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

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

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?

Good point. I hope that the things you research in each Age directly impact what you can research / have researched when you start the next age... It would be weird and a bit annoying if it totally resets everything.

I don't mind if that means you never get tanks vs archers though, that's more of a meme than a good game mechanic imo. Some changes are good

 

[McSpank01]

The leader thing is annoying too, I never loved the idea of this immortal leader going through history like that, it doesn't make any sense at all. I noticed with Total War Pharaoh they moved way from doing that because it annoyed historic players. Attaching any bonuses to an individual doesn't really work.

 

[McSpank01]

Good point. I hope that the things you research in each Age directly impact what you can research / have researched when you start the next age... It would be weird and a bit annoying if it totally resets everything.

I don't mind if that means you never get tanks vs archers though, that's more of a meme than a good game mechanic imo. Some changes are good

From what I've read, it sounds like if you are super fast with your research you just kind of get roadblocked at the end of an era and start researching bland 'future techs'. That seems like nonsense and just annoys me. The whole point of history is that certain civs didn't move beyond some tech levels, and then fun is speeding ahead

 

[smithx2]

Strongly dislike. It is a horrible game mechanic.

 

[GeneralZift]

One thing no one has mentioned is therefore the lack of large technology differences in combat akin to Colonialists Vs Natives.
Now everyone is forced on the same tech level.

Instead of taking an authentic and realistic approach to levelling the playing field (ie by giving bonuses to players on the behind) they decided to just force everyone to be the same. Great design choice gang

 

[mackintosh]

Part of the fun - to me, personally - has always been to outpace the pack and dominate through tech. I never understood why I should be penalised for being good at a game, especially if this doesn't result in less engagement on my part, which seemingly should be the whole point. I'm sorry your bows and arrows can't sink my battleship, but that's hardly my problem. I do realise it's a hyperbole, but I hope my point is clear. I don't mind AI getting a boost if I'm surging too far ahead, but I should not be prevented from doing so.

 

[PetrusvonDoom]

I'm torn about this mechanic. It's a strong feature of Humankind (and I like it in Amplitude's game), but seeing it in Civilization seems a bit like Street Fighter adopting the Fatality mechanic from Mortal Kombat. It sounds like the game is giving up its own identity to follow another game's identity. On the other hand, Civ VI made me see some stagnation in the franchise and seeing this VII adopting this and other mechanics gives me a feeling of revitalization in the franchise. I hope that Civilization VII surprises me positively and does something very innovative and fun with this mechanic.

 

[kryat]

Having watched Quill’s stream, I think people are really sleeping on the age system. I don’t think in practice it will be as sudden or jarring to switch Civs as many are imagining. For those who haven’t seen, there is an end of age “crisis” that comes along where everyone is playing with bad things happening (like the dark ages in 6, but simultaneous for all players). I could see the devs turning up extra volatility in the AI’s behavior during this time (making them more hostile at these points). Thus, you are evolving to a new Civ as a result of coming out of this crisis.

This makes a lot of historical sense. Sure, it’s a little artificial (what in the game isn’t?), but also I think it’s a great way to capture the ebb and flow of history. No power has ever been at their zenith for all of time, especially once the snowball of ideas gets rolling around the classic age.

Before judging that this is going to ruin the game, watch how it works in practice. I think the ages are one of the most exciting parts of this game because we might finally get to have critical moments in time (like world wars, pandemics, famines, etc) that shake the pillars of your civilization and force you to evolve with the times.

The legacy system looks decent too where you are maintaining parts of your past heritage into whoever you are becoming.

Viva la revolution!

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

One thing no one has mentioned is therefore the lack of large technology differences in combat akin to Colonialists Vs Natives.
Now everyone is forced on the same tech level.

Instead of taking an authentic and realistic approach to levelling the playing field (ie by giving bonuses to players on the behind) they decided to just force everyone to be the same. Great design choice gang

Again though, I don't know how anyone can draw such a firm conclusion from what we've seen so far. Do we know, absolutely know, that everyone is forced to be the same at the beginning of a new Age?

It's fine to be concerned about this but I feel that a lot of the criticism is wildly speculative, and not very helpful. There are FXS people here, they might listen to some constructive comments.

