For me, the coolest part of Civ switching is the traditions policies that are retained, this really works on a flavor level but also means there are infact three variables that make the gameplay different - the civ you were, the civ you are, and the leader you are. I just pick which ever feels interesting.
I think the game does need more civs at each age, Once we have 20 choices at each age I think we will be in a good place. But its early days.
I'm loving the swapping so far. Makes the game very interesting and unique and I enjoy that there is something for each age. Hated how a late civ would have basically Nothing for most of the game.
It's on the screen where you can see all of the next age civs at once (by scrolling). So you need to do it before you click the "Choose X" button, or you miss your chance.
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
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.
If I could choose, I would have the Civ stay, receive different bonuses per age, and have a leader change each time. That would make the most sense. Leaders are not immortal. And it's the Civ that stands the test of time.
I'm loving the swapping so far. Makes the game very interesting and unique and I enjoy that there is something for each age. Hated how a late civ would have basically Nothing for most of the game.
This is basically how I felt about playing as America in Civ 6.
Yay I like air units, and playing with a unique air unit sounds cool! Having to grind my tech all the way up to Flight from the Ancient Era onward was a kind of a slog (and no I don't consider starting on a later era to be an option that I'll ever be interested in). The other American uniques also arrived much later in the tech tree, so playing as America in Civ 6 is just incredibly bland for a large part of each session.
If I could choose, I would have the Civ stay, receive different bonuses per age, and have a leader change each time. That would make the most sense. Leaders are not immortal. And it's the Civ that stands the test of time.
At a basic level, I'd agree that civs are more immortal than a single leader. But at the same time, it's always harder to have like a modern era bonus for civs whose prime was in the ancient era. I think when we get enough civs that there will be more consistent paths, that should help those who at least want to stay in the same area. Having to go Maya-Inca-Mexico as the "default" path is a pretty jarring swap.
This is basically how I felt about playing as America in Civ 6.
Yay I like air units, and playing with a unique air unit sounds cool! Having to grind my tech all the way up to Flight from the Ancient Era onward was a kind of a slog (and no I don't consider starting on a later era to be an option that I'll ever be interested in). The other American uniques also arrived much later in the tech tree, so playing as America in Civ 6 is just incredibly bland for a large part of each session.
Yeah, for gameplay reasons that's obviously the big reason why they opted to handle it the way they do. There's always a reason why the Aztecs or Sumerians in 6 that got their UU right off the bat had such a leg up.
I wasn't a fan of the civilization switches in Humankind, and I think Civ7's implementation is less fun for me.
I enjoy the immersion of playing with a civilization from 4000BCE to the end. Switching civilizations at the age breakpoints lessens immersion for me. Wasn't as big of a deal with Humankind, but Civ7's arbitrary end of age crises and new age reset break immersion for me in a big way. It feels like more of a good idea for a board game to me - complete with losing player catch up mechanics. Switching civilizations, the time jump and reset all conspire to break immersion for me - and by the time I get it back, the next age is almost here.
I do agree with the comments that the UI presents the leaders in a much more prominent way than the civilization - so much so that it's easy to lose track of who is what civilization (even myself). The way gameplay information is presented, it's really focused on the leaders and the civs are just background flavor for more minor bonuses to manage.
To me it mostly just feels simultaneously a little jarring but still intentional. I feel connected both to my leader (more than I have in civ6, but e.g., obviously not as much as in Old World) and to each civ I play. The connection to the civ is entirely to its uniques and bonuses (the “feel”) of the civ, rather than some sort of identity of the civ. The leader and civ bonuses are much more flavorful and impactful than I could tell from reading them, and it feels like adopting the culture and strategies of three different civs throughout history.
I am quite in favor of coupling the civ switching with the dramatic division between eras, since I connect with the flavor of picking up my civ after several centuries of evolution.
The civ switching is fine. Great, even. It's the clashing with the leader that I don't like. Ideally I'd like to see the leaders change garb accordingly. Civ3 had leaders redress for each age. Now do that, but for each leader/civ combination. Imagine Ben Franklin in an Incan headdress!
The art team is no doubt cringing at the thought of - what 700? - different combos, but I can dream.
The civ switching is fine. Great, even. It's the clashing with the leader that I don't like. Ideally I'd like to see the leaders change garb accordingly. Civ3 had leaders redress for each age. Now do that, but for each leader/civ combination. Imagine Ben Franklin in an Incan headdress!
The art team is no doubt cringing at the thought of - what 700? - different combos, but I can dream.
I miss having the leaders change their garb based on era. I can’t remember which versions of Civ did that, but I’m pretty sure we’ve seen that before — of course there’s also the Civ2 “advisors” which changed garb each age too, those were a lot of fun!
I also miss the customizable palace and throne room, unfortunately it doesn’t look like those are coming back.
So far, I am enjoying civ switching. My focus has been on my own civ choices, which position me more/less well for the victory I want to achieve. If I want to be more scientificly focused in Exploration, I might choose a different civ than if I want to be more culturally focused.
