Preservations of Name in Civ switching (w Poll)

[Krikkit1]

A lot of people don't like certain aspects of the civ switching. (Unrealistic, Rome cannot into space, Real world culture getting erased in the game, etc.)

One thing is, a couple of those could probably be dealt with by allowing the Human player to preserve things like names and gaphics, and to have even the AI preserve some aspects of previous civs

So proposal
1. Custom Naming
Human Players can give their Civ & Leader a custom name on the Start of a new Age/Start of game*
Human Players can always give their cities a custom name*

2. Default stored Identity (what the AI uses)
The Default name of an Empire: Primary Civ Default Name (next most recent Civ Default name, Age before that civ default name)
eg Buganda (Songhai, Egypt)
When the Banner/Flag of an Empire would display the Primary Civ Banner in a large form, the banners of the other Civs of the empire are displayed next to it in a small form
eg Buganda flag is dominant, but often small Egypt/Songhai flags are next to it
City Graphics: The graphics of some the non-gameplay buildings will be from previous civs in the empires history ~1/4 from each of the non current civs.
eg the Bugandan city 'houses' will have ~1/2 Modern Bugandan Architecture, 1/4 Exploration Songhai Architecture, 1/4 Antiquity Egyptian architecture

3. "Primary Identity" choice
Each Civ Change the Human Player is prompted to choose whether to change or keep the "Primary Identity/Name" of the empire... so if Egypt chooses songhai
The player can go
Egypt->Songhai(Egypt) with Songhai flag dominant and Songhai city name list[what the AI will do]
OR
Egypt->Egypt (Songhai) with Egypt flag dominant and Egypt city name list (a way for a player to say I'm Egypt, but the culture is different than it was a few centuries ago... new Uniques, but Egypt can into space)

Then the Egypt(Songhai) player can go to Egypt (Buganda, Songhai) or Buganda (Songhai, Egypt)
and the Songhai(Egypt) player can go to Songhai (Buganda, Egypt) or Buganda (Songhai, Egypt)


*May be disabled in MP public games

This way no civ really disappears and (if its a Human player civ) may just enter a new chapter
(and If you want to play America in 4000 BC you can customize your name, until you get to Modern)

Thoughts, ways you would do it differently?

...........................................................................Edited after further thought
OK... new Idea.

When the Civ switches, you get a Narrative Choice

"What do you want you Civ & City Names to be?"
-New Option (you will use the new city name list and trigger more narrative events)
-Keep Option (you will keep using the old city name list and get a +1 happiness/City bonus towards your next celebration)
Whichever you select, it brings up a place where you can change the Civ name..default in that spot is based on what you chose
[Here is where you can then type a change to your civ name]

NEXT... if you chose the New Option, for every City on era change you get a narrative event
-Keep City name (+1 happiness to the next celebration)
-Change City name (+2?3 culture towards one of your Unique Civics)

FINALLY... any time you make a Town (whether founded or Conquered) into a City, it has the option of changing its name from your list
-Keep Name (+1 happiness to the next Celebration)
-Change Name (+2?3 culture towards one of your Unique Civics.. or the current Civic you are working on if all Unique Civics are fully researched)

Then get the ability for the player to edit the city names if they really want (at least on founding)

 

[AriochIV]

I don't have a problem with it, but I don't think it would affect the gameplay at all.

What's important from the player's point of view is what the other empires are called, and that will most likely be based on just the leader's name or else the starting civilization. Having the name change every era would be as confusing as having the leader change every era, so I don't see them doing that.

It would be nice if they let the player choose the empire name and color scheme. Would that save civ switching if it's implemented poorly? Of course not. What matters is how it plays, not what things are called.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

You’re poll needs options for those of us who generally like Civ switching.

I’m personally not too worried about the civs’ names.

However, there are two options I really want to see implemented:

1) Toggles in the game set up to disable civ unlocking (eg Mongolia through horses), and to require all AI players to chose their historical path Civ.

2) The ability to pre-pick during set up which civs each opponent will progress to

 

[moysturfurmer]

Lmao, these poll options. How have you covered every possible granular permutation of “I don’t like it but” and not throw a bone to people who aren’t pressed about the new mechanics?

 

[Krikkit1]

Lmao, these poll options. How have you covered every possible granular permutation of “I don’t like it but” and not throw a bone to people who aren’t pressed about the new mechanics?

That’s the (or like) part

Also, as is, I am pretty sure the name of the empire/civ does change even though the leader doesn’t.

 

[Zaarin]

require all AI players to chose their historical path Civ.