 

[tipsoops]

The more I think about it, the less upset I am. Both because A) Civ 6 had some absolutely terrible design decisions, but I still loved the game in spite of them, and B) I think this feature could get significantly better through DLC and Expansions. Firstly by adding an Age of Iron between the Age of Antiquity and the Age of Exploration, so more civilizations can be represented. Secondly, if they introduce new civilizations that fit more closely together. For example, going from Egypt to the Mamluks to modern Arabs (or even modern Egyptians) wouldn't be so weird. And the feature does introduce some interesting new scenarios. For example, maybe I want to pretend like the Greek characteristics of Ptolemaic Egypt continued to be a major part of Egyptian culture. Well, now I can go from Egypt to Byzantium. The civilization you pick has always been more of a cultural skin that you drape over your own empire, so I think this could work.

It isn't the direction I would have taken things, but I think I could come to like it if it is implemented well. The fact that they are focusing on historical paths is a very good sign.

 

[Bergest]

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).

But that's the problem. Turning from Egypt into Mongolia is not evolvement, it's erasure. Having an egyptian civilization stand the test of time by adapting and gradually changing throughout the ages could have been interesting. Just replacing it with an entirely different culture, with only a few number boosts carrying over, is a travesty.

 

[GeneralZift]

Again though, I don't know how anyone can draw such a firm conclusion from what we've seen so far. Do we know, absolutely know, that everyone is forced to be the same at the beginning of a new Age?

It's fine to be concerned about this but I feel that a lot of the criticism is wildly speculative, and not very helpful. There are FXS people here, they might listen to some constructive comments.

They stated very distinctly that:
Tech tree of each age is unique
The game waits to advance everyone
Everyone advances together

So once the "timer" hits 100% everyone moves to the next era regardless... You can't be stuck an era... At least if you can they haven't mentioned it.

If you finish an era well, you get these bonuses to pat you on the back.
Otherwise, there's not going to be any distinguishable tech difference.

 

[djvandyke]

I will just copy my Consolation Post here, I hope it doesn't violate any rules? I was at first very scared of civ switching, but then calmed down a lot after thinking about it, and wanted for many people with similar reaction to see my reasoning and hopefully be consoled.

CONSOLATION POST FOR PEOPLE SCARED LIKE ME AT FIRST

Keep in mind that in Humankind the system was forced upon the player largely due to this game's horrible mod support and civ switching being enforced by its mechanics. It is highly possible that "classic mode" is either going to be a popular mod (or maybe even official option added by Firaxis if they decide negative response is too high).

Also, Humankind's system was made terrible by the fact you made six transitions and the game had essentially no leaders (avatar system was godawful). Meanwhile in civ7 you're going to have only two transitions plus you have leaders (plus, again, I highly expect mods and modes for AI civs remaining old civs, or going for the closest historical paths etc). So you have much more time to get attached - on epic speed I would spend like 200 turns with each of three civs even if I decided to switch each time and had no "viable feeling" transitions. Much less transitions also means that it is actually possible to fill out sensible development lines using mods, which brings us too...

Finally, this system has incredible potential once you add mod civs. It allows for epic things such as:
China having progression of dynasties (Han -> Ming -> Qing)=
India having countless possible evolution lines
History of Iran (Achaemenids -> Safavids -> modern Iran);
History of Arabs (say Nabateans -> Abbasids -> any modern country)
History of France (Gauls -> French Kingdom -> French Republic (because why not?? mods will allow that))
History of England (Britons -> Anglo-Saxons -> Great Britain)
History of Italy (Rome -> let's say Florence -> Italy)
History of Germany (your fav Germanic tribe -> your fav HRE state -> Germany)
History of Turks (Gokturks -> Ottomans -> Turkey)
History of Andean civs (Nazca -> Inca -> Peru (honestly I'm fine with it - but you can retain Inca))
more historical America (Britons/Anglo-Saxons -> Great Britain -> America )
History of any Bantu country (Bantu -> precolonial empire -> modern country)
History of Korea (Goryeo -> Joseon -> your fav modern Korea)

In Humankind filling out sensible transitions was impossible due to their number (and miserable mod scene). But here it is tangible and actually opens amazing opportunities. I can repeat the above with sensible transitions for Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Burma, history of Bengal and Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Armenia, Russia (Slavs -> Muscovy -> Russia), Nordic peoples (Proto-Germanic -> Norse -> Norway), Greece (ancient polis -> Byzantium -> Greece), Spain (Iberians -> Visigoths -> Spain), Ukraine (Rus -> Cossacks -> Ukraine)...

