"steer the course of your story by choosing a new civilization to represent your empire" (civ switching)

[Thenewwwguy]

They're still a distinct people with their own history, past conquest or not.

Real people don't "lose the game" because they get conquered. They go on existing. Their culture continue to be a living culture. Trying to interpret history as a video game where civilizations just vanish altogether is however an extremely unrealistic set of bovine manure.

Im not sure whether this is in agreement with the point of it's a little weird to be doing this or not, but I'm going to assume that it is in agreement that the thematic choice of implying that cultures are fully "succeeded" is weird

just to name a few that are inevtiably going to suffer from this in how the game is currently presented:

Assyrians are still around today but likely will end as a Ancient civ in this game

Mayans are still around today but likely will only be involved as a Exploration age civ

obviously, the already-revealed Shawnee, who are also still around today

Ancient Egyptians' descendants are still around as the Copts...and their default successor civ in this game is the Songhai?? Whose leader in-game is Hausa?? Then you cross the continent back again to play as Buganda?

 

[Quintillus]

I think that this shows the three ways you can qualify to choose Songhai as a civ in the Exploration era; if at least one box is checked you can do so. But I don't think it's the player selecting "Play as Egypt" to continue doing so, at least that's the impression I'm getting.

The top right says. "a new culture emerges" implying this is an era transition selection screen, and the player has clicked on "Songhai" bringing them to this menu page showing that they qualify to pick it because they have previously chosen Egypt.

I like this theory, especially with Thenewwwguy pointing out that Aksum was Egypt's neighbor in the trailer (definitely information overload today!).

Extending it one more step, this suggests to me that there are sets of civs that can evolve to the next era. So.

Aksum-> Songhai
Egypt -> Songhai
Amina/Zazzau -> Songhai

Egypt -> ???
Amina/Zazzau -> ???
Aksum -> ???

Where the other alternative we don't know may or may not be the same for each of the antiquity civs.

It also makes me wonder if "historical choice" might be more accurately labeled "geographic choice".

 

[Brutus2]

I don’t mind having your civ pick up new abilities throughout the game and evolve in different ways in different play throughs but the overall identity of your civ should remain.

 

[KnightModern]

A new age begins: Civilization 7 captures the chaos of human history in manageable doses

Firaxis Games needed to move on from Civilization 6 because, its developers explain, ‘it was getting too big for its britches’

www.theguardian.com

"That’s why Civilization 7’s campaign has been split into three ages – Antiquity, Exploration and Modern – with each ending in a dramatic explosion of global crises. “Breaking the game into chapters lets people get through history in a more digestible fashion,” Beach says."

"When you start a new campaign, you pick a leader and civilisation to govern, and direct your people in establishing their first settlements and encounters with the other peoples populating a largely undeveloped land. You’ll choose the technologies they research, the expansions they make to their cities, and whom they try to befriend or conquer. Every turn you complete or scientific, economic, cultural and military milestone you pass adds points to a meter running in the background. Once that meter hits 200, you and all the other surviving civilisations on the map will transition into the next age.

When moving from Antiquity to Exploration and later Exploration to Modern, you select a new civilisation to lead. You’ll retain all the cities you controlled before but have access to different technologies and attributes. This may seem strange, but it’s built to reflect history: think of London, which was once run by the Romans before being supplanted by the Anglo-Saxons. No empire lasts for ever, but they don’t all collapse, either.

Breaking Civilization 7 into chapters also gives campaigns a new rhythm. As you approach the end of an age, you’ll begin to face global crises. In Antiquity, for instance, you can see a proliferation of independent powers similar to the tribes that tore down Rome. “We’re not calling them barbarians any more,” Beach says. “It’s a more nuanced way to present them.” These crises multiply and strengthen until you reach the next age. “It’s like a sci-fi or fantasy series with a huge, crazy conclusion, and then the next book starts nice and calm,” Beach says. “There’s a point where getting to the next age is a relief.”

Veteran players will recognise the broad strokes of the series in Civilization 7, but this new structure is undoubtedly a foundational change, introducing moments of chaos and high drama to every campaign. Whereas before, you could be confident in your victory (or defeat) after a few hours of play, each new age, with its climactic crises, presents many opportunities for the playing field to be upturned. “Not everybody will survive,” Shirk says. “It’s a lot of fun to play.”

alternate history for expansion pack? just like millenia
would be better if it's per civ, tho

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I like this theory, especially with Thenewwwguy pointing out that Aksum was Egypt's neighbor in the trailer (definitely information overload today!).

Extending it one more step, this suggests to me that there are sets of civs that can evolve to the next era. So.

Aksum-> Songhai
Egypt -> Songhai
Amina/Zazzau -> Songhai

Egypt -> ???
Amina/Zazzau -> ???
Aksum -> ???

