So how does civ switching feel, and how do you approach it?

[Krajzen]

Since I won't be getting civ7 for a while (sadly) (though also perhaps fortunately, since I would be super angry at the UI from what I can see ) I have been curious how is the key part of the game functioning, and what are people's feeling about it and what is your "philosophy" of civ switching (remotely historical or mechanical combos or leader based or spontaneous adaptation etc)

obligatory pls post your favourite or least favourite evolutionary paths (of yours but also of AI players)

also under the term "civ switching" I include the novelty of "leaders being separate from civs", so choosing leader X to lead people Y is also part of the topic

 

[Chuy1530]

It feels fine. The game goes out of its way for you to associate other civs with their leader, not the civ they’re representing at that time. So I can tell you off the top of my head who my neighbors leaders are, but I really don’t have much clue what civ they are. And that’s fine. YOUR civ matters a lot in terms of what you can do. Your neighbors civ doesn’t matter as much as their leader.

It’s all ahistorical anyway so I just pick what I think the best/most interesting one is in terms of the situation at that moment. I haven’t gone out of my way to unlock certain ones yet and have let them come to me, and I still seem to unlock at least one or two “extra” civs each era.

 

[rocksinmypath]

Honestly, I wish there was an option to turn off AI selection of historically appropriate choices. Before I started playing the game, I thought the leader/civ mismatch might bother me just a smidge, but what actually bothers me is that I keep seeing the same civ/leader combos every single game I play. Does Himiko have to lead Khmer every single game she appears in?

 

[bladex1200]

Leaders being separate from civs doesn't bother me. My boy J Rizz doesn't even have a Philippine civilization to accompany him yet so necessarily he's gonna be a fish-out-of-water.

For civ transitions, I really feel the game lets down some players with a lack of historical transition options that make sense. I prefer doing at least somewhat-plausible historical transitions over purely-mechanical ones but maybe over time my opinion will change as I play enough games. The fact Rizal allows anyone to transition to Hawai'i is kind of mindboggling to me and just seems absurd.

 

[Zaarin]

Honestly, I wish there was an option to turn off AI selection of historically appropriate choices. Before I started playing the game, I thought the leader/civ mismatch might bother me just a smidge, but what actually bothers me is that I keep seeing the same civ/leader combos every single game I play. Does Himiko have to lead Khmer every single game she appears in?

TBH I've noticed some very ahistorical paths, and it bothers me less than I thought it would. E.g., in my current game, Tecumseh's path has been the extremely historical Han > Shawnee > Russia.

At any rate, I'm on my first game, and I find civ-switching feels very natural and elegant. I went for a traditional-ish "pretty cities" route for my first game (Khmer > Majapahit > Siam), but I'm planning a crazier route next time (Maya > Ming > Meiji).

 

[Archanist]

I like the concept, and right now it feels good, but it will get much better in time. Once we get more civs and leaders, it'll make each switch feel much better. The gameplay unlocks feel good too since it also gives a narrative reason on why your civilization might pivot to that culture

Once we hit a certain number, I'd want them to revisit unlocks too and refine them. Hawaii in general feels so weird to me because they feel so culturally and geographically distant from everyone else, and their leader unlock has never set foot near Hawaii iirc.

 

[bladex1200]

I like the concept, and right now it feels good, but it will get much better in time. Once we get more civs and leaders, it'll make each switch feel much better. The gameplay unlocks feel good too since it also gives a narrative reason on why your civilization might pivot to that culture

Once we hit a certain number, I'd want them to revisit unlocks too and refine them. Hawaii in general feels so weird to me because they feel so culturally and geographically distant from everyone else, and their leader unlock has never set foot near Hawaii iirc.

Yeah Rizal visited the US so the closest he ever came to Hawai'i would have been the ship he was traveling on sailing past it, he never had any political interest in Hawai'i as far as I know. So it's kind of egregious that he unlocks them as an Exploration civ.