Doesn't this sound glorious? There is a potential in this system to make each historical civilization shine greater than before, with fans creativity.

There will be mods modifying the system or even removing it, there may be official game modes, there will be your agency, which taken together will most probably enable you to see the world of old civ games - but there will be also options for something greater. Humankind never had this potential because six transitions, its systems, its avatars and its terrible modding made anti-immersion inescapable; here we have hope.

If they went with a culturally linked model I would agree with you, but this game is Egypt > Mongolia > Brazil

 

[Zaarin]

If they went with a culturally linked model I would agree with you, but this game is Egypt > Mongolia > Brazil

Only if you choose it. The game defaults to "historical" progression, though I have some quibbles with what they define as "historical."

 

[Gorbles]

From what I've read, it sounds like if you are super fast with your research you just kind of get roadblocked at the end of an era and start researching bland 'future techs'. That seems like nonsense and just annoys me. The whole point of history is that certain civs didn't move beyond some tech levels, and then fun is speeding ahead

Bland future techs have been a thing in a bunch of Civ games. No?

(and SMAC too, I swear, but it's been a while since I let one of those get to lategame)

The point of being "super fast with research" is being super fast with research! It let's you do things before other civs! That's the whole advantage, and that's always been the whole advantage!

 

[Leucarum]

I wonder how much more positive we'd be if Humankind hadn't been released. It did such a hamfisted job of civ switching, and when I heard it was in Civ 7 I immediately connected the two. The version in 7 sounds more deeply conndcted to the era system, less frequent, and with continuity of a recognizable leader. So I am keeping an open mind. I can also see how firaxis came to that rabbithole.

Despite my positive tone, though, I still hit dislike... As that was my first impression. Overall, it makes me skeptical that the alt-history element of civ7 will feel as good as previous iterations, and it's something I kind of wish firaxis hadn't done...

 

[kryat]

I’m thinking more about what we’ve seen so far. Yet another aspect that I think will reduce the artificiality of switching from one civ to another I it seems like you are presented with only a limited set of options when it’s time to age up (Egypt was only given 3 options). This can’t mean you are given the entire breadth of options each time, so something on the backend is constraining these options.

From the stream, they’ve already said the easiest one for you to age into is the one that’s culturally close while you can unlock others, so the one that’s culturally close is likely guaranteed to be in the tree (and is the most likely one the AI will pick, due to lower friction).

But what if the others choices are available are picked from who your near neighbors are? It might seem jarring at first glance for the Celts to become Indian, but what if on your globe Ashoka was Boudica’s nearest neighbor? I can see some cross talk between those civilizations happening.

I think the same thing was going on in the Egypt game where something was nearby Egypt that populated Mongolia as a possible path.

 

[kaspergm]

I will just copy my Consolation Post here, I hope it doesn't violate any rules? I was at first very scared of civ switching, but then calmed down a lot after thinking about it, and wanted for many people with similar reaction to see my reasoning and hopefully be consoled.

CONSOLATION POST FOR PEOPLE SCARED LIKE ME AT FIRST

Keep in mind that in Humankind the system was forced upon the player largely due to this game's horrible mod support and civ switching being enforced by its mechanics. It is highly possible that "classic mode" is either going to be a popular mod (or maybe even official option added by Firaxis if they decide negative response is too high).

Also, Humankind's system was made terrible by the fact you made six transitions and the game had essentially no leaders (avatar system was godawful). Meanwhile in civ7 you're going to have only two transitions plus you have leaders (plus, again, I highly expect mods and modes for AI civs remaining old civs, or going for the closest historical paths etc). So you have much more time to get attached - on epic speed I would spend like 200 turns with each of three civs even if I decided to switch each time and had no "viable feeling" transitions. Much less transitions also means that it is actually possible to fill out sensible development lines using mods, which brings us too...