Where the other alternative we don't know may or may not be the same for each of the antiquity civs.

It also makes me wonder if "historical choice" might be more accurately labeled "geographic choice".

just a small note here, but I think Amina is a leader (Amina of Zazzau was a contemporary of the Songhai)

She is Hausa though, and her country was not part of the Songhai empire, so I really don't know why they picked her as teh leader of the Songhai, if that is the Amina that it refers to.

Some of the other launch material said that if you play as a leader of a later era civ, your era will be automatically unlocked regardless of who you play earlier on, which I assume what that box refers to

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

They're still a distinct people with their own history, past conquest or not.

Real people don't "lose the game" because they get conquered. They go on existing. They remain a distinct people, with their own culture, that continues to be a living, breathing, changing culture. Conquests make you lose the game in civilization. In reality, there is a game to be won or lost, and so long as a culture still exists, it still matters.

The Chinese, too, were a conquered people once upon a time.

So from a gameplay perspective then you would have to either revolt or have a successful coup to regain leadership of the empire?

 

[Evie]

I would assume America is. So is Buganda, which is the Modern equivalent of Egypt apparently.

Buganda, an eighteenth-nineteenth century pre-colonial African kingdom, not Uganda, the colonial nation (Buganda still exist today as a sub-polity of Uganada).

Which in North America sounds a lot more like, "Lakota, an eighteenth-nineteenth century major people who still exist today as one of the largest Indigenous groups of the United States" than "the United States".

I can't guarantee they're not doing something stupid like "America as the modern native nation", but the fact that they went with Buganda for a modern-era African nation rather than with any actual XXIst century African state makes it very plausible in my mind.

Amina/Zazzau -> Songhai

That would be VERY surprising: Haussa/Zazzau have no business whatsoever as antiquity civs; they seem far more likely to be contemporaries of Songhai in the exploration era.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Buganda, an eighteenth-nineteenth century pre-colonial African kingdom, not Uganda, the colonial nation (Buganda still exist today as a sub-polity of Uganada).

Which in North America sounds a lot more like, "Lakota, an eighteenth-nineteenth century major people who still exist today as one of the largest Indigenous groups of the United States" than "the United States".

I can't guarantee they're not doing something stupid like "America as the modern native nation", but the fact that they went with Buganda for a modern African nation rather than with any actual XXIst century African state makes it very plausible in my mind.

That would be VERY surprising: Haussa/Zazzau have no business whatsoever as antiquity leaders ; they seem far more likely to be contemporaries of Songhai in the exploration era.

yep, what I'm very interested by (beyond the absolute Ahistorical mess that is Egypt -> Songhai -> Buganda being a default path) is the fact that they've presumably made teh leader of the Songhai someone who....isn't Songhai

 

[Jkchart]

I'm watching the quill18 videos right now and i want to play this demo so badly

 

[AffineConstant]

Patterning the growth of civilization over history is neat, balancing the game over time is neat. "Switching civilizations" and leaders mean opponents, and your own empire, lack identity. I was fighting Ghengis Khan 10 turns ago, now I'm fighting Louis the XIII, and I was playing as William the Conqueror but now my leader is Queen Gitarja. Who am I? Who is my opponent? This is a core conceit and motif of Civ, and it's gone now.

Adding and changing Civilization bonuses for balance and growth could be done with Civs standard of one leader and one "civ" throughout the game. This also leads to very fun alt history sentences like "Ibn Battuta was born in America in 700 BCE during the war with neighboring South Africa". No need to have "Correct" leaders in "correct" eras, silliness was always a core part of the appeal of Civ for me.

I'm afraid I just view this as directly cribbed from Humankind, which it very obviously is, without any rethinking of how or why the fundamental mechanic should work. I find it disappointing in that regard.

 

[The_J]

I made a transcript of everything here, for clarification https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...arding-ages-civ-switching-and-leaders.691345/ .
Leaders do NOT switch. Only civs switch. There are some connections between the civ you have and the options you get.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Patterning the growth of civilization over history is neat. "Switching civilizations" and leaders mean opponents, and your own empire, lack identity. I was fighting Ghengis Khan 10 turns ago, now I'm fighting Louis the XIII, and I was playing as William the Conqueror but now my leader is Queen Gitarja. Who am I? Who is my opponent? This is a core conceit and motif of Civ, and it's gone now.

Adding and changing Civilization bonuses could be done with Civs standard of one leader and one civ throughout the game. This also leads to very fun alt history sentences like "Ibn Battuta was born in America in 700 BCE during the war with neighboring South Africa". No need to have "Correct" leaders in "correct" eras, silliness was always a core part of the appeal of Civ for me.