 

[Xefjord]

So I went in as a massive skeptic. I had every reason to hate the Civ switching mechanic and ahistorical combinations as a heavy roleplayer. And I wouldn't say I love it by any means by now either, but I have definitely come to peace with it's implementation in a lot of ways.

I agree with other commenters that apart from the Civ I pick for myself, I almost never noticed what Civs the AI are playing unless I am proactively trying to find out. I generally only ever really see or interact with their leaders. So that hasn't bothered me much. I ended up picking a character that resonated with me the most (Charlemagne), and I am so focused on leveling him up I have kind of adopted him as my main, and since I now see him as an extension of myself I don't really care what Civ I am starting as with him anymore.

That said, I do still care a lot about Civ switching. But my biggest criticisms are just the lack of Civs. And this is something I know will get better over time. There are some instances where I really like the Civ switching. The choice between switching to Ming or Mongolia after playing the Han is both perfectly historical and very interesting. There are other situations where the choices just kind of suck because the Civs are not there to fully flesh it out yet. If I want to play Germany all the way through. It's just not really possible. I have to go Rome/Greeks to Normandy, to Prussia. And that isn't very great to me. But it is what it is.

I have recently raised some criticism about the recommended paths for some leaders. Trung Trac for example is recommended to play Khmer (fine) or India (very weird)... They should be recommended to play Han China. Himiko shouldn't be getting pushed to play the Khmer as recommended. Again, if all the European leaders are pushed to start as Rome/Greece, then the East Asian leaders should be encouraged to start as Han China. But (And I say this not to disparage the beautiful culture of India) a lot of East Asian leaders are being pushed to play Indosphere Civs as opposed to Sinosphere ones which feels like some kind of weird Indian washing of East Asian culture.

It should be a super easy fix. Just change the recommended Civs for Himiko and Trung Trac.

Apart from that though I am more optimistic about Civ switching than I am disappointed at this point. I want to see what it looks like with 20 new Civs across every age.

My only concern is if they add a fourth age with its own layer of civs. Then I am going to start feeling a little worried about seeing all the Civs have consistent and reasonable lines of development before we have even filled out all the reasonable cultural progression paths in the first 3 ages.

 

[Xefjord]

I like the concept, and right now it feels good, but it will get much better in time. Once we get more civs and leaders, it'll make each switch feel much better. The gameplay unlocks feel good too since it also gives a narrative reason on why your civilization might pivot to that culture

Once we hit a certain number, I'd want them to revisit unlocks too and refine them. Hawaii in general feels so weird to me because they feel so culturally and geographically distant from everyone else, and their leader unlock has never set foot near Hawaii iirc.

I also want them to refine the culture unlocks over time, but at least in the case of Jose Rizal, we can loosely say that he is of a distant but related culture group. All Malayo-Polynesians originate in Taiwan, expand out into the Philippines then Indonesia and Polynesia. I think if anyone Jose Rizal would make more sense unlocking the Majapahit then Trung Trac would (it's wild she unlocks Majapahit when there is no shared ethnocultural heritage at all, arguments can be made for the Khmer but the Majapahit no way.) that said we already know Dai Viet is coming to the game soon, and I highly expect she will change to unlocking Dai Viet after it's release.

 

[Elhoim]

The gameplay unlocks feel good too since it also gives a narrative reason on why your civilization might pivot to that culture

Yeah, that was a nice touch that helps it feel less off.

In general, it feels pretty good, and much better than Humankind. Having less changes and a huge focus on leaders helps with that, especially everyone changing at once makes it easier to adjust.

 

[Ebon-Hawke-]

Good so far! Two whole games in and AI have mostly stayed pretty historical with their choices as well other than a random Tecumseh Mississippi-shawnee-prussia

Personally I go with flavor over function. Was playing a science/specialist Himiko run as Khmer into Hawaii to Meiji, I sat on the transition for a long time as Hawaii has 0 specialist interplay compared to Ming or Mahajapit but it just felt more appropriate for some reason.

