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

[DJ_Tanner]

I like the mechanic of it but I really wish they would have swapped the implementation. I think the whole thing would feel better had you picked a single civ and then each age pick a new leader. At least for me, I don't relate to the leader as much as the civ so when I am super annoyed at the Etruscans all ancient era then we are in exploration I am like wait where are those darn Etruscans and am not paying attention that it was Napoleon the whole time. Also I think it would be a little smoother aesthetically speaking, Ben Franklin in the ancient era still feels/looks as out of place as Xerxes does in the modern era. If the leaders switched each era you could have the same evolving bonues (the best part of the civ switch) while making the leaders match their era a bit more.

 

[jaegermeister]

I am not against the idea per se, but I am against how it is done as of now. My biggest frustration is due the fact that once you start the new age, all units and commanders you had somewhere on the map, get "teleported back" to the cities you have. Why the hell does this happen? First I thought it was a bug, but hell, it appears this was intended to be so. I am sorry, but this is quite foolish, don't you think? You are in the middle of a war with another civ, and suddenly your units are teleported back as if something magical has happened. Your war is ignored, all the preparations, fortifications, etc. you did means nothing.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I am not against the idea per se, but I am against how it is done as of now. My biggest frustration is due the fact that once you start the new age, all units and commanders you had somewhere on the map, get "teleported back" to the cities you have. Why the hell does this happen? First I thought it was a bug, but hell, it appears this was intended to be so. I am sorry, but this is quite foolish, don't you think? You are in the middle of a war with another civ, and suddenly your units are teleported back as if something magical has happened. Your war is ignored, all the preparations, fortifications, etc. you did means nothing.

Some time is passed. You wars are over, your units returned, the world changed.

It's quite cool gameplay mechanics if you play with it in mind.

 

[Krajzen]

I like the mechanic of it but I really wish they would have swapped the implementation. I think the whole thing would feel better had you picked a single civ and then each age pick a new leader. At least for me, I don't relate to the leader as much as the civ so when I am super annoyed at the Etruscans all ancient era then we are in exploration I am like wait where are those darn Etruscans and am not paying attention that it was Napoleon the whole time. Also I think it would be a little smoother aesthetically speaking, Ben Franklin in the ancient era still feels/looks as out of place as Xerxes does in the modern era. If the leaders switched each era you could have the same evolving bonues (the best part of the civ switch) while making the leaders match their era a bit more.

I also like this notion, but it's not practical - it's more workload for devs while also offering less gameplay variety than the current system.

High resolution 3d animated leader models with dialogue have always demanded disproportionally much dev effort in the series compared with the tiny 3d models of civ unique unit and building (see how modders of civ5 and civ6 have manged to create hundreds of the latter but almost nobody have ever bothered with the former, just making 2d leader graphics - with a few glorious exceptions of the very best modders)

Right now you have one animated leader with a unique ability (great PITA for devs to make) per three sets of civs (low PITA ratio to make) with a unique ability, policy cards, a unit and a building. Sounds like a great deal compared to the opposite notion

 

[UWHabs]

Some time is passed. You wars are over, your units returned, the world changed.

It's quite cool gameplay mechanics if you play with it in mind.

I was only annoyed because it feels a little random which units got put where. I knew I wanted a quick war to start the next era, but had to ship my commanders across the map. Maybe I could have prepped it better (maybe if they go to the closest city, I could have positioned them pre-rollover).

But yeah, it also helped to mentally reset you - like I was allied with Napoleon last era, but with the shift over, I have a chance to forge a new relatioship.

 

[Archanist]

I also like this notion, but it's not practical - it's more workload for devs while also offering less gameplay variety than the current system.

High resolution 3d animated leader models with dialogue have always demanded disproportionally much dev effort in the series compared with the tiny 3d models of civ unique unit and building (see how modders of civ5 and civ6 have manged to create hundreds of the latter but almost nobody have ever bothered with the former, just making 2d leader graphics - with a few glorious exceptions of the very best modders)

Right now you have one animated leader with a unique ability (great PITA for devs to make) per three sets of civs (low PITA ratio to make) with a unique ability, policy cards, a unit and a building. Sounds like a great deal compared to the opposite notion

Not just that, it's also much harder to find leaders for certain civs. We know that the Mississippians existed, but we might not have enough information about any of their leaders to form a 3 era line.

 

[jaegermeister]

Some time is passed. You wars are over, your units returned, the world changed.

It's quite cool gameplay mechanics if you play with it in mind.

Excuse me, my war was not over? It was an ongoing war for turns, and it abruptly ended due to the age transition. All the effort that I made in the war, was for nothing. It's such a bad way of doing this transition. Why did my units get teleported back? Why did I spend so many turns to besiege the cities of the enemy? Just to get teleported back to my hometown? Seriously, whoever thought of this teleportation idea, must be given a special prize.

