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

[The_J]

I think both things can break immersion.
You are Hatshepsut of Egypt. Nice for the immersion. For 6000 years. Bad for the immersion.
First you ar Hatshepsut of Egypt. Then of Songhia. Progress is good for the immersion. The loss of connection is bad for the immersion.
No matter which way you turn it, somehow it will break immersion. It's just a preference which one of it you prefer.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I think both things can break immersion.
You are Hatshepsut of Egypt. Nice for the immersion. For 6000 years. Bad for the immersion.
First you ar Hatshepsut of Egypt. Then of Songhia. Progress is good for the immersion. The loss of connection is bad for the immersion.
No matter which way you turn it, somehow it will break immersion. It's just a preference which one of it you prefer.

It's funny, I remember thinking to myself "what are the core aspects of Civilization game" and one of them was leading an immortal leader. Civ 7 shuffles this up. And voila, chaos.

 

[DWilson]

Honestly, I think many of you are looking at this the wrong way - this is a great mechanic that makes a ton of sense, and you're just getting caught up in the language they've chosen to use in implementing it. Let me explain using the example they gave us...

You start the game as the Egyptian civilization. As the era changes, you are given a choice of two paths (that we've seen so far) you can go down - the Songhai (river based civ) or the Mongols (a horse based civ). You are given a choice to shape your civ based on what the map looks like, which is awesome. Let's say after exploring in the first era you learn that there are several horse tiles nearby but only one short river. In this case, it would make sense historically for your people to gravitate towards being a horse-based civilization rather than become dependent on rivers, so you choose to evolve your civilization into a nomadic horse-based people. In living this life, it makes sense that your civ would probably develop similar characteristics that the historic Mongol people did - they'd probably develop similar traits, similar military units, and similar buildings. If the game just called this choice of path "Nomadic Horseriders", but still referred to your civ as the Egyptians, I'm guessing most people wouldn't have any problem with this mechanic at all. Rather than say your Egyptian civ has taken a "Nomadic Horseriding path (similar to the Mongols)" with a "unique mounted ranged unit (similar to the Mongol Keshik) and a "unique trait centered around enslaving enemy units (similar to the Mongols)", Firaxis just said "hey, let's just call this path the Mongols". I understand why they did it that way - because if they didn't, we'd see tons of fans complaining about "where is civ X?!?!?!" - but because they did, it opens up the argument we're seeing a lot of, which is "OMG, my Egyptians became Mongols, that didn't happen in history". Don't get hung up on the name!

I think it's exciting that we're going to be able to shape our civ to the map in order to play what's given to us. I'm sure many of you have rolled games where the map you generated was completely at odds with whatever "historic" bonuses your civ had. It makes zero sense for my land-locked Phoenician settlers to have a bunch of bonuses based around being on the coast, or for my Roman settlers to have mastery over iron weapons despite not having any iron remotely close to my lands, or for my Aztec settlers on a continent all by themselves to be fierce warrior geared around battle, whether it fits how they were in history or not. Now you can take that landlocked Phoenician civilization and develop them towards taking advantage of all the hills surrounding them, or you can develop your iron-less Romans to specialize in horseback warfare instead, or you can develop your isolated Aztecs to right haiku to pass the time. The civ you develop and grow is really going to be *your civ*, not something steered into playing any specific way. I think that's really cool.

If you're getting upset about this there's a pretty easy workaround. Anywhere you see a specific civilization mentioned in gameplay footage, just mentally put "-like" after the name of it. Your Egyptians aren't changing into Mongols, they're changing to be "Mongol-like". They're still Egyptians if you want them to be, it's your game, call them what you want. They're just developing in unique ways based on the surrounding geography - just like throughout history. We're essentially playing a game with custom civs, where real civ names were shoehorned in to meet fan expectations.

