Should people be allowed to keep their civ?

[crytec]

Ooh okay..
Checkboxes seem to be a strange design choice then in my opinion .
I thought that would be checkboxes to adapt the bonuses of the chosen civ, but keep playing as the original civ.

 

[Arent11]

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.

Wait, wait, wait. The civs, great people, leaders etc. of the early civ games were halfway historically correct. As a child, I learned a lot of history from... Civilization

With that kind of argument we can just add Zombies, Vampires & Dragons and turn civ into a fantasy game.

Oh, wait

 

[Arent11]

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?

Fair enough, let's avoid "organic" and just say that wars started by AI or myself or me building too many buildings/units and therefore going bankrupt are "crises" arising from the basic game mechanics. They are not pre planned and in every game might occur at a different time. Whether I win or lose the war makes a difference in winning or losing the game.

Right now we apparently get "crises" that automatically come up at the end of age 1 and 2, no matter what you do. These crises force you to select disadvantages, for example having your units being worse against barbarians, having more unit upkeep etc.

Basically, the crisis is a result of... scientific/technological development?

If you fail to survive the crisis - just like Rome in the real world - you lose the game. Fair enough. You didn't manage to build a "civ that stands the test of time", so you should lose.

If you power through these crises, your successful civ does *not* survive - as Rome would have if they had repelled the barbarians - but somehow still needs to change to another civ.

It would make sense to change civ if you *lose* to the crisis.

 

[Krikkit1]

Fair enough, let's avoid "organic" and just say that wars started by AI or myself or me building too many buildings/units and therefore going bankrupt are "crises" arising from the basic game mechanics. They are not pre planned and in every game might occur at a different time. Whether I win or lose the war makes a difference in winning or losing the game.

Right now we apparently get "crises" that automatically come up at the end of age 1 and 2, no matter what you do. These crises force you to select disadvantages, for example having your units being worse against barbarians, having more unit upkeep etc.

Basically, the crisis is a result of... scientific/technological development?

If you fail to survive the crisis - just like Rome in the real world - you lose the game. Fair enough. You didn't manage to build a "civ that stands the test of time", so you should lose.

If you power through these crises, your successful civ does *not* survive - as Rome would have if they had repelled the barbarians - but somehow still needs to change to another civ.

It would make sense to change civ if you *lose* to the crisis.

I think the idea is surviving the crisis changes your identity..... is England the same thing Before and After the Civil War+Glorious Revolution, France the same before and after the Waves of French Revolution?... They keep the same name, but those Crises changed some significant things about them. As did Plagues, Invasions, (successful or not) (and whether you were the Aggressor or Defender), as well as social/technological/religious changes that upended the social order.

 

[DWilson]

They didn't change from France or Britain to Russia (akin to going from Egypt to Songhai), though, they just became a different France and Britain, with a continued, if evolved, self image and history

 

[Krikkit1]

They didn't change from France or Britain to Russia (akin to going from Egypt to Songhai), though, they just became a different France and Britain, with a continued identical self image

And Rome kept the same self image after 500 AD but everyone else called it Byzantium and it was a different culture with different "bonuses". You could even say "England" changed to "the UK" in the Crisis. (if you extend its timelines a little bit)

The names of a Civ are going to change over thousands of years. Cultures and associated "bonuses" will change even if they keep the same name.

 

[Gorbles]

If you power through these crises, your successful civ does *not* survive - as Rome would have if they had repelled the barbarians - but somehow still needs to change to another civ.

It would make sense to change civ if you *lose* to the crisis.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems to be the core issue.

(and possibly that crisis timing is too fixed, but my view on this ties that together with the rest of what I have to say)

These eras, or ages, or whatever they're called (sorry I'm reading everything as it comes from my phone during my holiday, so I'm not as great at cross-referencing as usual), seem to represent one whole gameplay loop. I think this has been discussed already? Like you can play Antiquity and call it quits. Right?

The next era-or-age is its own thing. It's not directly contiguous. So it's not "you repelled the barbarians and continued as Rome". It's "you repelled the barbarians during a period of time marked by general unrest, therefore ensuring your survival". The manner of that survival isn't specified.

Now, I understand a lot of the reasons around people not liking this. For me personally, it seems very historical. Historians are always debating key points and events in time that mark or otherwise delineate the rise and fall of countries, empires, powers, dynasties and whatnot. The constant interrogation of causality is what got me into history in the first place!

A lot of things in history are cyclic. We have evidence of tons of patterns repeating as empires rise and fall. One constant is that there doesn't seem to be any such thing as a perfect victory. The kind you (seem to) want to see. And I get that previously in Civ that was always possible. I guess it depends on how much leeway any of us give a franchise to evolve.

My opinion is that sometimes bold changes are needed. "we've done this the same way forever" is always true, until it isn't.

They didn't change from France or Britain to Russia (akin to going from Egypt to Songhai), though, they just became a different France and Britain, with a continued identical self image

I'm sorry but as a Brit (maybe you're one too?) I find this very, very funny.

