Should people be allowed to keep their civ?

[Arent11]

Poll: Should people be allowed to keep their civ?

Alternative suggestions: Just write a comment.

 

[Bridog7]

They should be allowed but at the same time, if its not integral part of the game and instead optional in settings, then it is pretty pointless to even bring it in the game as a new core feature. For it to work they have to and hopefully the idea of civ switching goes well

 

[DWilson]

My thoughts from another thread:

I think they've ended up too strict with it, in an attempt to make it more balance-able at the expense of what many love about the game.

If instead it was designed such that some cultures have the option of transitioning from one civ into another, I think it would be very popular. For example, being able to transition from Rome into successors (perhaps with trigger criteria). But not allowing someone to start and stay as the civ *of their choice* is a fundamental shifting of the game concept.

This is part of what makes it feels so good in many other games that it is more appropriate for

 

[stealth_nsk]

The game could be designed either with Civ switching or without it, it doesn't make sense as an option. One of the core ideas of this civ switching is for player to have some bonuses for each era. If you keep your civ (i.e. Rome) within current design, you'll not have any bonuses for second age.

 

[Siptah]

The game could be designed either with Civ switching or without it, it doesn't make sense as an option. One of the core ideas of this civ switching is for player to have some bonuses for each era. If you keep your civ (i.e. Rome) within current design, you'll not have any bonuses for second age.

Exactly. Your buildings are useless, no new unique civics, buildings or units to compete with the contemporaries. If it was optional, FXS would have to design each civ for each age to make up for that.

 

[guilarroyd]

I don't think people would complain if there were enough CIVs to make the change meaningful, such as ancient Egypt to mamluk Egypt, Rome to Byzantium, etc. Instead of asking Firaxis to change that, I think we should ask them to include CIVs that feel the change experience to be more consistent.

 

[CivLuvah]

My thoughts from another thread:

I think they've ended up too strict with it, in an attempt to make it more balance-able at the expense of what many love about the game.

If instead it was designed such that some cultures have the option of transitioning from one civ into another, I think it would be very popular. For example, being able to transition from Rome into successors (perhaps with trigger criteria). But not allowing someone to start and stay as the civ *of their choice* is a fundamental shifting of the game concept.

This is part of what makes it feels so good in many other games that it is more appropriate for

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it mentioned in the showcase that this is an option for the player? Am I missing something?

 

[guilarroyd]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it mentioned in the showcase that this is an option for the player? Am I missing something?

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

 

[ehecatzin]

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

 

[Arent11]

The game could be designed either with Civ switching or without it, it doesn't make sense as an option. One of the core ideas of this civ switching is for player to have some bonuses for each era. If you keep your civ (i.e. Rome) within current design, you'll not have any bonuses for second age.

Interesting challenge Your terms are acceptable.

Alternatively, just give me +100% and +200% score or similar if I keep the civ.

 

[Arent11]

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

The core idea of civ 1 was to "build a civ that stands the test of time". It was always about surviving wars and crises.

Succumbing to these wars and crises was loss of the game because you failed to build a civ that stands the test of time.

If Rome manages to repel the barbarians it should just survive. After all, that's what would happen historically

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.

 

[Gedemon]

Poll: Should people be allowed to keep their civ?

Alternative suggestions: Just write a comment.

People should be allowed to keep their initial civ name (and flag) when evolving, but evolving is the core gameplay in this version, can't be an option now.

I've always loved the R&F mod concept, I like seeing Firaxis trying something similar yet different.

 

[Kaan Boztepe]

i like the idea of evolving due to actions taken or terrain forcing you to go one way in research or war etc. but why not just change the civs starting bonuses ? why change the whole civ ? i get the whole roman - england - americans arc but i also want the classic start as china stay as china throughout possibility. surely they can add that option to the selection screen?

 

[Thormodr]

Need another option.

Player plus AI keep their Civs and do not switch.

 

[Arent11]

i like the idea of evolving due to actions taken or terrain forcing you to go one way in research or war etc. but why not just change the civs starting bonuses ? why change the whole civ ? i get the whole roman - england - americans arc but i also want the classic start as china stay as china throughout possibility. surely they can add that option to the selection screen?

Well, civ traits evolving similar to RPG character development is basically standard in Beyond Earth/other civ like games. But of course people don't like to switch their adored main character

So China gets to stay China & the others have to switch? That's unfair!!!11

 

[Lord Yanaek]

People should be allowed to keep their initial civ name (and flag) when evolving, but evolving is the core gameplay in this version, can't be an option now.

Exactly! It would be entirely possible to keep the mechanical parts of civ-switching and the "flavour" of the series (standing the test of time) simply by allowing players to keep their civilization name when entering a new era and choosing new abilities.

Make our civilization evolve : yes.
Force us to abandon our civilization : no!

 

[Linklite]

One of my core philosophies for games is that it should maximise player agency. That's not to say that rules aren't important - they are, and in fact good rules increase agency rather than reduce them - but any decision that restricts choice for the sake of reducing choice is bad. Yeah, I think you should be able keep your civ.

The claims that it would be incompatible with the possibility that you could change civs are distinctly lacking in imagination. You take a civ, say, Sumeria, then you create them for their "home era". You then look at the ages it doesn't have a real world counterpart for (for the Sumeria example, that could be the modern age), and you create the civ, with bonuses that are logical for it, for that age. So when you're Sumeria in the first age about to go into the second, you get the current choices...plus Sumeria.

It really wouldn't be hard.

 

[Arent11]

Exactly! It would be entirely possible to keep the mechanical parts of civ-switching and the "flavour" of the series (standing the test of time) simply by allowing players to keep their civilization name when entering a new era and choosing new abilities.

Make our civilization evolve : yes.
Force us to abandon our civilization : no!

Well, ok, I could live with that.

Evolving a civ like a RPG character is fine.

 

[MasterPaw]

As an option or mod, why not.
But in classic run, no, it's going against something core of this game

 

[Arent11]

“In Civilization VII, your strategic decisions shape the unique cultural lineage of your evolving empire. Rule as one of many legendary leaders from throughout history and steer the course of your story by choosing a new civilization to represent your empire in each Age of human advancement.”

Actually, this sounds exactly like the middle ages, where a noble house expands its empire by conquest & marriage

And you don't run a civilization anymore, but an "empire".

And your imperial family "chooses" various cultures advantageous to its rule.