To simplify my response, this is the point of my distaste. That's not the game I want to play. I want to play as the Egyptians or as the Americans (well, actually I am more likely to play as Rome, Mongolia, or an Amerindian culture), I want to build an Empire that stands the test of time with the flavor that helps me immerse myself coming from a *continuous* civilization. It's not that the new solution is a bad design, it's just not the one I want as a fan of the series. Which is okay, it just means the game isn't for me, but maybe it's going to be for a larger audience. For many Civ 5 was a bad transition after Civ 4, however the audience overall expanded. That's okay.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Honestly, I think many of you are looking at this the wrong way - this is a great mechanic that makes a ton of sense, and you're just getting caught up in the language they've chosen to use in implementing it. Let me explain using the example they gave us...

You start the game as the Egyptian civilization. As the era changes, you are given a choice of two paths (that we've seen so far) you can go down - the Songhai (river based civ) or the Mongols (a horse based civ). You are given a choice to shape your civ based on what the map looks like, which is awesome. Let's say after exploring in the first era you learn that there are several horse tiles nearby but only one short river. In this case, it would make sense historically for your people to gravitate towards being a horse-based civilization rather than become dependent on rivers, so you choose to evolve your civilization into a nomadic horse-based people. In living this life, it makes sense that your civ would probably develop similar characteristics that the historic Mongol people did - they'd probably develop similar traits, similar military units, and similar buildings. If the game just called this choice of path "Nomadic Horseriders", but still referred to your civ as the Egyptians, I'm guessing most people wouldn't have any problem with this mechanic at all. Rather than say your Egyptian civ has taken a "Nomadic Horseriding path (similar to the Mongols)" with a "unique mounted ranged unit (similar to the Mongol Keshik) and a "unique trait centered around enslaving enemy units (similar to the Mongols)", Firaxis just said "hey, let's just call this path the Mongols". I understand why they did it that way - because if they didn't, we'd see tons of fans complaining about "where is civ X?!?!?!" - but because they did, it opens up the argument we're seeing a lot of, which is "OMG, my Egyptians became Mongols, that didn't happen in history". Don't get hung up on the name!

I think it's exciting that we're going to be able to shape our civ to the map in order to play what's given to us. I'm sure many of you have rolled games where the map you generated was completely at odds with whatever "historic" bonuses your civ had. It makes zero sense for my land-locked Phoenician settlers to have a bunch of bonuses based around being on the coast, or for my Roman settlers to have mastery over iron weapons despite not having any iron remotely close to my lands, or for my Aztec settlers on a continent all by themselves to be fierce warrior geared around battle, whether it fits how they were in history or not. Now you can take that landlocked Phoenician civilization and develop them towards taking advantage of all the hills surrounding them, or you can develop your iron-less Romans to specialize in horseback warfare instead, or you can develop your isolated Aztecs to right haiku to pass the time. The civ you develop and grow is really going to be *your civ*, not something steered into playing any specific way. I think that's really cool.

If you're getting upset about this there's a pretty easy workaround. Anywhere you see a specific civilization mentioned in gameplay footage, just mentally put "-like" after the name of it. Your Egyptians aren't changing into Mongols, they're changing to be "Mongol-like". They're still Egyptians if you want them to be, it's your game, call them what you want. They're just developing in unique ways based on the surrounding geography - just like throughout history. We're essentially playing a game with custom civs, where real civ names were shoehorned in to meet fan expectations.

i agree with this in theory but the reality is at the end of the day, a game should cater to the role-playing ppl want to participate in, not force them to go through even more hoops of imagination because it’s poorly implemented.

civ has also always been a game that tries to embody and highlight the cultures it chooses to implement as playable, so it’s antithetical to this to make players feel like they have to pretend it’s not actually that civ for it to “make sense”

1) Have Native Indians adopt ex-European civics (and religion), yet keep their civ name intact?

imo, the best answer is, let people keep the same civ, and give each civ “back up plan abilities” that are still relevant to the new era and representative of the culture. i don’t think you need to do this because then it’s just colonization by another name (think residential schools)

I think both things can break immersion.
You are Hatshepsut of Egypt. Nice for the immersion. For 6000 years. Bad for the immersion.
First you ar Hatshepsut of Egypt. Then of Songhia. Progress is good for the immersion. The loss of connection is bad for the immersion.
No matter which way you turn it, somehow it will break immersion. It's just a preference which one of it you prefer.