Transition is okay, but teleportation is BS. My units should never leave where they are. I am sure this will be modded, just like any other unbaked idea Civ7 brought up.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Excuse me, my war was not over? It was an ongoing war for turns, and it abruptly ended due to the age transition. All the effort that I made in the war, was for nothing. It's such a bad way of doing this transition. Why the units got teleported back? Why did I spend so many turns to besiege the cities of the enemy? Just to get teleported back to my hometown?

Transition is okay, but teleportation is BS. My units should never leave where they are. I am sure this will be modded, just like any other unbaked idea Civ7 brought up.

It's not teleportation if dozens (if not hundreds) of years passed behind the scene. I understand your emotional reaction, but it's how the game is played and if you adapt your game to age transition, you'll unlock a lot of interesting strategic decisions.

Sure, if you can't accept this, there will be mods to change this behavior. I just don't think that's the critique of the game itself, more like your personal taste.

 

[jaegermeister]

It's not teleportation if dozens (if not hundreds) of years passed behind the scene. I understand your emotional reaction, but it's how the game is played and if you adapt your game to age transition, you'll unlock a lot of interesting strategic decisions.

Sure, if you can't accept this, there will be mods to change this behavior. I just don't think that's the critique of the game itself, more like your personal taste.

I don't think you understood the criticism in the comment to be honest.

My criticism is not due to "personal taste". I am not speculating between blue and yellow. I am not saying some leader has his face drawn poorly. My criticism is not a subjective taste. Units teleporting one of a sudden makes no sense on any Civ universe. You are trying to justify this weird mechanic by saying "world changed", which isn't making unit teleportation a logical thing. The last unit in antiquity and the first unit in exploration are not far from each other by millenia. So no, the world has not changed enough so that your knight can be teleported back to hometown and continue as hussar.

You don't have to agree with every criticism, but calling them "personal taste" and disregarding them does not do any good for the game in general. A quick look at the community reviews on CIV7 Steam page can tell you more about how that approach goes.

 

[Siptah]

I for one really like how the transition forces me to seek a quick decision in late-age wars, and forces me to plan well for Blitzkrieg to get one or two extra cities in the last few turns.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think you understood the criticism in the comment to be honest.

My criticism is not due to "personal taste". I am not speculating between blue and yellow. I am not saying some leader has his face drawn poorly. My criticism is not a subjective taste. Units teleporting one of a sudden makes no sense on any Civ universe. You are trying to justify this weird mechanic by saying "world changed", which isn't making unit teleportation a logical thing. The last unit in antiquity and the first unit in exploration are not far from each other by millenia. So no, the world has not changed enough so that your knight can be teleported back to hometown and continue as hussar.

You don't have to agree with every criticism, but calling them "personal taste" and disregarding them does not do any good for the game in general. A quick look at the community reviews on CIV7 Steam page can tell you more about how that approach goes.

By the same logic calling your criticism "objective" means disregarding the opinion of the vast majority of the players, who are totally ok with the current mechanics. There are things in the game, which are critiqued by majority of players, but that's definitely one of them.

And again, I'm not disregarding your opinion, you clearly could find mods for your tastes. I just think it's good idea to try to figure out why it's not an issue for almost everyone else.

 

[MrRadar]

After a couple of games or so, I must say I quite like the transitions. I was sort of skeptical about this "emergent narrative" thing, but so far I think that it is done quite well, and the evolving crisis events do convey this approaching "end of an era" feeling, when you mentally prepare that this period would end soon and then, after a long twilight there will be a new beginning and continuation. And I do like how unpredictable and rather abrupt that end of an era can be - sometimes the indicator stands still on 100% for a few turns (probably on lower difficulties), but sometimes it shows 90-92%, you think you've still got some time, press next turn and bam - bye bye old world! You had some plans? Well, sorry about that, but not really! It does bring in some excitement and spice, the sort of what a gamble does

Sadly, that excitement is lost in the Modern age which still seems the dullest of them all, and despite being much shorter, it still feels protracted, as AI seems not to pose any serious competition even if they attack you in a pile up, so there is no credible challenge and no thrill from winning even on Deity.

Coming back to transitions and civ switching, I found that my attitude towards my opponents now is exactly the same as in Humankind - I find that I only pay attention to the personas of the leaders themselves, often failing to acknowledge the nation they leading in-game at the moment, my brain just assigns their historical background to them and that's it, that's how I identify them - attention gets focused on the personality, and country may be forgotten. I felt facing more identity with unchanging countries, but purely gameplay wise that's not a big problem, I can live with this as well.

 

[jaegermeister]

By the same logic calling your criticism "objective" means disregarding the opinion of the vast majority of the players, who are totally ok with the current mechanics. There are things in the game, which are critiqued by majority of players, but that's definitely one of them.

And again, I'm not disregarding your opinion, you clearly could find mods for your tastes. I just think it's good idea to try to figure out why it's not an issue for almost everyone else.

