Should people be allowed to keep their civ?

[Arent11]

In my mind, I have always played as the civ, while the leaders are the faces of the civs I play against, if that makes sense?

My connection to the leader I'm playing as has always been much looser, more abstract (even with leader abilities, which were often more mechanically interesting to me than how I role played).

I always want to play a warrior civ ++morale or a science civ ++science. The main point is imagining that you have elite troops or clever scholars.

The leader image only plays a role in multiplayer since then *other* players see him. I never see him anyways.

The architecture & unit design plays a role since that's what I see.

 

[James_Champagne]

I think my problem with this is that, if I understand things correctly, this would mean civs will be tied down to very specific ages. Like Mongolia for example would only be available as an "Age of Exploration" civ but never as an "Age of Antiquity" civ, right? So does this then mean that every game it would always be the same certain civs to start off the Age of Antiquity? Because I think that would get very boring and repetitious very fast.

Of course, there's also the annoyance of the lack of continuity (which I think is the big appeal of these games in the first place). Even if there's an option where you don't switch, I would still be annoyed if all of the AI civs switch, because that also kills continuity, I feel.

 

[Arent11]

I think my problem with this is that, if I understand things correctly, this would mean civs will be tied down to very specific ages. Like Mongolia for example would only be available as an "Age of Exploration" civ but never as an "Age of Antiquity" civ, right? So does this then mean that every game it would always be the same certain civs to start off the Age of Antiquity? Because I think that would get very boring and repetitious very fast.

Of course, there's also the annoyance of the lack of continuity (which I think is the big appeal of these games in the first place). Even if there's an option where you don't switch, I would still be annoyed if all of the AI civs switch, because that also kills continuity, I feel.

If they have something like Ancient Rome -> Renaissance Italy -> Modern Italy it might work.

But I think they don't, they really want you to go Ancient Rome -> Aztecs -> Modern China.

 

[Krikkit1]

If they have something like Ancient Rome -> Renaissance Italy -> Modern Italy it might work.

But I think they don't, they really want you to go Ancient Rome -> Aztecs -> Modern China.

No Rome would have some civs it is Linked to because it is Rome ?Byzantium? ?Normans? ?Franks? ?Spain? and other civs it gets linked to because of Gameplay (if you chose Montezuma as your leader and Rome as your antiquity civ, then You could go Rome->Aztecs, or if Rome has a vast number of Horses you could go Rome->Mongol)... However all options are not open for you. (I'm pretty sure Rome->Aztec->China would be nearly impossible, since you can only have 1 Leader and I don't see China or the Aztecs as ones that are going to unlock with gameplay features)

 

[Siptah]

No Rome would have some civs it is Linked to because it is Rome ?Byzantium? ?Normans? ?Franks? ?Spain? and other civs it gets linked to because of Gameplay (if you chose Montezuma as your leader and Rome as your antiquity civ, then You could go Rome->Aztecs, or if Rome has a vast number of Horses you could go Rome->Mongol)... However all options are not open for you. (I'm pretty sure Rome->Aztec->China would be nearly impossible, since you can only have 1 Leader and I don't see China or the Aztecs as ones that are going to unlock with gameplay features)

Don‘t you think that all civs will be possible to unlock in-game? Would be a shame!

 

[seasnake]

Modders may be able to fill the breach by designing exploration and modern versions of antiquity civs, and make so you have to have the right civilization to have it as an option. These later era civs will have new bonuses and units/infrastructure choices.

 

[Arent11]

No Rome would have some civs it is Linked to because it is Rome ?Byzantium? ?Normans? ?Franks? ?Spain? and other civs it gets linked to because of Gameplay (if you chose Montezuma as your leader and Rome as your antiquity civ, then You could go Rome->Aztecs, or if Rome has a vast number of Horses you could go Rome->Mongol)... However all options are not open for you. (I'm pretty sure Rome->Aztec->China would be nearly impossible, since you can only have 1 Leader and I don't see China or the Aztecs as ones that are going to unlock with gameplay features)

Well, but Rome with Montezuma -> Aztecs or Rome with horses -> Mongols doesn't really make me happy either.

So you're saying there'll be a "standard" route that is halfway sane. Probably Rome -> England -> USA

 

[kaspergm]

Modders may be able to fill the breach by designing exploration and modern versions of antiquity civs, and make so you have to have the right civilization to have it as an option. These later era civs will have new bonuses and units/infrastructure choices.

I'm putting some hope on this as well, if we don't like the switching system, hopefully it can be modded to be less radical.