difference whether you arrived at France through a gaulish or a roman path. Civ changes COULD work, but they need congruence and a lot of investment. Egypt -> Mongolia -> Japan is an absolute travesty and, as someone who is usually very open to change, destroys the game.
Multi-civilisation is Humankind's best innovation. And it makes sense. The Mayans didn't persist as a civilisation for 4,000 years. Neither did Rome, and so on.
And it allows for major strategic choices that you don't have when you play Canadians from Antiquity to the Contemporary Era (a ridiculous idea when you think about it).
However, ideally they should limit the cultural spheres. For example, it makes sense for a Roman to become French, but it's historically and ethnically bizarre for a Roman to become something from South America. It wouldn't be the end of the world if it were possible, but it can give a feeling of unreality.
You'll find that once you've had a taste of the multi-civilisation system, there's no going back.
And it allows for major strategic choices that you don't have when you play Canadians from Antiquity to the Contemporary Era (a ridiculous idea when you think about it).
However, ideally they should limit the cultural spheres. For example, it makes sense for a Roman to become French, but it's historically and ethnically bizarre for a Roman to become something from South America. It wouldn't be the end of the world if it were possible, but it can give a feeling of unreality.
You'll find that once you've had a taste of the multi-civilisation system, there's no going back.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
