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

[Leucarum]

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.

HK did have some good ideas, it just drowned them in bad implementation. I don't think I'd count civ switching among them, but watching the more in-depth media everything looked like positive evolutions, and mostly they weren't liftovers.

No builders and fixing some of the micromanagement in 1UPT might be the real selling points, not leader switching.

 

[Moriarte]

It makes more sense to me to change to new leaders (houses, clans, dynasties ...) when the new era dawns.

Why would I want to change to a whole new civilisation mid-game? I specifically pressed Egypt when I started the game.

I'd like to finish the game as Egypt.

 

[Kurgan]

I voted strongly dislike because (I hope it has not been said) no civ/player will be able to "Stand the test of time". As others said, a transition from let's say from Turcoman tribes/Seljuks to Ottomans to Ataturk's Republic will be ok. But Ancient Egypt to Shongai really takes the soul from the game for me.

 

[Leucarum]

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.

It was very gimmicky, it at least looks like they're trying to reduce that in 7 with semi-logical evolution paths (they aren't but I'm giving the devs a small bone here). I would prefer that hadn't gone this route but that's not the age we live in.

 

[FishFishFish]

Even if they add a buttload of civilizations to be semi-logical, it will still never be good enough for me. Ancient Egypt turning into the Ayyubids or Mamluks is much better than becoming Songhai, but it is still really bad.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

When I heard about such feature in Humankind I immediately disliked it (and it turned out I was right to dislike it since it feels wrong in the game) and thought about how I would do it.

Instead of switching to new civs I would add more ways to customize our own civ. Instead of total transition to a compeletely new culture I would modify the existing one.

For example you start as Egypt. Instead of switching to Songhai or Mongols in the next era - I would give people the ability to become Songhai-like or Mongolia-like or even Japan-like state while still being an Egyptian one. New unique units, buildings and abilities in each era, possibly hidden behind some requirements and choices (for example ability to become more like Japan if you had Japanese neighbor or strong cultural/economic ties with Japan), but it would still be that good, old Egypt you had. You had access to horses, had civics similar to historical Mongolia or simply would love to have a Mongolian-like approach in the next age? You would be able to make it so, while still formally being Egypt.

That would be a true evolution of a civilization. Egyptians becoming Songhai isn't evolution. Greeks becoming Turks isn't evolution. Egyptians/Greeks adopting new ways of life and new ideas while still being Egyptians and Greeks is.

 

[Brackenspore]

When I heard about such feature in Humankind I immediately disliked it (and it turned out I was right to dislike it since it feels wrong in the game) and thought about how I would do it.

Instead of switching to new civs I would add more ways to customize our own civ. Instead of total transition to a compeletely new culture I would modify the existing one.

For example you start as Egypt. Instead of switching to Songhai or Mongols in the next era - I would give people the ability to become Songhai-like or Mongolia-like or even Japan-like state while still being an Egyptian one. New unique units, buildings and abilities in each era, possibly hidden behind some requirements and choices (for example ability to become more like Japan if you had Japanese neighbor or strong cultural/economic ties with Japan), but it would still be that good, old Egypt you had. But because you had access to horses, had civics similar to historical Mongolia or simply would love to have a Mongolian-like approach in the next age - you would be able to make it so, while still formally being Egypt.

That would be a true evolution of a civilization. Egyptians becoming Songhai isn't evolution. Greeks becoming Turks isn't evolution. Egyptians/Greeks adopting new ways of life and new ideas while still being Egyptians and Greeks is.

One word: G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T

 

[Kurgan]

If they wanted to add something revolutionary they should have just made the computer civs use AI so they will be a challenge without giving them bonuses.

 

[ToothedBomb]

For now, with the information we have available, I strongly dislike this change.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

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.

But that's forced. Why should I experience a "crisis" if I run the most powerful state on the planet and everything works flawlessly? I have conquered my entire continent, there is no one able to oppose me either because I am the richerst/strongest/most advanced or I have good relations with everyone? Because devs decided that I must switch to some other civ because that's what "their vision" is? Well, my vision is completely different and what now?

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.

Yeah, exactly as you said. Adopting this completely unnecessary change creates problems that would've been easily avoided otherwise.

 

[Bosque]

The more I think about it, I just feel that they got the overall concept wrong.

If the game kept the same civilization throughout history, but gave us a new leader to choose as we enter the new era, I would be thrilled. That would give the civilization an opportunity to grow, and change directions as all cultures do over time. But it would still be the same civilization, which is the thing that has always made this game so special through its six previous iterations.