We changed when the Romans came over. We changed during the Saxon raids. We changed after 1066. We changed when we started colonising other ("unknown") territories. We changed after the English Civil War (despite inviting the monarchy back a bit later on). Our "self image" in no way stayed the same.

I get that "Egypt to Songhai" is the specific comparison that's getting a lot of use at the moment, but there's a difference between "I object to specific advancements" and "the system doesn't work".

 

[smithx2]

I believe the Firaxis team got this Civ-switching/ leaders exactly backwards.

As a player I would want to keep the Civ I selected to play with. When as a crisis or age happen change the Leader not the Civ. The player should always have the option to play the Civ they selected.

I'll use Egypt as an example:

Antiquity age playing Egypt. At war with Greece/Macedonia crisis point Alexander captures the Egyptian capitol.
option 1 " Egypt surrenders" continue to play as the Greek player with Egypt as Greek Province
option 2 "Eternal Egypt" continue to play as Egypt but Greek leaders from the pool of Greek Leaders that ruled Egypt.
option 3 "Ra's wrath" continue to play as Egypt and fight the Greeks.

 

[smithx2]

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

So there four options to select?

I am sure the picture in this screen capture is place holder art, but the style is straight from Humankind.

 

[durfal]

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.

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.

Having the (Salian) Franks and the Netherlands/Dutch in the same age would be even more anachronistic as they are litteraly the same people. The Ripuarian Franks went more into Germany, where they also assimilated in a different way.
The Franks had and kept their homeland (Low Countries) and then they conquered a bigger piece of land (modern France) but the few living in in those lands basicly died out or assimilated with the locals when their empire collapsed.
They never disappeared in their homeland, but only later split into different duchies and bishoprics, became part of the HRE and later arose as the United Provinces in their war against Spain and became known in English as the Dutch.
Even though then we called ourselves differently as a people like 'Diets' (from old germanic meaning the people) or the 'Nederlanders' (in English the Low Landers) and only the latter did stick.
And yes they also used the names of the Duchies like the Brabanders, Hollanders, Vlamingen, Zeelanders etc., for which the Vlamingen (Flemish) did stick later for all Dutch speakers in modern Belgium.
The word Frank still means Proud/Honest in Dutch and is still used in most Germanic languages as a name or call sign and through the later Latinized version Franciscus it is used in all Latin based languages.
Today the French and Dutch speakers live next to eachother, as did our ancestors 1700 years ago. We influenced eachother a lot and the French (Napoleon) did conquer us for a while but we didn't arose out of the ashes of eachother.
I'm afraid for a displaying of the Franks (if they are even in) like in Humankind (developed by a French company) as French chivalry and bypas the whole thing that they were a Germanic people.

And the fact that the United Provinces/Netherlands most certainly would be in the Exploration Age (If we are in game at all) worries me a bit, because that would mean we, by game definition, aren't in the Modern Era, which also makes no sence because, Hi, Hello we are still here, and still a bit OP for the small country that we are.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Having the (Salian) Franks and the Netherlands/Dutch in the same age would be even more anachronistic as they are litteraly the same people. The Ripuarian Franks went more into Germany, where they also assimilated in a different way.

I do think one more age in between Antiquity and Exploration would have alleviated that dilemma, not just for Europe but around the world.

I'm afraid for a displaying of the Franks (if they are even in) like in Humankind (developed by a French company) as French chivalry and bypas the whole thing that they were a Germanic people.

I'm in agreement that having Franks being depicted as only France was weird.

And the fact that the United Provinces/Netherlands most certainly would be in the Exploration Age (If we are in game at all) worries me a bit, because that would mean we, by game definition, aren't in the Modern Era, which also makes no sence because, Hi, Hello we are still here, and still a bit OP for the small country that we are.

That's also true too especially for Spain and eventually Portugal. Which is also funny considering England/Britain looks to be modern but will have the presumably the Normans playable in the exploration.

 

[Arent11]

Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems to be the core issue.

(and possibly that crisis timing is too fixed, but my view on this ties that together with the rest of what I have to say)

These eras, or ages, or whatever they're called (sorry I'm reading everything as it comes from my phone during my holiday, so I'm not as great at cross-referencing as usual), seem to represent one whole gameplay loop. I think this has been discussed already? Like you can play Antiquity and call it quits. Right?

The next era-or-age is its own thing. It's not directly contiguous. So it's not "you repelled the barbarians and continued as Rome". It's "you repelled the barbarians during a period of time marked by general unrest, therefore ensuring your survival". The manner of that survival isn't specified.

For me personally, the core issue is:

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

I'm a role player, I like to play a civ like a character. I like to 'level up' or 'raise skills' of a character but don't like to switch characters during a story.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Not to be rude, but why is this game changing the philosophy of the entire series ok, but it isn’t ok to have the ability to go against the core mechanism of the game?