Age transition as a whole concept OR the way it is done (e.g. teleportation) is definitely among those negative reviews. If I go now to Steam review page I can easily fetch a negative random comment mentioning this. So no, it's not a minority opinion at all. In fact, UI and age transition are probably the top negative review reasons, along with the DLC rip off strategy and pricing.

Sure we can find mods for 'tastes'. I can find a mod that turns the flag from white to blue. But this is not what this criticism is about.

 

[Krikkit1]

Excuse me, my war was not over? It was an ongoing war for turns, and it abruptly ended due to the age transition. All the effort that I made in the war, was for nothing. It's such a bad way of doing this transition. Why did my units get teleported back? Why did I spend so many turns to besiege the cities of the enemy? Just to get teleported back to my hometown? Seriously, whoever thought of this teleportation idea, must be given a special prize.

Transition is okay, but teleportation is BS. My units should never leave where they are. I am sure this will be modded, just like any other unbaked idea Civ7 brought up.

It really could have been worked better into the crisis period. During the Crisis period, units that are say more than 6?10 tiles from your settlements could start to get increasing penalties to CS, happiness, gold. Ongoing wars could make both sides increasingly unhappy. The Crisis itself (if on) could also encourage your units to come back and help defend / rebuild.

Basically give you several turns to encourage wrapping up your war and pulling back before the Transition does it for you.

 

[jaegermeister]

It really could have been worked better into the crisis period. During the Crisis period, (for any crisis…possibly even if they are off) units that are say more than 6?10 tiles from your settlements could start to get increasing penalties to CS, happiness, gold. Ongoing wars could make both sides increasingly unhappy. The Crisis itself (if on) could also encourage your units to come back and help defend / rebuild.

Basically give you several turns to encourage pulling back before the Transition does it for you.

Or just do not try to alter the location of the existing units? Is there a particular reason why my knight has to teleport back to my hometown and continue as hussar? I don't get this mechanic, like what's the incentive, you know? Why should the units be re-distributed across my empire? What happens if they don't teleport? Do they break the game?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Age transition as a whole concept OR the way it is done (e.g. teleportation) is definitely among those negative reviews.

Age transition as a hole yes, wasn't accepted by many, that's understandable, it's a radical change. Some players just can't play the game because of it, some have less fun. Totally understandable.

But accepting age transition, while complaining about teleportation is quite... rare. The thing is - age transition includes changing in all units (including unique ones), losing units which are over the cap, changing defense effects and much more. If you accept those changes, continuing the war as is nothing happened makes no sense.

 

[jaegermeister]

Age transition as a hole yes, wasn't accepted by many, that's understandable, it's a radical change. Some players just can't play the game because of it, some have less fun. Totally understandable.

But accepting age transition, while complaining about teleportation is quite... rare. The thing is - age transition includes changing in all units (including unique ones), losing units which are over the cap, changing defense effects and much more. If you accept those changes, continuing the war as is nothing happened makes no sense.

I don't get my units teleported randomly when I upgrade them through the age itself. Archer becomes crossbowman on the exact same tile. It doesn't go back to my hometown and come back upgraded. Similarly, there is no reason for that to happen between a knight and a hussar. If you accept archer to crossbowman to happen on the same tile, but you try to justify knight to hussar with random teleportation, you make no sense.

Anyway, I feel like this is slowly becoming "how about that? how about this? no no this? that?" kind of exchange where you throw out excuses without thinking through. I've left my review on Steam page as well as here. I don't have to convince you, or you don't have to convince me. Thanks for the exchange.

 

[Krikkit1]

Or just do not try to alter the location of the existing units? Is there a particular reason why my knight has to teleport back to my hometown and continue as hussar? I don't get this mechanic, like what's the incentive, you know? Why should the units be re-distributed across my empire? What happens if they don't teleport? Do they break the game?

The point is that there is a reset at this point, transition to a new age means almost all your buildings are obsolete. your cities become towns, your civ changes.

Perhaps you could keep your units where they are, but they become
“obsolete” units:
-10 CS
-1 CS per unit in your empire
don’t give experience to commanders
don’t benefit from commanders
can’t upgrade unless at home (can only upgrade the first N, the rest can only be disbanded)

Also “Ancient Wars” could require one side or the other to “redeclare it” to continue…if either side wishes to keep the war going they take a War support penalty (if they both want to keep it going, then it cancels out)

 

[jaegermeister]

The point is that there is a reset at this point, transition to a new age means almost all your buildings are obsolete. your cities become towns, your civ changes.

Perhaps you could keep your units where they are, and they become
“obsolete” units:
-10 CS
-1 CS per unit in your empire
don’t give experience to commanders
don’t benefit from commanders
can’t upgrade unless at home

Oh yeah, that's a very good idea actually. I only don't see the point in drastic location change. Otherwise they can get debuffs to motivate the player to pull them back.. I just don't think using randomness and teleportation together make sense. But what you suggest is actually a good way of simulating the transition.

 

[playshogi]

I have no problem with civ switching. Your leader and civ are just names that have no effect on game play.