 

[Kurgan]

I just hope that they revealed this feature to get feedback and then announce that this is "optional". Then everybody would be happy.

 

[GeneralZift]

When I heard about such feature in Humankind I immediately disliked it (and it turned out I was right to dislike it since it feels wrong in the game) and thought about how I would do it.

Instead of switching to new civs I would add more ways to customize our own civ. Instead of total transition to a compeletely new culture I would modify the existing one.

For example you start as Egypt. Instead of switching to Songhai or Mongols in the next era - I would give people the ability to become Songhai-like or Mongolia-like or even Japan-like state while still being an Egyptian one. New unique units, buildings and abilities in each era, possibly hidden behind some requirements and choices (for example ability to become more like Japan if you had Japanese neighbor or strong cultural/economic ties with Japan), but it would still be that good, old Egypt you had. You had access to horses, had civics similar to historical Mongolia or simply would love to have a Mongolian-like approach in the next age? You would be able to make it so, while still formally being Egypt.

That would be a true evolution of a civilization. Egyptians becoming Songhai isn't evolution. Greeks becoming Turks isn't evolution. Egyptians/Greeks adopting new ways of life and new ideas while still being Egyptians and Greeks is.

If they were scared about balance they should have just given us the choice to mold our society to match with the times, and that the original Civ choice just matches the specific power spike.

Eg picking ancient Egyptians gives you that super powerful wonder builder start, and you still get access to generic later game bonuses; but picking Americans gives you a powerful late game play, with access to generic early game bonuses.

 

[guilarroyd]

Honestly I can't understand the negative opinions. I am so hyped for it, I think this opens up way more possibilities of different civs and different paths through the game, and I think it 100% fixes the problems of:
- All games finishing equal (same districts, improvements, military units, always rushing for the victory type you have chosen)
- Once you start snowballing its impossible to stop (I think changing bonuses can really make a strategy that seemed weak become powerful with changing eras)

I also don't think it is immersive and historically accurate to rush for flight as Babylon or to build the Eiffel Tower as the Maori, so I don't care about capital names or whatever. The game will always force you to develop strategies that are not historically accurate because otherwise you would have only one path to follow.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

One word: G-O-V-E-R-N-M-E-N-T

That's not the same. France switched from Monarchy to Republic few times in the last two centuries, but never transitioned from being France to something completely else in the process. My idea isn't about the government, or civics. It's about the same benefits switching civs would give (new unique units/buildings/abilities for each era) but without the soul-tearing idea of bizarre transformation of civs, locking all civs to specific eras only, confusion with everyone switching to someone else, leaders leading the "wrong" cultures and abandoning your old beloved civ just because you'd be punished with no new unique content otherwise.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

I just hope that they revealed this feature to get feedback and then announce that this is "optional". Then everybody would be happy.

"We're very excited about this new feature"

I know, they always say things like that, it's part of marketing. But I believe it's quite true in this case as well. Sometimes people just get a new idea and stick to it for some reason, even if most people tell them it's a terrible one.

Don't jump from the balcony, Steve, you're drunk.

But there will always be that one Steve who will be so convinced that jumping from the balcony will be absolutely badass that he'll jump no matter what. Maybe he'll understand his mistake, lying on the hospital bed with both legs broken, but that will be a bit too late.

 

[Zaarin]

I just hope that they revealed this feature to get feedback and then announce that this is "optional". Then everybody would be happy.

Yes, they've spent over half a decade working on a feature just to change their minds at the last minute. I look forward to Civ7 releasing in 2030.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

Anyone noticed the wording have changed on the steam page?

EVOLVE YOUR EMPIRE AS EACH NEW AGE DAWNS

To build a legacy that truly stands the test of time, you must adapt. Forge your own path through history as you reshape your empire at the start of each Age, selecting from a pool of new Age-relevant civilization options determined by your prior gameplay accomplishments. Evolving your empire unlocks fresh gameplay bonuses and unique units, so your current civilization is always at the height of its power.

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

 

[GeneralZift]

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

!!!!!!!

 

[McSpank01]

They also said that they have been focus testing this feature for quite some time, so it's unlikely they are just throwing out the idea to get some cheap feedback. I'm sure they are dead set on the idea and there is probably no going back.

It feels like they have identified some of the major flaws in Civ 6 and haven't really found a good solution to fixing them. Snowballing was a huge problem, boring late games were a huge problem.. but is this really the best solution?