Should people be allowed to keep their civ?

[Nikolai II]

This is the game's design. Everything is likely molded and balanced around it. It should be mandatory.

 

[Gambito]

I've been thinking that, at a certain point it makes sense that your Civ evolves into another depending of many factors. Let's say for example if you don't do well through the Crisis (not sure how that still works). But I would say that if you haven't met certain objectives by the end of an era, then your Civilization is absorbed by other culture or something of the sort. In any case they need a good narrative to justify that. But if your civilization is thriving, if you're leading in score towards a victory type, then it makes sense to remain the same and have that option. I think that could work somehow

 

[Krajzen]

Civ switching should really, really be game setting. I really hope Firaxis isn't so in love with their vision that they are going to ignore very big part of the playerbase finding the idea completely or mostly unappealing, and not acommodate people willing to experience the game in the basic age old way that caused millions to fall in love with the series.

I really don't think civ switching is going to be so tied to the game mechanics it cannot be replaced with just usual set of unchanging civs going through three ages. It should involve what, modifying crisises a little bit?

If you make two game modes you acommodate 100% of the potential playerbase. Making the latter requires comparably very little effort. If you are stubborn with only switch game mode, you seemingly lose like 25-50% of the playerbase and therefore money. There is no reason not to do that, unless you are blindly in love with your Vision and want to enforce it on your customers no matter their protests.

"Hurr the game should have unified set of rules"
You mean, the game series which always acommodated a to of customization options, scenarios, and most remarkably ALTERNATE GAME MODES of NFP? That game series should have very narrow set of rules?

 

[Krikkit1]

I see a few ways it could work well for mandatory switching
1. multiple alternates that are historically very close (Rome-Byzantium) (England-Britain) (Qin-Song-China)
2. Modes (as mentioned)
3. switching isnt “Mandatory” but you lose bonuses…sort of like an extra difficulty If you want Rome/Egypt to launch a spaceship fine…but it will be harder than launching it as Rome>Byzantium>Turkey

 

[Arent11]

3. switching isnt “Mandatory” but you lose bonuses…sort of like an extra difficulty If you want Rome/Egypt to launch a spaceship fine…but it will be harder than launching it as Rome>Byzantium>Turkey

Give me a score bonus or an achievement if I stick with the civ

That would be "hard mode", but getting Rome into space would be cool.

Ok, call the achievement "Rome in Space"

 

[Arent11]

If you make two game modes you acommodate 100% of the potential playerbase. Making the latter requires comparably very little effort. If you are stubborn with only switch game mode, you seemingly lose like 25-50% of the playerbase and therefore money. There is no reason not to do that, unless you are blindly in love with your Vision and want to enforce it on your customers no matter their protests.

Actually, it could really be fun allowing people to keep their civ. There are several possibilities that were already suggested:

(1) Let people switch traits but keep name & flavor of the civ.
(2) Give them score bonuses, achievements if they keep their civ without additional trait bonuses, call it "hard mode".
(3) Create late game equivalents, Rome Antiquity, Rome Exploration, Rome Modern.
(4) Just make a game mode without civ switching.

I would be fine with all of these alternatives.

 

[durfal]

Yes as a challenge.

I was about to go on about how cool would it be to stick with your current civ and have special events related to it, however you would have to do that for 2/3 of all civs in game, maybe later they'll add a special civic tree for "dark ages" and "golden ages" depending on how well you did on the crisis, really sounds like something that could be expanded later on.

Personally I think that with time the spots will be filled and we'll be able to go super historical most of the time, with small deviations depending on strategy if we want. to use the usual suspect example, with enough development we might get stuff like: Rome-Byzantium-Italy, or Gaul-Franks-France

Sorry but I realy dislike it when people put the Franks as the forefathers of France.
They were a group of Germanic (which doesn't mean German) tribes living in occupied Roman border areas in the Lowlands who formed two closely related groups of Frank groups (the Salian and Rupuarian) and they later were brought together under 1 ruler. (the Salian focussed on the Gallic lands and the Rupuarian Franks focussed more on the lands deeper into Germany and founded the city of Frankfurt there)
Yes they gave its name to France but they were the conquerors of the Gallic former province of the Roman Empire and then it got renamed.
They influenced the vulgar latin language enough to slowly turn it into French. But the small Frankish upperclass living in those provinces integrated into the local populace.
The Franks who still lived on in their homelands in the modern Netherlands and Belgium (Salian Franks) would transition into the Dutch and Flemish people we know today.
Old Dutch is basicly the same as Old Low Franconian for crying out loud, the language that Charlemagne spoke.
Furthermore their highest point of their civilization was from 100 AD to 800 AD so they shouldn't be put in the exploration age either. They lived together with the Romans and later conquered their lands.

