Caesar of Bread
Ronald Reagan's #1 Hater
I strongly despise the civ changing mechanics, it seems like Civilization wanted to be like Humankind but Civilization lost it's special ingredient in the 4X game soup
Amplitude/Sega, presumably, given how long Civ7 has been in development.
I wonder when people are going to learn that first Kalmar Union was never a country. It was a union consisted of Denmark, Sweden and Norway. Each country existed on its own during the union but was ruled by the same regent. All 3 countried existed several hundreds of years before the union so going from norse -> kalmar union -> Den/Swe/Nor doesn't make any sense.I have chosen strongly dislike. I understand that some civilizations didn't survive but there are also a lot that did through some way or another.
This feature of changing your original civilization 2 times can work for some civs today if there were transparent empires that ruled over the people in an area over time like in China (Han<Ming<Modern) and India (Maurya<Mughal<Modern).
In Europe for the most part I can make quick examples that could work : (And yes off course there could be made many other example paths for each civilization)
Goths<HRE/Prussia<Germany,
Gaul<Kingdom France/Aquitaine<Republic France/Canada
Rome<Venice/Tuscany<Italy,
Ancient Greece/Hellas/Macedon<Byzantium<Modern Greece,
Kiev Rus<Muscovy/Novgorod<Russia,
Britons<Normans/England/Scotland<United Kingdom/USA/Australia/Canada,
Iberia<Castille<Spain/Argentina/Chile/Colombia etc.
Lusitania<King Portugal<Rep Portugal/Brazil,
Dacia<Wallachia<Romania,
Lechites<Piast Poland<Rep Poland,
Franks<United Provinces<Netherlands,
Norse<Kalmar Union<Norway/Sweden/Denmark (A bit fishy here because the Norse Vikings were a bit late for the first age, but to early for the exploration age)
Other paths in Asia that could work are:
Gokturks<Ottomans<Turkey
Also a path like Persia<Safavid<Iran I could understand and maybe Babylon/Sumeria/Assyria to the Abbassids but that is more fishy
In SE Asia the paths could be Srivijaya<Majapahit<Indonesia, Dvarati(Mon People)<Sukhotai<Thailand, Chenla<Khmer<Cambodja and Champa<Dai Viet<Vietnam
In East Asia it could be Gojoseon<Goguryeo<Korea and Yajoi/Jomon<Ashikaga/Edo<Japan
In Africa:
For Egypt we know that they also can become the Abbassids (a much more logic choice than Songhai) in civ 7, even though they aren't excactly the same people (the Copts are), we do know that most of the people living in Egypt were converted to Islam so they seem a much better choice and probably the modern transition would be Arabia/Rep Egypt?
For the Songhai in the Explorer age the best path could be the Ghana Empire (not the modern country)< Songhai < Nigeria??? (Most Songhai people live in modern Niger though)
And even for Axum which we know is in game there would be a logical path to Abyssinia to Ethiopia.
And maybe something like Kanem-Bornu<Sokoto<Nigeria? (with Amina as a leader)
The path Egypt<Songhai<Buganda though is really weird and makes no sence whatsoever. The choice for Buganda as a modern age African civ is also realy weird in my opinion as it is part of the modern nation Uganda.
A path like Bantu<Zulu<South Africa of Bantu<Swahili/Kilwa<Tanzania/Kenya would be more logical for south and East Africa.
But there are a lot of paths that would be somewhat difficult like what to do with people that lived in the same area but were a different people but cultural influenced eachother like Maya to Aztec and then both intermarried with their Spanish conquerors a lot and became Mexico. Or only in the same area like Nazca to the Inca and than the same intermarriage thing and they become Peru/Ecuador/Bolivia?
But what to do with the many Native Americans (US)/First Nations (Canada) or people like the Mapuche from Chile/Argentina or the many people in Oceania like the Hawaii, Maori, Samoa and Tonga and many more all over the world without a good path.
Unfortunately I doubt all off these civs with a more logical path are in the game. Or that the AI opponent countries will choose the logical path and will still go for the Egypt to Mongolia to USA route
Lets say I want to play my home nation/civilization; The Netherlands, I bet they will be put only in the Explorer age if they are or come later with an expansion in the game. So I have to choose in the ancient age the closest thing like a Celtic tribe or the Romans, if our ancesters the Franks aren't in the game. And if we are unlucky we don't have a dutch speaking leader either.
But what then when the transition comes to the modern age. We are still here as a civilization/people/country and it would for me be absurd to choose the UK, Germany, the US or France as if we suddenly don't exist anymore.
A same lot would be there for Portugal and Spain I Guess. But they at least could probably choose a new world former colony country like Brasil or Mexico.
Also your capital and first cities will be the ones the ancient civ founded (One of the things I disliked about Humankind) even if the look changes and even if you can change the names it feels wrong.
I realy hope we can rename every civilization from the start to the end. So even if they look roman/celtic or later German/US American I can pretent they are our ancesters/modern dutchies.
But I doubt we can rename Civilizations though. So I'm gonna hope that this game will be as moddable as it predecessors were, so we can have more modded logical paths for civilizations.
It's also a shame that we wil loose the "what if?" part of the games, like what if the Maya, Sumerians, Babylonians etc. empire survived and build an empire that could stand the test of time.
But the rest of the game looks stunning (except the leader art though) and a lot of the other new features look great like the commander/fighting and the 3 end of Era disasters you have to overcome.
It's not a game mode, and you can't disable it, any more than you could disable 1UPT or Districts -- it's the key feature of Civ 7.I pray this civ switch is a game mode I can disable and forget about it. I have no issues evolving a civ through the ages, picking up new abilities/attributes/UU, etc. But going from Egypt -> Cree -> Georgia will be weird and unnatural. Rome -> Venice -> Italy does work though, but you can prob bet good money the AI will pick weird evolution paths.
I think there is plenty of leeway for them to fudge Byzantium into the second era. I don’t think they are approaching this with strict cut offs in terms of real world centuries… especially since the Maya and Aksum are somehow coexisting with ancient Egypt!Unfortunately, some of the most obvious progressions (like Rome -> Byzantium) will probably not be available because of the scope of the eras. Rome and Byzantium would both qualify as "Antiquity Era" civs.
i really really REALLY dont like the civswapping system, which is a huge shame because basically everything else about civ7 looks like its almost tailor made to appeal to me.
Once again, I do think it's worth recognising that the potential in this system is enormous, provided there are enough civilizations. By locking them into an Age, there is so much scope for FXS to add cool civilizations that we have never seen before and do them justice; the idea of moving from an early Germanic tribe to modern Germany via the HRE or Prussia is just fantastic.
It can definitely be done badly. So, let's hope it is isn't, heh.
I'm warming to the idea myself. In previous iterations, we would have civs that would try to include elements from a vast time period, like the Germans in Civ5 with Landsknechts and Panzers, or the Japanese with Samurai and Zero Fighters. In this brave new system, there is more potential for chronologically-bound civ designs with non-anachronistic elements.
That would be a serious balance issue. The developers said they went for Ages so they could design each civ with respect to its civ; if you choose to remain with Egypt your unique bonuses will become obsolete, while your rivals who changed their civ will have more powerful Age-appropriate bonusesIt sounds easy for Firaxis to make this a setting you can toggle, and if that's the case, I'll just disable it- out of sight, out of mind.
...I'm sorry, do you really think it takes two years to make a game?This doesn't even make sense. Humankind's devolopment and its gimmick was first showcased half a decade ago in like 2019 and Civilization only announced it was in devolopment last year (it probably began serious devolopment a few years ago)