We've already been told this is the case, as it should be. I wouldn't be surprised if a toggle is added (perhaps after release) to disable this for people who want wacky things to happen.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

I see here a problem I also saw in Humankind (which bothered me a lot). I don't know how it will look like in Civ VII (I haven't seen the long dev gameplay, I kinda lost much attention after learning of the mandatory civ switching), but I basically see two options - and both are bad.

1. City names stay the same when you switch a civ.

It's bad because of two things - first, it lacks immersion and looks strange when you are (or when you see on the map) modern "American Empire" with Rome as their old capital. Since you can't start as French - you won't have Paris as your capital. Same goes for any Age of Exploration or Modern Age civs. It will probably lead to the same dumb situation like in Humankind, where you are Sweden in modern era, but your capital is Babylon (as it always has been), about half of your cities are Babylonian, second half are Byzantine, two cities are Polish and there is one, tiny, backwater town of Stockholm on the fringe of your empire, because you've just settled it. In Humankind you rarely see Americans or Russians with American or Russian cities, because there's often no space for them to found any city in the modern era and even if Russians found Moscow - it's the latest and smallst of their cities, far from your "babylonian" capital.
And second it will greatly reduce the diversity of starting capitals because all civs in the game will be limited to only Ancient Era capitals and this will be limited by the number of available ancient civs. No matter what civ you will play (or would like to play), no matter what AI players you'll set - all civs through all eras will have the same set of ancient cities as capitals and "core cities".

2. City names change when you switch a civ.

And that's bad because when I want to play as Rome or Egypt - I want to play as Rome or Egypt. I don't want for my Rome to suddenly become Paris or Memphis to become Cairo. Such option would lead to better immersion in later eras, but also erase traces of previous eras and create unnecessary confusion.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I see here a problem I also saw in Humankind (which bothered me a lot). I don't know how it will look like in Civ VII (I haven't seen the long dev gameplay, I kinda lost much attention after learning of the mandatory civ switching), but I basically see two options - and both are bad.

1. City names stay the same when you switch a civ.

It's bad because of two things - first, it lacks immersion and looks strange when you are (or when you see on the map) modern "American Empire" with Rome as their old capital. Since you can't start as French - you won't have Paris as your capital. Same goes for any Age of Exploration or Modern Age civs. It will probably lead to the same dumb situation like in Humankind, where you are Sweden in modern era, but your capital is Babylon (as it always has been), about half of your cities are Babylonian, second half are Byzantine, two cities are Polish and there is one, tiny, backwater town of Stockholm on the fringe of your empire, because you've just settled it. In Humankind you rarely see Americans or Russians with American or Russian cities, because there's often no space for them to found any city in the modern era and even if Russians found Moscow - it's the latest and smallst of their cities, far from your "babylonian" capital.
And second it will greatly reduce the diversity of starting capitals because all civs in the game will be limited to only Ancient Era capitals and this will be limited by the number of available ancient civs. No matter what civ you will play (or would like to play), no matter what AI players you'll set - all civs through all eras will have the same set of ancient cities as capitals and "core cities".

2. City names change when you switch a civ.

And that's bad because when I want to play as Rome or Egypt - I want to play as Rome or Egypt. I don't want for my Rome to suddenly become Paris or Memphis to become Cairo. Such option would lead to better immersion in later eras, but also erase traces of previous eras and create unnecessary confusion.

I don't like either of these, personally, and I'm quite up for switching in general. So I'd like the option to be able to name cities myself, in order to avoid this. I can imagine having fun trying to make French sounding versions of Roman town names, for example. Or even just having a mix from both Civs.

 

[Black Gate]

I see here a problem I also saw in Humankind (which bothered me a lot). I don't know how it will look like in Civ VII (I haven't seen the long dev gameplay, I kinda lost much attention after learning of the mandatory civ switching), but I basically see two options - and both are bad.

1. City names stay the same when you switch a civ.

It's bad because of two things - first, it lacks immersion and looks strange when you are (or when you see on the map) modern "American Empire" with Rome as their old capital. Since you can't start as French - you won't have Paris as your capital. Same goes for any Age of Exploration or Modern Age civs. It will probably lead to the same dumb situation like in Humankind, where you are Sweden in modern era, but your capital is Babylon (as it always has been), about half of your cities are Babylonian, second half are Byzantine, two cities are Polish and there is one, tiny, backwater town of Stockholm on the fringe of your empire, because you've just settled it. In Humankind you rarely see Americans or Russians with American or Russian cities, because there's often no space for them to found any city in the modern era and even if Russians found Moscow - it's the latest and smallst of their cities, far from your "babylonian" capital.
And second it will greatly reduce the diversity of starting capitals because all civs in the game will be limited to only Ancient Era capitals and this will be limited by the number of available ancient civs. No matter what civ you will play (or would like to play), no matter what AI players you'll set - all civs through all eras will have the same set of ancient cities as capitals and "core cities".