Finally, this system has incredible potential once you add mod civs. It allows for epic things such as:
China having progression of dynasties (Han -> Ming -> Qing)=
India having countless possible evolution lines
History of Iran (Achaemenids -> Safavids -> modern Iran);
History of Arabs (say Nabateans -> Abbasids -> any modern country)
History of France (Gauls -> French Kingdom -> French Republic (because why not?? mods will allow that))
History of England (Britons -> Anglo-Saxons -> Great Britain)
History of Italy (Rome -> let's say Florence -> Italy)
History of Germany (your fav Germanic tribe -> your fav HRE state -> Germany)
History of Turks (Gokturks -> Ottomans -> Turkey)
History of Andean civs (Nazca -> Inca -> Peru (honestly I'm fine with it - but you can retain Inca))
more historical America (Britons/Anglo-Saxons -> Great Britain -> America )
History of any Bantu country (Bantu -> precolonial empire -> modern country)
History of Korea (Goryeo -> Joseon -> your fav modern Korea)

In Humankind filling out sensible transitions was impossible due to their number (and miserable mod scene). But here it is tangible and actually opens amazing opportunities. I can repeat the above with sensible transitions for Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Burma, history of Bengal and Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Armenia, Russia (Slavs -> Muscovy -> Russia), Nordic peoples (Proto-Germanic -> Norse -> Norway), Greece (ancient polis -> Byzantium -> Greece), Spain (Iberians -> Visigoths -> Spain), Ukraine (Rus -> Cossacks -> Ukraine)...

Doesn't this sound glorious? There is a potential in this system to make each historical civilization shine greater than before, with fans creativity.

There will be mods modifying the system or even removing it, there may be official game modes, there will be your agency, which taken together will most probably enable you to see the world of old civ games - but there will be also options for something greater. Humankind never had this potential because six transitions, its systems, its avatars and its terrible modding made anti-immersion inescapable; here we have hope.

You pretty much said everything I wanted to say, at least about the potential positive prospects of this feature.

I cautiously voted "neutral" for two main reasons:

1) I dislike the fact that leaders aren't tied to the civilization, although I can see the problem with late game civilizations thus not contributing leaders. But maybe one could pool them, which leads to my other point:

2) While I appreciate that the civ progression choice will not be completely free like in Humankind, I'm afraid we'll still see nonsensical transitions like Rome > Ming > America if you make the appropriate unlocks. So I'd really like some pooling of the civs based on geographical proximity to control which transitions you can do. So for instance, if you start as an Asian civ, you will have opportunities to develop into certain other Asian civs if you make the appropriate unlocks, but not into something geographically and culturally completely unrelated. So personally I'd like to see civs grouped into pools like FE Asian, Middle Eastern and North African, Central and South African, European (perhaps even incl. USA), North American, Central and South American, Oceania and have it so you are locked to progress within each group.

 

[Zaarin]

I wonder how much more positive we'd be if Humankind hadn't been released.

Being reminded of HK in more ways than one definitely has not helped Civ7's reception, even if I have every confidence that Ed Beach isn't even capable of making a game as bad as HK.

 

[mackintosh]

I wonder how much more positive we'd be if Humankind hadn't been released. It did such a hamfisted job of civ switching, and when I heard it was in Civ 7 I immediately connected the two. The version in 7 sounds more deeply conndcted to the era system, less frequent, and with continuity of a recognizable leader. So I am keeping an open mind. I can also see how firaxis came to that rabbithole.

Despite my positive tone, though, I still hit dislike... As that was my first impression. Overall, it makes me skeptical that the alt-history element of civ7 will feel as good as previous iterations, and it's something I kind of wish firaxis hadn't done...

I don't think it would have mattered. There was a reason many of us tried Humankind, quickly became disillusioned with it, and abandoned the game soon after. This civ-switching mechanic was exactly what turned a lot of people off. I suppose those who enjoyed it are the ones who stayed and keep playing it. Last time I looked at the stats, Humankind was quite unpopular. I mean just look at me - I dusted off a 17-year-old account just to vent about Civilization borrowing its key mechanic.