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

[Devilbound]

Only loud minority who hate this system and the people who love this system must ignore their hearsays. They should stick on previous games until the test of the time.

"Steam: 50% of the reviews for this game are positive"

Sure, that's a minority alright... wait a minute

 

[stealth_nsk]

"Steam: 50% of the reviews for this game are positive"

Sure, that's a minority alright... wait a minute

Actually, it's not representative, because negative reviews are always more common. People who like products are much less likely to review them, that's the thing from my product manager practice..

Just for the numbers, the current stats on Steam are 54% positive (I believe it's growing quite fast, BTW) out of 20,063 reviews. This means less than 10K people left negative review out of about million people who bought Civ7, or 1%.

 

[Deggial]

After a few games I can say: I like it.
I was expecting a bad experience. But somehow Firaxis avoided the "Humankind effect".

I still played games where I tried to keep a consistent civilization path & leader. Confucius and the three Chinas in particular.
However, the map script gave me some impressive mountain ridges and I was sad that I was "unable" to switch to the Incas in the second age. (Nobody stopped me, of course. Just my self-imposed limitations).

One observation, though: Apparently you only get those beautifully composed narrative events (the UI has its good moments!) if you happen to be playing the "right" leader/Civ combo.

 

[moondog385]

Generally I’ve been going for super ahistorical combos. When the mechanic was revealed, I thought I’d favor somewhat historical paths but my games so far have been pretty wonky; Maya - Ming - Qing, Egypt - Abbasids - Qing just to name a couple. I just go for whatever seems best for what I’m aiming for at the moment.

I would like if the architectural styles were still retained though, i.e. some parts of the Mesoamerican style were clearly present if you transitioned from Maya to Ming. They made a big deal out of that going from Rome to Normans so I was disappointed it wasn’t implemented on a game-wide level.

 

[Leucarum]

One thing I learned about civ switching from playing MP is that there are some leaders I so strongly associate with a specific Civ that I always refer to them by that Civ. Augustus is always Rome for me regardless of what Civ he is actually playing and Confucius is always China even though there isn't even a singular China in the game. Doesn't matter what civ they switched into I see them and I say Rome or China... There might well be others too. I just only realised when I had to discuss the game out loud with other people...

 

[marius_kaparius]

My only complaint about Civ Switching is that I keep missing where the button is to change mementos.

 

[queenpea]

Actually, it's not representative, because negative reviews are always more common. People who like products are much less likely to review them, that's the thing from my product manager practice..

Just for the numbers, the current stats on Steam are 54% positive (I believe it's growing quite fast, BTW) out of 20,063 reviews. This means less than 10K people left negative review out of about million people who bought Civ7, or 1%.

On my end, Steam says 50%, which would be a drop from the high of 52%.

 

[rocksinmypath]

My only complaint about Civ Switching is that I keep missing where the button is to change mementos.

This drives me nuts, too. On top of that, the game doesn’t allow you to take another look at the map before you decide, and when the age rolls over, you lose all your auto saves from the previous age. Everything’s implemented in a way to maximally penalize you for not knowing exactly what you need to do during the age transition.

 

[Devilbound]

Actually, it's not representative, because negative reviews are always more common. People who like products are much less likely to review them, that's the thing from my product manager practice..

Just for the numbers, the current stats on Steam are 54% positive (I believe it's growing quite fast, BTW) out of 20,063 reviews. This means less than 10K people left negative review out of about million people who bought Civ7, or 1%.

Sure if you say so I think it is representative enough tho

The numbers are 50% though. It changes almost daily at this point.

You have a funny way of doing numbers. If 1% felt negative then based on your logic also 1% only felt positive.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Sure if you say so I think it is representative enough tho

The numbers are 50% though. It changes almost daily at this point.

You have a funny way of doing numbers. If 1% felt negative then based on your logic also 1% only felt positive.

Have you read the first part of the post? People much more tend to leave negative reviews. I can't find any research now as I'm writing from phone, but you could look, for example, at how NPS is calculated, where on the scale from 0 to 10, people who gave score from 0 to 6 are considered detractors (willing to give negative review), while only people who gave 9 or 10 are considered promoters.

 

[P_S_]

So far, so good I'd say, except for some jarring changes. My most egregious run probably was Isabelle of Egypt > Spain > Moghuls, but from a gameplay perspective it felt fine.
AI Napoleon in the modern era picking Siam was odd, especially since France was free for the taking. All the while Friedrich and Harriet always seem to pick their historical choices.

Playing as Catherine in my current game, the Exploration Age switch felt very off, I ended up going with the Normans because all choices felt weird.

A huge gripe I have is how you'll barely have any cities with names from your Civ in the Modern Era since you'll have settled so much already in the two previous eras. I'm Russia now and St. Petersburg is my only Russian City since I already settled all sensible spots on the map.

 

[Devilbound]

Have you read the first part of the post? People much more tend to leave negative reviews. I can't find any research now as I'm writing from phone, but you could look, for example, at how NPS is calculated, where on the scale from 0 to 10, people who gave score from 0 to 6 are considered detractors (willing to give negative review), while only people who gave 9 or 10 are considered promoters.

Sure did and that is the way it is, no disagreement there. But still. Steam 50% positive is abysmal and tells enough. If a game has that low percentage on Steam it is a disaster.

Seriously hope it, the game and the rep, gets better.

 

[Josephias]

One thing I learned about civ switching from playing MP is that there are some leaders I so strongly associate with a specific Civ that I always refer to them by that Civ. Augustus is always Rome for me regardless of what Civ he is actually playing and Confucius is always China even though there isn't even a singular China in the game. Doesn't matter what civ they switched into I see them and I say Rome or China... There might well be others too. I just only realised when I had to discuss the game out loud with other people...