2. City names change when you switch a civ.

And that's bad because when I want to play as Rome or Egypt - I want to play as Rome or Egypt. I don't want for my Rome to suddenly become Paris or Memphis to become Cairo. Such option would lead to better immersion in later eras, but also erase traces of previous eras and create unnecessary confusion.

Good news, it's a happy medium. City names will stay the same between ages, but you have the option to change your capital (and in the process, it renames the older city to the capital of the new - Rouen for the Normans is what we've seen in the livestream) while all other cities seem to be downgraded to towns. So over time your core can migrate to match your newer bonuses. I don't think we've seen any indication of manual city renaming but it's still early and the UI is far from finished - they didn't even have a gold icon for buying buildings in towns in the stream. It would be strange to be absent from the final game.

 

[Krikkit1]

I see here a problem I also saw in Humankind (which bothered me a lot). I don't know how it will look like in Civ VII (I haven't seen the long dev gameplay, I kinda lost much attention after learning of the mandatory civ switching), but I basically see two options - and both are bad.

1. City names stay the same when you switch a civ.

It's bad because of two things - first, it lacks immersion and looks strange when you are (or when you see on the map) modern "American Empire" with Rome as their old capital. Since you can't start as French - you won't have Paris as your capital. Same goes for any Age of Exploration or Modern Age civs. It will probably lead to the same dumb situation like in Humankind, where you are Sweden in modern era, but your capital is Babylon (as it always has been), about half of your cities are Babylonian, second half are Byzantine, two cities are Polish and there is one, tiny, backwater town of Stockholm on the fringe of your empire, because you've just settled it. In Humankind you rarely see Americans or Russians with American or Russian cities, because there's often no space for them to found any city in the modern era and even if Russians found Moscow - it's the latest and smallst of their cities, far from your "babylonian" capital.
And second it will greatly reduce the diversity of starting capitals because all civs in the game will be limited to only Ancient Era capitals and this will be limited by the number of available ancient civs. No matter what civ you will play (or would like to play), no matter what AI players you'll set - all civs through all eras will have the same set of ancient cities as capitals and "core cities".

2. City names change when you switch a civ.

And that's bad because when I want to play as Rome or Egypt - I want to play as Rome or Egypt. I don't want for my Rome to suddenly become Paris or Memphis to become Cairo. Such option would lead to better immersion in later eras, but also erase traces of previous eras and create unnecessary confusion.

In the Dev gameplay, when they moved their capital, the new capital changed its name to the Norman Capital name.

I see sort of a continuum that players could choose from

1. No names change… you are still the Romans, you keep the Roman city name list, and if you move your Capital location the name of the city doesn’t change

2. Civ names change..You are the Normans, you start using the Norman city Name list, and if you move your capital it is the Norman Capital name.

3. complete rename…all of your settlements change their name to the new civ’s list


2 should be the default for AI…because of the settlement limits, there should still be some Age3 city names

3 I can see being done as a narrative choice city by city …that might be good for conquered settlements too…if you have a conquered town (or any town) and make it into a city you can change the name to your new way.


OK... new Idea.

When the Civ switches, you get a Narrative Choice

"What do you want you Civ & City Names to be?"
-New Option (you will use the new city name list and trigger more narrative events)
-Keep Option (you will keep using the old city name list and get a +1 happiness/City bonus towards your next celebration)
Whichever you select, it brings up a place where you can change the Civ name..default in that spot is based on what you chose
[Here is where you can then type a change to your civ name]

NEXT... if you chose the New Option, for every City on era change you get a narrative event
-Keep City name (+1 happiness to the next celebration)
-Change City name (+2?3 culture towards one of your Unique Civics)

FINALLY... any time you make a Town (whether founded or Conquered) into a City, it has the option of changing its name from your list
-Keep Name (+1 happiness to the next Celebration)
-Change Name (+2?3 culture towards one of your Unique Civics.. or the current Civic you are working on if all Unique Civics are fully researched)

Then get the ability for the player to edit the city names if they really want (at least on founding)

 

[brainwashh]

What a biased poll lol. Leading questions to reinforce your personal opinion.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You left out the only option I would have voted for:

"I like Civ Switching, I think it will be interesting, but no game mechanic or game design will really satisfy me unless it allows me to rename any of my cities at any time any way I choose."

I didn't compile 17 different City Lists for various Civilizations/Cultures for nothing!

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

You left out the only option I would have voted for:

"I like Civ Switching, I think it will be interesting, but no game mechanic or game design will really satisfy me unless it allows me to rename any of my cities at any time any way I choose."

