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

[Solovey]

Imho the problem isn't what they add in the game by letting you switching nations.
The problem is what they remove from the game. And maybe they don't remove it. Devil is in details and we don't know it all yet. Humankind removed.
In Humankind you lack one critical feature - the possibility to customize your game session by selecting a nation before knowing the game details. Just choose warmonger civ and deal with it. Even if you got stuck on a small continent. Choose Inca and hunt for mountains. Choose Japan and stack districts. In all previous Civ games a nation selection was a customization tool making each of your your game session different. Speaking this way - you have no nation selection in Humankind, and you have another mechanics that let you min-max your empire development. You had let say 10, not you have 11. But without any unique game sessions.
In old Civs you may select odd weak nation just to have fun with its unique mechanics. But you can't do in Humankind. You are already min-maxing. Technically you can, but it doesn't differ from "I won't build ranged units in ancient and classic eras because it makes my game unique". We may do it, but 99% of us don't do it.
It's not a problem at the beginning. But it hurts your game experience after a year in the game.
I see in Civ VII you may select Egypt before the game start what is fine. It lasts till the era of exploration. The big question for me is - will it matter in eras 2 and 3 and how much? Is lets lay Egypt - Arab - Turkey differ from Persia - Arab - Turkey at later stages? I want my customization tool staying in the game!

 

[ezzlar]

What I would like is something along the lines:

when you change, you get the option of Changing leader, Changing civ, Changing civ+leader or just stay put. The civs available for changing into are "nearby" civs, some historical and others a bit more speculative. But no choice like English -> Japanese.

Some change triggers may offer you more choices or more type of choices. Maybe depending on playstyle?

This would of course require an abundant pool of civs and leaders.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

Considering the big crisis around the end of the age of Antiquity focuses on the historical fall of Rome by invasions, leading to the Middle Ages, I would almost guarantee that the Byzantines would be an Exploration civ.

...I'm sorry, do you really think it takes two years to make a game?

Even if development started around 2019, that's when Amplitude showed off Humankind right? It's not hard to imagine that they at least looked at their idea.

 

[Dys0nSphere]

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 bonuses

I see, it seems like I oversimplified the mechanic in my head in that case. I'd have to take a closer look at what we saw in the gameplay footage, and probably wait for more footage too. I was thinking that an option could exist to prevent civ-switching for all players/AI in the game, so rivaling civs don't benefit from getting more age-appropriate bonuses. Though that wouldn't entirely solve the balancing issues you mentioned, hopefully it's not too complicated to find a solution to. I suppose only time will tell though.

 

[Zaarin]

Even if development started around 2019, that's when Amplitude showed off Humankind right? It's not hard to imagine that they at least looked at their idea.

Predevelopment would have started well before Humankind was announced. If we want to point to Amplitude's influence on Firaxis, I'd point to Influence instead, which has been a thing in all of Amplitude's games going back to the original Endless Space. City sprawl, too, is reminiscent of Endless Legend. I think changing civs is just an interesting and unfortunate coincidence.

 

[crocivfanatic]

Strongly dislike simply beacuse it goes against the key message of series which is "will you stand test of time" . If civ automaticly changes then it obviusly civ did not stand that test lol. Tho, i like the idea of having different historical version of same civ as people commented, but based on preview that not gonna happen. This would be fine as mod / additional settings but as mainline no good.

 

[mackintosh]

Changing civs through an evolution is an interesting idea, and if handled gracefully would be a very succesful mechanic. Alas, it should be organic and natural. Not done through some forced crisis event confined to an arbitrary age and with the result being a completely different civ only seemingly tangentially related to your chosen culture. It would require a massive number of preceding civilizations to account for many different permutations (e.g. there is a myriad of alternate history ways of arriving at present day Germany or Italy or even the United States - Paradox does this quite well in their games). Based on what I've seen and read, there is no way any of that is going to happen in Civ 7. Maybe 8 or 9. Sadly, with current development times I could be dead by then.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Strongly dislike simply beacuse it goes against the key message of series which is "will you stand test of time" . If civ automaticly changes then it obviusly civ did not stand that test lol.

Well, there's lines of continuity since you keep "Legacies" from Civ to Civ. So it's a broader sense of influencing the world over time than just political continuity in an empire.