Like others, my mental notes are tracking my relationship with the other *leader*, not the civ they are leading. Part of the reason for that is the leader's agenda. If Amina is going to hate on me for settling desert cities, then she's going to do that in every age. If Harriet dislikes if I declare surprise wars, then she's going to do that in every age. If I declare enough formal wars, I can make her my buddy in Modern, whether she's playing America or Prussia.
So far, I've seen the leader agenda dominate the civ attributes more often. Yes, Augustus leading the Romans is a war monger. But Augustus leading the Egyptians as a war monger, too.
Like others, I'm still learning adjacencies and how to better achieve a certain legacy path. At some point, I will think about the meta -- "Why did Ibn choose *that* civ for this age? How will he probably compete with me?" The answer may be, "that was the only option, given his lack of success last age."
If I could choose, I would have the Civ stay, receive different bonuses per age, and have a leader change each time. That would make the most sense. Leaders are not immortal. And it's the Civ that stands the test of time.
I am really enjoying the way the game works now, and I would fear that the leader switching would disconnect me from the experience than civ switching. It would also create a bunch of mechanical problems that the current system solved (unique air power/battleships for example).
You could flip things entirely where the the leaders are stacked with bonuses and the Civs have 1 or 2, which would preserve the mechanical gains, but at that point it is pure cosmetics and I am not sure that is worth the effort (and if it is, a modder will do it and there you go).
It was Civ3 and it was quite controversial thing, I wouldn't spend developer resources on those, providing number of leaders and quality of graphics we have.
This is basically how I felt about playing as America in Civ 6.
Yay I like air units, and playing with a unique air unit sounds cool! Having to grind my tech all the way up to Flight from the Ancient Era onward was a kind of a slog (and no I don't consider starting on a later era to be an option that I'll ever be interested in). The other American uniques also arrived much later in the tech tree, so playing as America in Civ 6 is just incredibly bland for a large part of each session.
Conversely, in the previous games it was also that miserable feel when you took an ancient/medieval-focused civ and reached that point when you have used all of their uniques and were forced to be a bland civ (or mostly bland civ) for the remainder of the game. Civ5 Huns were the worst offender but there was also Carthage, Assyria if you don't conquer or conquer while having good tech, China if you don't fight, Mongolia past keshiks (one unit civ...), Byzantium if you don't get/care/think about religion, Ethiopia (one early building civ and then you're left with the boringest bonus ever), Iroquis past medieval, don't get me started on the Danish design etc.
God civ5 was a glorious game for its time but most of its civ unique abilities were so specific, one note and weak in comparision with civ6 and civ7.
Bonus points for the AI not using those uniques with very narrow time window or very specific use, and my pain of seeing AI Huns which fight no wars in the early eras, or China which doesn't fight wars at all (the entire civ gets reduced to +3 gold per library), or AI Mongolia which was basically blank civ with no bonuses in the hands of the AI.
By the way thinking about keshik made me realize something: I'm really happy that the design of civ7 combat system ended the era of ranged cavalry essentially breaking the game difficulty. Like looking in retrospect it was really lame how keshiks and camel archers were stupidly OP in civ5 in the human hands because of their ability to run, shoot, run away and having no counters. Those two civs were basically free win against AI and were usually banned in the multiplayer league which I have played in, one time they weren't and I had to fight competent Arabian player, it was simply impossible to counter.
Spain unlock is great thematically, but yes, not as good as something you should be encouraged to pursue.
Somehow it feels they would need a secondary unlock. I think they did not consider it because there are many potential ancient civ / leader unlocks already, but nevertheless it feels indeed od the only way to have for gameplay unlock is to loose one of your city.
Spain unlock is great thematically, but yes, not as good as something you should be encouraged to pursue.
Somehow it feels they would need a secondary unlock. I think they did not consider it because there are many potential ancient civ / leader unlocks already, but nevertheless it feels indeed od the only way to have for gameplay unlock is to loose one of your city.
If I could choose, I would have the Civ stay, receive different bonuses per age, and have a leader change each time. That would make the most sense. Leaders are not immortal. And it's the Civ that stands the test of time.
This doesn't solve the problem. Most civilizations did not exist from the ancient to the contemporary era: there aren't any ancient era leaders for Brazil or the United States, and there aren't contemporary leaders for Rome or Babylonia. The way it used to be worked for me, I don't think change was necessary.
Spain unlock is great thematically, but yes, not as good as something you should be encouraged to pursue.
Somehow it feels they would need a secondary unlock. I think they did not consider it because there are many potential ancient civ / leader unlocks already, but nevertheless it feels indeed od the only way to have for gameplay unlock is to loose one of your city.
I think Spain unlock is triggered when capturing a city that flips during a crisis too. I’ve unlocked Spain several times, and suspect I will unlock them in at least a third of my games going forward (the odd game where I don’t lose a city to the crisis will be offset by one where the AI attacks a town while I’m unprepared). But definitely an awkward one to game.
Hawaii’s condition being impossible on most map types is what gets me. But maybe when maps get more interesting.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