My argument for why choosing not to have a switch is that civs are discreet. You can make the switch as abstract as you want, but you are *switching* Becoming a different people is not adapting to the times. A better representation of that is what we’ve always done — upgrade buildings and units, overhaul your era strategies to meet new needs. People do not adapt to new times by becoming new people. culture evolves, but it doesn’t evolve for a purpose, purposes evolve it—so the ability to choose not to switch, to transcend the struggles in your current form, is just as much of a match for the game’s philosophy of overcoming those era-defining struggles

 

[Gorbles]

EDIT - I posted this way too early haha. Bear with me.

I'm a role player, I like to play a civ like a character. I like to 'level up' or 'raise skills' of a character but don't like to switch characters during a story.

How do you do that without including the leader you've chosen as a large part of the equation (given their visual prominence)?

I know people have already said "it's Civilisation, not Leader", but Civ without its leaders would be a much poorer game, no? If you roleplay purely on the existence of the civ's cities and their position in the world, that's fair, but is that something the developers have to accommodate exclusively?

Not to be rude, but why is this game changing the philosophy of the entire series ok, but it isn’t ok to have the ability to go against the core mechanism of the game?

Because a philosophy is something that can evolve. It's a motto; a guiding principle.

Game mechanics have to work in harmony. If they intentionally don't for whatever reason, this has to be strongly considered as a part of gameplay. An "on / off" switch for a core gameplay system isn't considering it as a part of gameplay. It's excising it to suit the people who don't want that part of the game to change.

I sympathise, but ultimately not every game is for everyone. Especially in a franchise.

People do not adapt to new times by becoming new people.

I think we do. Maybe in ways we can't realise at the time, but I think we do. That said this is dangerously philosophical and I suck at philosophy

Let's just say, without going into detail, that I believe the both the successes and the tragedies I have faced have made me the person I am today. As have the ongoing changes in the world as it changes.

 

[Arent11]

EDIT - I posted this way too early haha. Bear with me.


How do you do that without including the leader you've chosen as a large part of the equation (given their visual prominence)?

I know people have already said "it's Civilisation, not Leader", but Civ without its leaders would be a much poorer game, no?

Actually I want a custom civ option and I've lobbied for years to get exactly that Similar to Master of Orion 2, just give me a "civilization/character editor"

And I would like to stay with that civ & only "level up" traits, not flavor.

However, I would like to play *against* historical civs, Rome with legions & Caesar, England with Victoria & ships of the line etc.

 

[Arent11]

Btw., the original civs didn't have the weird divide between civ & leader. I think this started in civ 5(?), the previous titles only had AI behavior linked to the leaders, they didn't have traits (they were associated exclusively with the civ).

So, we have another change in core philosophy - you don't play a civ anymore, but a leader.

 

[Siptah]

Btw., the original civs didn't have the weird divide between civ & leader. I think this started in civ 5(?), the previous titles only had AI behavior linked to the leaders, they didn't have traits (they were associated exclusively with the civ).

So, we have another change in core philosophy - you don't play a civ anymore, but a leader.

I think that except for civ II you always played as leaders and played against leaders. It got more prominent in IV with multiple leaders per civ that also had different traits. In VI I thought they reached the peak as leaders came across as far more prominent than civs, at least to me. I'm not sure I was wrong with that - in 7 you seem to play more as leader than ever, you can even see your own leader, but they are not so prominently advertised/take up so much space in the game? Yet, probably it's all about agendas again. Hope dies last... and maybe if (big if! - but I can easily see this for an expansion) skill trees are partly unique to the leaders, they are more important than ever

 

[Arent11]

I think that except for civ II you always played as leaders and played against leaders. It got more prominent in IV with multiple leaders per civ that also had different traits. In VI I thought they reached the peak as leaders came across as far more prominent than civs, at least to me. I'm not sure I was wrong with that - in 7 you seem to play more as leader than ever, you can even see your own leader, but they are not so prominently advertised/take up so much space in the game? Yet, probably it's all about agendas again. Hope dies last... and maybe if (big if! - but I can easily see this for an expansion) skill trees are partly unique to the leaders, they are more important than ever

Yes, civ 4 made the switch. Before traits were civ traits & leaders determined AI behavior (aggressive, perfectionist etc.)

So we have 3 changes in civ core philosophy:

(1) You don't anymore "build a civ that stands the test of time" but switch civs after crises
(2) You play a leader with traits, not a civ
(3) Your goal is to create an empire, civs are exchangeable cultures you only use to further your rule

 

[DSYoungEsq]

Wait, wait, wait. The civs, great people, leaders etc. of the early civ games were halfway historically correct. As a child, I learned a lot of history from... Civilization

With that kind of argument we can just add Zombies, Vampires & Dragons and turn civ into a fantasy game.

Oh, wait

Oh, sure, put that earworm in my mind. Now I have to go dig out Fantastic Worlds and play the Norse Midgard world!

 

[DWilson]

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).