Yep, that's somewhat of a problem, that does provide a bit of "token" effect and some funny confusions. In my Ibn Battuta game, I ran in the exploration game to Isabella of the Shawnee and Lafayette of Spain, wich was... ¿odd?. I had to keep reminding me all notifications about Spain were about Lafayette, and not that Shawnee Isabella with spanish colors... Of course, in the Exploration Age, Isabella picked the United States, and Lafayette Mexico, so now I'm having the same sensation two-ways.

Btw, talking about ahistorical runs, I'm going to paths that make sense to me, or have fun icon combinations. So far

Battuta: Missisipians -> Majapahit -> Meiji
Himiko: Aksum (cross/sun) -> Chola (Tiger/lion) - (planned) -> Mughal (Lion+Sun)
Frederick: Grece -> Abbassids -(planned)-> Prusia

 

[Leucarum]

Yep, that's somewhat of a problem, that does provide a bit of "token" effect and some funny confusions. In my Ibn Battuta game, I ran in the exploration game to Isabella of the Shawnee and Lafayette of Spain, wich was... ¿odd?. I had to keep reminding me all notifications about Spain were about Lafayette, and not that Shawnee Isabella with spanish colors... Of course, in the Exploration Age, Isabella picked the United States, and Lafayette Mexico, so now I'm having the same sensation two-ways.

I don't find it holds for every leader though. Like I don't think of Lafayette as being France but I do think of Napoleon as being France.

 

[Josephias]

I don't find it holds for every leader though. Like I don't think of Lafayette as being France but I do think of Napoleon as being France.

Yep, In my case Lafayette (sporting teal) is more US to me than France ... yet he has picked Mexico, while the warmer orange of Isabella goes to US... that's what makes it most odd. (France has been the pick of Charlemagne, so somewhat ok there, with Roman purple).

 

[Leucarum]

Yep, In my case Lafayette (sporting teal) is more US to me than France ... yet he has picked Mexico, while the warmer orange of Isabella goes to US... that's what makes it most odd.

So I like the ahistorical pairings. I do think leader mixing and matching opens up more strategic options than I expected. I'm not dead-set on having transitions "make sense" but... I'm wondering if it would be a better game with more leaders who never led a civ. Since I don't associate Layafette, Tubman, Ibn Battuta, Jose Rizal, etc... with a specific civ the transitions kind of feel more organic for them. When I see Xerxes leading Prussia or Augustus leading Hawai'i the dissonance is higher...

 

[Mustakrakish]

On one hand I appreciate the somewhat endless combinations and potential replayability that mixing leaders and civs can bring but oh man did it broke my brain… I can’t see civs on the map. I see Catherine, I see Harriet. Half the time I have no idea what civ are they supposed to be. Everything blends into the background. When I see Harriet, I think "America" — until I realize near the end of an era that she's actually leading Egypt. Not that it mattered in the end. When I spot Machiavelli, I have to pause and think "Wait, which civilization is he leading? Florence or Italy not in the game to my knowledge. Rome I guess?" But no, it's Greece. I never quite agreed with the focus being too much on leaders, rather than civilizations (Civ2 had it right), but this one cranks it up to 11. Civs just change in the background like outfits for AI leaders. I quickly noticed being fatiqued trying to keep track, a mental connection of leaders and their current civs, and stopped caring about their current outfit altogether. Leaders are now front and center with civilizations fading into background.

And another thing that I don't get about the game. If the idea (or part of it) is to lean on the whole times are changing, progress, evolving, nothing is eternal, "layers"... Then how come the leaders still don't dress appropriately according to the age? Where are their "layers"? Now ok, I get it civ is all about dealing with that one leader, I came to embrace this with decades of civving, but at least make the damn Benjamin wear a toga if he's gonna pop up to greet me in antiquity. Can't play as America until modern age, but here's Benji in his "modern age" clothes. How is that any less jarring that playing as America since ancient era in the fiorst place? What I'm saying is I would have hoped if they went this route, they'd go all the way at least. This seems half-arsed. Mechanics are generally interesting, but immersion wise it's the least immersive entry for me so far.

 

[King Flevance]

I would appreciate an easy reference to see which civ each other leader is playing at a glance. I will never memorize the emblems. It would be nice if it said the civ below the leaders' heads at the top. It is hard to know the civ you playing against because it doesn't like to tell you the name of the civ on tooltips. It tells you the leader instead. It should always tell you both.

The civ switching mechanic is disjointed to me. Unlocking civs does feel good, but switching your identity feels even more disconnected than in Humankind. I think it has to do with the abrupt shift of the ages. They need to smooth those transitions to make the Ages and your 2 civs feel more like a reasonable/logical progression more than a hard reset.

Additionally, I can't find any info screen about leader traits and abilities. So if you pick random leader like I do, it is hard to know the benefits of the leader you are playing with. However, it would also be good to know what your opponents and allies are capable of.

The idea could work but there are a lot of other factors inhibiting it.

 

[Bast]

Everything blends into the background.

I think that's very bad

 

[VCVC]

I’m loving the Civ swapping, but am feeling a little cautious about the future as more and more Civs are added to the game. I’m often unlocking a decent portion of the next era’s Civs unintentionally (Sidenote: *love* the little flavor text on the unlocks, really helps sell the feel), and I fear that at some point it’ll be bloated like 20+ options. What Firaxis could potentially do is make the Civ unlocks harder to acquire (Jack up the resource reqs, or maybe make it more esoteric like Spain’s), so that it feels less like you ‘stumbled on’ it and moreso that it’s a natural evolution of what you’re playing into. That might also help with the AI Civ choices too? Make them feel less random so that when they do something not historical/geographic, you *know* that they leaned hard into it in the previous era. That’s just my two cents tho, still digging it