this exactly. i’m of the opinion that it is far more immersive to feel like you’re truly playing the culture you pick. in past games, transforming your empire to fit the new era (upgrading buildings, doing more “modern” things) is how you represented progress. now it’s hamfistedly thrusted towards you as a whole different culture.

progress as immersion would prob be switching leaders for the same civ, realistically speaking—since even in this new system you’re still hatshepsut for 6000 years. But even that would be flawed since what would you do for a modern Babylon

 

[ButtBillionaire]

Like I said: there is no way there won't be countless mods or an official "classic game mode" allowing to modify, cut or customize this aspect of the game.

I will say that your post about the modding potential did make me feel more positive about it. Evidently I'm still open to the whole thing and maybe just need to get over the initial shock.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

To simplify my response, this is the point of my distaste. That's not the game I want to play. I want to play as the Egyptians or as the Americans (well, actually I am more likely to play as Rome, Mongolian, or an Amerindian culture), I want to build an Empire that stands the test of time with the flavor that helps me immerse myself coming from a *continuous* civilization. It's not that the new solution is a bad design, it's just not the one I want as a fan of the series. Which is okay, it just means the game isn't for me, but maybe it's going to be for a larger audience. For many Civ 5 was a bad transition after Civ 4, however the audience overall expanded. That's okay.

this exactly. i play crusader kings 3 when i want to feel progression of a country over hundreds of years and play different leaders.

i play civ for the feel of actually repping a culture, which is gone when i’m forced to change my culture

 

[Bufus]

imo, the best answer is, let people keep the same civ, and give each civ “back up plan abilities” that are still relevant to the new era and representative of the culture. i don’t think you need to do this because then it’s just colonization by another name (think residential schools)

Agree with this.

But also, let people keep the AI civs on a similar rule set.

OK, I might want to keep my civ to run continuously through the eras, but what about my opponents? China becomes the Dutch, and then becomes America? No, thanks, that is just deeply unappealing to me.

As a secondary point, the first era limits 1) the number of civs, 2) the progress one can make through tech/civics trees, and 3) the map itself.

AND - the manufactured crisis mechanic still doesn't look great. "Oh, bad things are happening because we're ending an 'era'?" Bad things can (and arguably should) happen at any point. I'd prefer more randomization with respect to that, not mandated chaos at a set time.

It's all just so arbitrarily RESTRICTIVE, and that's my issue with Civ VII.

 

[canadamufc]

I think both things can break immersion.
You are Hatshepsut of Egypt. Nice for the immersion. For 6000 years. Bad for the immersion.
First you ar Hatshepsut of Egypt. Then of Songhia. Progress is good for the immersion. The loss of connection is bad for the immersion.
No matter which way you turn it, somehow it will break immersion. It's just a preference which one of it you prefer.

This is true!
I felt like the immortal leader was a Civ classic, 100% broke immersion but it has been there from the start so no one complained. It’s a staple. We all got used to it and it became associated with the Civ franchise.
This, though? It feels like it tries to what Humankind did, but honestly I don’t think this is what Civ is meant to be. I think a lot of people are angry because it’s taken away what has been a core staple of the series for 6 iterations.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

This is true!
I felt like the immortal leader was a Civ classic, 100% broke immersion but it has been there from the start so no one complained. It’s a staple. We all got used to it and it became associated with the Civ franchise.
This, though? It feels like it tries to what Humankind did, but honestly I don’t think this is what Civ is meant to be. I think a lot of people are angry because it’s taken away what has been a core staple of the series for 6 iterations.

I feel like people are not looking at this correctly, they're so focused on the Civilization part they are missing the obvious.

You seem to STILL be an immortal leader. But you just get a change of outfits this time around, which comes in the ability to change civilization.

 

[DWilson]

I feel like people are not looking at this correctly, they're so focused on the Civilization part they are missing the obvious.

You seem to STILL be an immortal leader. But you just get a change of outfits this time around, which comes in the ability to change civilization.