 

[GeneralZift]

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 bonuses

I imagine if you toggle off, that's like a game setup thing, so nobody can switch. In that case you would choose your Civ at the start from any of the Civs in all 3 ages, but then the problem with the power spikes becomes super-pronounced as the game was designed only for Era play

 

[Siptah]

I imagine if you toggle off, that's like a game setup thing, so nobody can switch. In that case you would choose your Civ at the start from any of the Civs in all 3 ages, but then the problem with the power spikes becomes super-pronounced as the game was designed only for Era play

I don't see how toggling off could be a thing, honestly. It would either require you to have bland game during 2/3 of it (it seems that civs have much more impact compared to previous games) or it would require Firaxis to go full fantasy mode an develop unique civics, buildings, and units for Age 1 Americans, Canadians and Buganda.

 

[GeneralZift]

I don't see how toggling off could be a thing, honestly. It would either require you to have bland game during 2/3 of it or it would require Firaxis to go full fantasy mode an develop unique civics, buildings, and units for Age 1 Americans, Canadians and Buganda.

They won't, but I'm saying if they did that's how it would go I assume.

For a future Civ game I unironically would prefer fantasy... Like what happens if the Romans reach the future, how would their view on Civilisation reflect with modern technology?

Alternatively, how would Americans have treated the Antiquity era? Does their expansive philosophy reflect well on the past?

At this point, all-in sounds more fun than halfway

 

[Siptah]

They won't, but I'm saying if they did that's how it would go I assume.

For a future Civ game I unironically would prefer fantasy... Like what happens if the Romans reach the future, how would their view on Civilisation reflect with modern technology?

Alternatively, how would Americans have treated the Antiquity era? Does their expansive philosophy reflect well on the past?

At this point, all-in sounds more fun than halfway

I think at this point, it would be more fun to go the millennia way: choose a name and build the civ to your liking each game throughout the ages.

 

[Somebody613]

I think at this point, it would be more fun to go the millennia way: choose a name and build the civ to your liking each game throughout the ages.

*Caveman2Cosmos entered the chat*

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

*Caveman2Cosmos entered the chat*

I've a feeling it's been in the chat ever since you logged in this thread

(obligatory non-agression signalling )

 

[Somebody613]

I've a feeling it's been in the chat ever since you logged in this thread

(obligatory non-agression signalling )

And I totally don't see "why not".
C2C has a ton of good ideas actually implemented, whereas Civ7 has some of those ideas merely half-baked.
So when I see people complaining about the half-baked Civ7 stuff *while* openly dismissing the very idea that a mod could do it better, well...

 

[rocksinmypath]

One thing I don't like about this system, or specifically, how they seemed to have implemented it, is the way you can unlock next-era civs. If they're going to make the challenge of unlocking Mongolia as trivial as just having 3 horse tiles, they might as well just make all civs available and let the player figure out what happens if they choose to play as Mongolia without horses. For single-player, this should be no problem since age transition happens simultaneously for everyone, and the player can always be given the first draw. The game can try to guide the player's decision without forcing it, with something like Civ 6's advisor showing recommended choices and reasons for said recommendations. Another alternative is to make the requirements for unlocking next-era civs more sophisticated so that it actually feels like an accomplishment when you meet those requirements.

 

[Zaarin]

unlocking Mongolia as trivial as just having 3 horse tiles

At this point, we don't actually know how trivial that is.

 

[pokiehl]

C2C has a ton of good ideas actually implemented, whereas Civ7 has some of those ideas merely half-baked.

The game isn't even out and all previews are from the first part of the game. It's far too early to dismiss it as "half-baked."

 

[Somebody613]

The game isn't even out and all previews are from the first part of the game. It's far too early to dismiss it as "half-baked."

Unless they change the whole "Egypt-to-Mongolia" shtick drastically, I strictly disagree.

 

[pokiehl]

Unless they change the whole "Egypt-to-Mongolia" shtick drastically, I strictly disagree.

Well I would wager that they are not going to. That's a core, fundamental design choice which literally the entire game revolves around.

Your dislike of that mechanic doesn't make the idea half-baked. It just means the game probably isn't for you if you can't get past it.