I didn't compile 17 different City Lists for various Civilizations/Cultures for nothing!

You've always been able to rename your cities, right? It would be mad, a big surprise, and very disappointing if they've taken it out.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

You've always been able to rename your cities, right? It would be mad, a big surprise, and very disappointing if they've taken it out.

Unfortunately "mad, a big surprise, and very disappointing" describe too many decisions taken by game designers in the past 10 years . . .

 

[Mort_Q]

As long as I don't have to change my "color" I honestly don't care.

 

[Gori the Grey]

as it should be

I question this.

It might be good as history. And it might help the human player feel as though there is some continuity in the opponents he or she is playing against.

But

When viewed as a competitive game, presumably one of the strategies at the time of civ switching would be to pick the best civ. There will be various definitions of best, of course, and what is best may well be situational--based on terrain or whatever else. Very shortly after release, you can bet these forums will have rank orderings of which civs are best in which eras (with lively debates, of course, but some degree of consensus)

And so

If the AI civs always pick their historically appropriate follow-up, then they might be making sub-optimal game decisions, and that might make them less competitive. And the top players at least are always disappointed that the AI can't give them a better run for their money.

I'd like to see a toggle: At Crisis, AI picks historically appropriate follow-up civ / AI picks most advantageous follow-up civ.

Wacky could be a third option I suppose, and many "most advantageous" will be (historically speaking) wacky.

 

[Zaarin]

If the AI civs always pick their historically appropriate follow-up, then they might be making sub-optimal game decisions, and that might make them less competitive.

Again, as it should be. The AI shouldn't be playing as if it were playing a game. That's why Civ5 and a brief patch cycle of Civ6 where the AI hates you for winning always made me angry.

I'd like to see a toggle: At Crisis, AI picks historically appropriate follow-up civ / AI picks most advantageous follow-up civ.

Yes, a toggle would be fine.

 

[Gori the Grey]

The AI shouldn't be playing as if it were playing a game

Oh, I feel very differently. I want the AI to be designed as well as it can, and to be programmed to play to win. (In another thread recently, I acknowledged all the challenges there are to that.)

But this toggle, to which you're not opposed, would achieve what each of us favors. And not just the two of us, but two broad contingents of Civvers.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

When viewed as a competitive game, presumably one of the strategies at the time of civ switching would be to pick the best civ. There will be various definitions of best, of course, and what is best may well be situational--based on terrain or whatever else. Very shortly after release, you can bet these forums will have rank orderings of which civs are best in which eras (with lively debates, of course, but some degree of consensus)

That's going to be much harder in Civ VII because of the way they have disconnected Civs and Leaders.

Since any Starting Civ can, as far as we know, have Any Leader, it dramatically increases the number of combinations that have to be considered. Add in differences in starting map situation: terrain, Resources, opponents (and the opponents' Leaders, which may or may not be limited to purely 'historical') and in the later two Ages, what combinations have produced the Starting situation in each of those, and I suggest that picking or calculating the Best Civ in any given game will be a daunting task.

Frankly, it reminds me of numerous 'perfect plans' for board games back in the 1970s which only worked if the game had a mandated set of starting positions and were otherwise simply examples of wishful thinking.

Won't go so far as to say it is not possible with a computer that can crunch enough numbers (and a player who can program the computer to crunch them correctly), but I suggest any "Best Civ" will come with so many caveats as to be like the old Physics Joke: "It only works for spherical chickens in a vacuum."

 

[Gori the Grey]

That's going to be much harder in Civ VII because of the way they have disconnected Civs and Leaders.

Since any Starting Civ can, as far as we know, have Any Leader, it dramatically increases the number of combinations that have to be considered. Add in differences in starting map situation: terrain, Resources, opponents (and the opponents' Leaders, which may or may not be limited to purely 'historical') and in the later two Ages, what combinations have produced the Starting situation in each of those, and I suggest that picking or calculating the Best Civ in any given game will be a daunting task.

This is a good point (and should be a good aspect of the game, too, actually).

My original point still holds, I think. If AI are always choosing the historical path, there's little to make one believe that would always be the game-optimal path.

In MP games, are players going to be using the historical paths? Or are they going to use whatever civ they judge (however they judge it) will give them the best advantage in the next era?

On further reflection: As the "best" conversations emerge, they will start with leaders (since those carry through the game). Some will be found generally better than others. Then after that, people will work out good pairings of leader and civ. If either leader or civ advantages are heavily dependent on terrain, then that will 1) complicate things further and 2) make the matter situational. But if not, then consensus will eventually emerge--even without supercomputers working on it--as to which leader-n-civ combos are better and which worse, generally speaking.