 

[CivLuvah]

It is not an option, its mandatory, because each civ will exist in only one era

That's rather disappointing. Even Humankind has an option to keep your civ through the ages.

 

[Krikkit1]

Sorry but I realy dislike it when people put the Franks as the forefathers of France.
They were a group of Germanic (which doesn't mean German) tribes living in occupied Roman border areas in the Lowlands who formed two closely related groups of Frank groups (the Salian and Rupuarian) and they later were brought together under 1 ruler. (the Salian focussed on the Gallic lands and the Rupuarian Franks focussed more on the lands deeper into Germany and founded the city of Frankfurt there)
Yes they gave its name to France but they were the conquerors of the Gallic former province of the Roman Empire and then it got renamed.
They influenced the vulgar latin language enough to slowly turn it into French. But the small Frankish upperclass living in those provinces integrated into the local populace.
The Franks who still lived on in their homelands in the modern Netherlands and Belgium (Salian Franks) would transition into the Dutch and Flemish people we know today.
Old Dutch is basicly the same as Old Low Franconian for crying out loud, the language that Charlemagne spoke.
Furthermore their highest point of their civilization was from 100 AD to 800 AD so they shouldn't be put in the exploration age either. They lived together with the Romans and later conquered their lands.

I think this is what makes switching civs make sense. When two civs come into "contact" (conquest/migration), new culture/civilizations form that takes some aspects of all of the precedents

Rome->France, Celts->France, Germanics->France all make sense
(As does Rome->Byzantium/England/Spain/Venice)

Qin->Song, Manchu, or to Mongols Both make sense, Mongols->Russia or China both make sense (and additional ones with more stretching)

Basically any culture that
1. is in your original area
2. broke off of your empire
3. had a large number of your people moving into that area
All make sense for ("auto" ie historical unlocks)

I do like the idea of other gameplay based unlocks as well (Mongols get 3 horses) (hopefully all/most civs have that)

I think the likely solution is allowing near direct descendants for each of the Antiquity civs (Rome->Byzantium->?, Qin->?Song/Ming?->China, Pharonic Egypt->Fatamid Caliphate?->Egypt, Maya->Aztec->Mexico)... None of these would be exact, but there would be a way to continue in the "same spirit" even if with different bonuses.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I think it's a core mechanic and should be mandatory, it opens up a lot of opportunities.

That said, I wonder if it might help people if there was a toggle of some kind that ensured all civs in the game follow only the suggested historical route(s).

 

[MasterPaw]

I think it's a core mechanic and should be mandatory, it opens up a lot of opportunities.

That said, I wonder if it might help people if there was a toggle of some kind that ensured all civs in the game follow only the suggested historical route(s).

I mean it's default AI behaviour already

 

[DeutschDachs]

I would prefer it to not exist at all because I don't trust the AI to make some silly transitions like going from Babylonians to Brazilians.

But if it was an option at least I could still enjoy my Civ on my own terms even if all the surrounding AIs are being silly

 

[Arent11]

I would prefer it to not exist at all because I don't trust the AI to make some silly transitions like going from Babylonians to Brazilians.

But if it was an option at least I could still enjoy my Civ on my own terms even if all the surrounding AIs are being silly

Well, you would probably still have to fight against Chinese led by Montezuma or Mongols led by Cleopatra. Which is completely immersion breaking.

So, I would like a "real history" option.

 

[Siptah]

So, I would like a "real history" option.

There has never been any "real history" in the civ series though. Just lots of alt-history nonsense that we all got used to over the years and came to accept as being immersive (or not). I don't see why Montezuma leading the Chinese is worse than super dope Aztec Eagle Warriors fighting Brazilian Horsemen in Antiquity.