I will say it's easy to roll play as Japan throughout history when playing Himiko and ending as Japan, I'll have to see how it is in reverse, say roleplaying Rome as Augustus will it still feel like Rome when I play Normans or France. Sadly I think leader will be key, so no goodway to roleplay as Greece, though I think I will try to as Benjamin.

 

[TheGrayFox]

So I went in as a massive skeptic. I had every reason to hate the Civ switching mechanic and ahistorical combinations as a heavy roleplayer. And I wouldn't say I love it by any means by now either, but I have definitely come to peace with it's implementation in a lot of ways.

I agree with other commenters that apart from the Civ I pick for myself, I almost never noticed what Civs the AI are playing unless I am proactively trying to find out. I

This is kind of also an indictment atleast it is for me sitting on the fence. The game is called Civilization, why are the actual civilizations secondary and in the backround to completely ahistorical and often unrelated leaders?

 

[UWHabs]

I do feel like the civs are taking a backseat to the leaders, as I play. Halfway through the exploration age and I don't think I could tell you what anyone was in the ancient era. I think they probably could use a touch more just for the roleplaying part of it, but the civ switch actually is kind of neat. I didn't go in with a defined path in my game, so when I got to the next age, I had like 5 options to choose from, and just sort of decided which fit my early empire city placement best. Kind of made a neat way to refresh the game partway through, and let you shift and adjust your focus.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

For my first game I went straight 'chalk' with Confucius and China. I unlocked a few civs but for my first game I was interested in gameplay and not the switching. There's so much new 'default' stuff it overwhelmed the civ specific stuff.

The lack of knowing which leader is which civ was more of a UI issue then a gameplay issue for me.

 

[Chuy1530]

Yeah Rizal visited the US so the closest he ever came to Hawai'i would have been the ship he was traveling on sailing past it, he never had any political interest in Hawai'i as far as I know. So it's kind of egregious that he unlocks them as an Exploration civ.

I think given the civs and leaders they picked they had to make some interesting choices with regard to who linked up with who to make sure all the civs had some leaders tied to them. Which, perhaps they should have taken that into account when choosing them, but isn’t a big deal for me.

I do find the ones that are unlocked via accomplishments to be a lot more rewarding and make a lot more sense though. Probably too late for a big concept change, but I’d rather they leaned more than direction.

 

[friendlysavage]

1. I mostly pay attention to my own Civ transitions, which I'm absolutely loving for gameplay and roleplay. It is just so wonderful to always be playing a Civ that is relevant to the era.

2. I mostly ignore the Civs of the AI and focus on their leaders, unless there's something relevant, such as a UU.

 

[queenpea]

I’m still not a fan of the system, and I like the ahistorical leaders less. But I’ve come to accept it.

Himiko went Mississippians to Hawaii to Meiji in my current game, which also features “Revolutionary Napoleon” of Mongolia to Qing. It’s fine, but I still reserve the right to role my eyes at these weird mismatches.

 

[AriochIV]

I think the Age reset (all conflicts canceled, cities converted to towns, units relocated and/or deleted, city-states disappearing, ~1000 years disappearing) is much more jarring than the civilization switch. If you pick a logical succession, that doesn't feel jarring at all.

I'm really feeling the lack of civ options, too. There only being 10 choices when there are 8 players feels very small.

 

[lo24681]

AI switched have mostly made sense, with once exception per game so far. Sometimes it feels to me that the AI decides if it can't go the historical route it wants it will go random, for example in one of my games Catherine went with Greece > Shawnee > Russia, I assume that she wanted to go Normans in explorations, but could not since I had selected them, so then went with a random unlocked one (Shawnee) rather than the other relevant path of Spain. Will say am presently surprised tho that even if a AI is paired with a civ they have no crossover with they can still go semi-historical. for example, in my first game Friedrich went Persia > Mongols > Qing.

 

[Gori the Grey]

People say they're not aware of the civs they're playing against, but aren't their graphics an indicator? (I just ask because the designers went to such trouble to make the city graphics so distinctive).