I'm afraid I just view this as directly cribbed from Humankind, which it very obviously is, without any rethinking of how or why the fundamental mechanic should work. I find it disappointing in that regard.

small note, but the leaders seem to be for the entire game. Trailer showed Ashoka still in the game after the switch to Exploration, and the preorder material states that if you pick a leader from a late era but pick an early era civ that isn't in the progression, that leader's civ is automatically unlocked for you, so you won't be switching from Genghis to Louis, but you will be switching from Genghis leading Mongolia to Genghis leading the Soviet Union, and you wont go from William to Gitarja, but you will go from Gitarja leading the Majapahit to Gitarja leading the Republic of Indonesia.

 

[Amtoj]

I think Firaxis generally went about implementing this feature in the right ways. The issue with Humankind was that any culture could become whatever else they wanted as they progressed through eras. Your only limiting factor was whether someone else got to what you wanted first.

We know there are multiple variables limiting the civs you can switch to. The first is historical ties between cultures, and this is a big plus for the immersion factor of the game. Rome can become England can become America. The Gauls can become France can become Canada. Answering the old joke about the Americans being present in the ancient era wasn't necessary, but this setup makes sense.

Material conditions seem to be another factor. Egypt could become the Mongols if they had enough horses on them in the stream. I suppose Egyptian culture hasn't got much to do with the Mongols, but it thematically makes sense that a Mongol-like culture could emerge under very similar environmental conditions.

There seemed to be choices locked behind your combo of leader and civilization as well. An England ruled by a Norwegian leader could result in an interesting alternate history sort of progression.

Overall, I like it a lot for avoiding the pitfalls Humankind had by not placing any restrictions. The only question now is if players can alter those restrictions themselves in the settings. I would personally love to play entirely historical games based on civs that actually have cultures that diverged from each other.

 

[Somebody613]

Over ten pages of people discussing how a game about changing history has to be all about never changing history.
Le facepalm.

 

[Potworny]

...Genghis leading the Soviet Union...

Okay, okay, there may be some upsides to the mechanic, I admit.

 

[Verdant]

I didn't play Humankind so I have no attachment to the concept of civ culture changes.

It makes logical sense that if you're the Ancient era civ with the most horses, that you can adopt the traits of the civ that dominated the world via horses (Mongolia).

Or say, if you occupied the most tiles in the Ancient era, that you get to adopt the traits of Rome, which may relate to constructing improvements and expanding your empire

There should be enough possibilities for every ancient civ that each game can feel distinct and different depending on your map, resources, and how history plays out for you. I think it could be fun

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I think Firaxis generally went about implementing this feature in the right ways. The issue with Humankind was that any culture could become whatever else they wanted as they progressed through eras. Your only limiting factor was whether someone else got to what you wanted first.

We know there are multiple variables limiting the civs you can switch to. The first is historical ties between cultures, and this is a big plus for the immersion factor of the game. Rome can become England can become America. The Gauls can become France can become Canada. Answering the old joke about the Americans being present in the ancient era wasn't necessary, but this setup makes sense.

Material conditions seem to be another factor. Egypt could become the Mongols if they had enough horses on them in the stream. I suppose Egyptian culture hasn't got much to do with the Mongols, but it thematically makes sense that a Mongol-like culture could emerge under very similar environmental conditions.

There seemed to be choices locked behind your combo of leader and civilization as well. An England ruled by a Norwegian leader could result in an interesting alternate history sort of progression.

Overall, I like it a lot for avoiding the pitfalls Humankind had by not placing any restrictions. The only question now is if players can alter those restrictions themselves in the settings. I would personally love to play entirely historical games based on civs that actually have cultures that diverged from each other.

I agree--Though I don't like the premise, the environmental conditions component is admittedly huge. I, however, do object to the fact that some of the "default" progressions are already looking not great. Why are Egypt and Aksum's direct succesor the Songhai and not Medieval Ethiopia and Fatimid Egypt, for example (not to mention even Fatimid Egypt as a successor has its drawbacks, most notably that Arab Egyptians are rather different from the Ancient Egyptians--who are closer in culture to the copts), not to mention some cultures weren't replaced but won't have accurate successors (Native American civs, the Assyrians, most regional Indian kingdom options such as the Chola)

 

[_hero_]

I get why they did this. The stated reason that they want civ bonuses to always feel powerful, so linking civs to specific ages makes sense. The unstated reason, IMO, is that this makes it even easier for them to sell DLCs. It's far easier to design a civ for a specific age than it is to make a civ that's appealing throughout the whole game.

 

[BrotherInJah]

"will your civilization stand the test of time?"
Nope!.. Maybe? For one era?

 

[nakzox]

Here's to another decade of playing Civ V!