 

[ehecatzin]

Sorry but I realy dislike it when people put the Franks as the forefathers of France.
They were a group of Germanic (which doesn't mean German) tribes living in occupied Roman border areas in the Lowlands who formed two closely related groups of Frank groups (the Salian and Rupuarian) and they later were brought together under 1 ruler. (the Salian focussed on the Gallic lands and the Rupuarian Franks focussed more on the lands deeper into Germany and founded the city of Frankfurt there)
Yes they gave its name to France but they were the conquerors of the Gallic former province of the Roman Empire and then it got renamed.
They influenced the vulgar latin language enough to slowly turn it into French. But the small Frankish upperclass living in those provinces integrated into the local populace.
The Franks who still lived on in their homelands in the modern Netherlands and Belgium (Salian Franks) would transition into the Dutch and Flemish people we know today.
Old Dutch is basicly the same as Old Low Franconian for crying out loud, the language that Charlemagne spoke.
Furthermore their highest point of their civilization was from 100 AD to 800 AD so they shouldn't be put in the exploration age either. They lived together with the Romans and later conquered their lands.

Fair enough, I feel you for me It's Aztecs-Mexico but that's the abstraction the game is going for,Its not a razor sharp clean continuity, and I don't think they even expect it to be, at least it opens possibilities for the addition of a whole bunch of civs that wouldn't make it otherwise. Celts-HRE-France, Celts-Franks-France, Rome-Spain-Mexico, some paths will make historical sense, some would seem wacky but have merit behind them, and at the end of the day, if we got enough options it will be up to the player how and why it makes sense.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Sorry but I realy dislike it when people put the Franks as the forefathers of France.
They were a group of Germanic (which doesn't mean German) tribes living in occupied Roman border areas in the Lowlands who formed two closely related groups of Frank groups (the Salian and Rupuarian) and they later were brought together under 1 ruler. (the Salian focussed on the Gallic lands and the Rupuarian Franks focussed more on the lands deeper into Germany and founded the city of Frankfurt there)
Yes they gave its name to France but they were the conquerors of the Gallic former province of the Roman Empire and then it got renamed.
They influenced the vulgar latin language enough to slowly turn it into French. But the small Frankish upperclass living in those provinces integrated into the local populace.
The Franks who still lived on in their homelands in the modern Netherlands and Belgium (Salian Franks) would transition into the Dutch and Flemish people we know today.
Old Dutch is basicly the same as Old Low Franconian for crying out loud, the language that Charlemagne spoke.

I mean from what you describe France would still be a possibility. I would think that Franks would branch into either France or Germany. Not sure about Dutch because of the whole 3 ages thing, as Dutch would also be Exploration.

Furthermore their highest point of their civilization was from 100 AD to 800 AD so they shouldn't be put in the exploration age either. They lived together with the Romans and later conquered their lands.

Exploration Age in this game covers the Medieval so I presume they would go there. At least I would assume that Franks would be synonymous with the Carolingian Empire under Charlemagne.

 

[crytec]

I don't know why there is any discussion, since "keep the civ" is already implemented, see screenshot below.
You can choose as who you want to continue to play already, here as Egypt.

 

[Gorbles]

Having crises that don't arise organically but are apparently forced at certain stages of the game and even if you *manage* to survive somehow force you to abandon your *successful* civ you adore and love seems weird.

Every time there's a new game in a(ny) franchise I'm reminded of how much I dislike the word "organic".

You're using it as "in a way that makes sense to me personally". You're not contrasting what you do and don't consider organic and why. You're working backwards from something you've already decided you don't like.

And there's nothing wrong with not liking it! But this doesn't mean what we've seen of the game makes these crises "inorganic". They're a game mechanic. In some semantic respect, all game mechanics are "inorganic". It doesn't make sense as a criticism because we're discussing real-world history translated into intentional mechanics devised by games developers.

Why would you describe these crises as inorganic, and why does this make them bad vs. anything else in the franchise that fits a similar bill?

 

[SeelingCat]

I don't know why there is any discussion, since "keep the civ" is already implemented, see screenshot below.
You can choose as who you want to continue to play already, here as Egypt.

It's believed that those checkboxes are the various things that allow you to choose Songhai, not that they are options themselves. i.e. you can pick Songhai if you are playing as Aksum, Egypt or Amina.

 

[durfal]

I don't know why there is any discussion, since "keep the civ" is already implemented, see screenshot below.
You can choose as who you want to continue to play already, here as Egypt.
View attachment 700427

It's the exact opposite. You must have played Egypt or Aksum or had Amina as your leader in the Ancient age to play Songhai.