Alternatively, the game is no longer Civilization. Now it's Civilizations

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I feel like people are not looking at this correctly, they're so focused on the Civilization part they are missing the obvious.

You seem to STILL be an immortal leader. But you just get a change of outfits this time around, which comes in the ability to change civilization.

But there is a Songhai leader as well. I assume that when you switch from Egypt to Songhai then you have the choice of switching leaders too?

We did see Benjamin Franklin leading the Greeks, so I assume they kept being a Greek civ in the Modern Era but were able change to the American leader?

 

[canadamufc]

I feel like people are not looking at this correctly, they're so focused on the Civilization part they are missing the obvious.

You seem to STILL be an immortal leader. But you just get a change of outfits this time around, which comes in the ability to change civilization.

Well it’s the same thing just different terms. Everyone knew Civ as the game you build your empire from the start to the finish. Romans from the ancient to the stars. America can build the Pyramids. Etc, etc, etc.

Now it seems like it’s gone. You can’t bring an alternate reality of the Ancient Egyptians going to the moon to life.

 

[Potworny]

I think that changing civs may get to me eventually, I don't know, I don't feel so negative about it as I felt an hour ago. It just needs a lot of potential civs to make the historical branches smooth. And I very much would like settings to disallow the more ahistorical evolutions for the AI, I guess. The only thing that is too silly for me is Benjamin Franklin leading Greece, I guess. The least they could do is introduce civ-specific titles for leaders, so that if Genghis Khan leads Discovery Age Russia he becomes Genghis Tzar. It'd still be silly, but more immersive-silly at least

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

But there is a Songhai leader as well. I assume that when you switch from Egypt to Songhai then you have the choice of switching leaders too?

We did see Benjamin Franklin leading the Greeks, so I assume they kept being a Greek civ in the Modern Era but were able change to the American leader?

I'm under the impression, you choose a single leader and keep them throughout the history, you don't change it, you do however, change the civilization, along with the unique buildings and units.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The only thing that is too silly for me is Benjamin Franklin leading Greece, it's too silly for me, I guess.

Well at least they are both founders of some form of democracy, I guess.

 

[Evie]

But there is a Songhai leader as well. I assume that when you switch from Egypt to Songhai then you have the choice of switching leaders too?

We did see Benjamin Franklin leading the Greeks, so I assume they kept being a Greek civ in the Modern Era but were able change to the American leader?

Your leader does not change.

My hopeful understanding is that you can still pick Ben Franklin in 6000 BCE, and he will be your leader all the way through the game. This should help a lot in avoiding the problems with civ continuity that Humankind had - Aztecs or French Republic, it's still going to be Monty's delightfully annoying face making you want to punch him straight across the room, rather than a random avatar nobody cares about. The game is still going to have its big annoying personalities, they're just going to be a bit more diverse in term of what they can do.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I think that changing civs may get to me eventually, I don't know, I don't feel so negative about it as I felt an hour ago. It just needs a lot of potential civs to make the historical branches smooth. And I very much would like settings to disallow the more ahistorical evolutions for the AI, I guess. The only thing that is too silly for me is Benjamin Franklin leading Greece, I guess. The least they could do is introduce civ-specific titles for leaders, so that if Genghis Khan leads Discovery Age Russia he becomes Genghis Tzar. It'd still be silly, but more immersive-silly at least

From what I gathered, each Civilization option has requirements, and include being a specific leader, or a specific nation. So this system is not nearly as chaotic.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm under the impression, you choose a single leader and keep them throughout the history, you don't change it, you do however, change the civilization, along with the unique buildings and units.

I believe you are right. I just saw quill118's video about it.
Not sure how I feel about it.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I believe you are right. I just saw quill118's video about it.
Not sure how I feel about it.

I think once you realise this game is about leaders (And let's face it, it's always been about leaders in some capacity), then everything changes.

 

[TyrannusRex]

I'm enjoying reading some of this, and I'm still not entirely sure whether I like what the game's doing or whether I'll buy it (I will say it looks abso-bloody-lutely beautiful.)
But I am sort of of the opinion that I can't "found an empire that stands the test of time"... if I'm required to change the identity of my empire.