Are we really changing the identity of our empire, though? I look at this as making small changes throughout the course of the game as time goes by, fine tuning it to new circumstances. I think a lot of people are jumping to conclusions assuming your civ is going to all the sudden play completely different from one era to the next, and I just don't know that we have seen that this is going to be the case. We'll know more as me get more info.
Thats valid! I can’t assume that everyone holds my own view on how they play.
From what I saw from quill18's video is they started a game and chose Hatshepsut to lead Egypt. Leader selection was first and then you chose a civ from Antiquity to lead. In game, Amina looked to be a leader of Aksum as an AI civ in Antiquity. So, I'm not sure if every leader will come with a designated civ or not? Maybe there is another Songhai leader, or an actual Hausa civ if that's the case?
Don't ask me why (I agree with you 100% on this, by the way - there are too many examples to count), but for me, it's the idea that Firaxis is mandating that we change our civ ... and that the AI must do it, too. And that it will happen more than once.
the distinction here, for me, is that this is what “filled in the blanks” in previous games. Your Aztec cities would still develop skyscrapers by 2000 AD. but by definition in this game, they won’t be Aztec anymore. For those people who actively want to play as the Aztecs and identify their empire with the Aztecs when they play this game, that is now impossible. If this wasn’t a big deal, then what does playing “as” a civ or leader actually mean? Is it just stat bonuses to prefer a certain kind of play style?
You add mods with separate "Gauls", "French Kingdom" and "French Republic" and recreate history of France from Vercingerorix through Louis XIV to the modern era.
As far as I can see, Amina is not the name of any known leader of Aksum, and the only Amina I can find is a Hausa queen. Considering the height of the Hausa kingdoms was contemporaneous with the Songhai empire, I cannot find any reason why Amina would get a free check to evolve into Songhai in the Exploration era unless that was her “leader of the civ” free pass.
Honestly, I second this, with a couple minor caveats.I also wanted to point out, that the more I think about this system, the better it is at resolving all our 4d problems with civilization splits, separating them, combining them, arguing about their essence etc. It simply naturally allows to include both modern nation states and their various historical antecedents all in the same time without compromising either, enabling them to shine in their full glory. You may even switch to them from era to era, simulating complex history of say India.
It also solves the immersion problem all civ games had, of colonial and very modern civs feeling very out of place in the earlier eras. This time I simply take England and its most sensible predecessor and then turn to America in the modern age.
I have one more idea it is going to allow us to do. Many mods to civ5 were not even about separate civs but different leaders for the same civ, or different eras of the same country. In civ7 you'll be able to acommodate all such mods at once - you combine mods adding Roman emperors and you can switch them between eras, so Caesar is followed by Augustus
Really, guys, as long as Firaxis gives us the ability to play "classical mode" on release via mods or options we may eventually end up with strictly superior system which allows us to play the old way while transcending many of our old dilemmas and limitations in the long term.
I don't know, I think it's probably the opposite and that the true role players are in the minority (not saying there's anything wrong with playing that way, btw). The leaders have never really been attractive to me for their roleplaying possibilities... to me they're just mixtures of game mechanics. I think most people just want a fun game, personally.
i mean, there’s nothing wrong with only seeing a civ as a list of mechanics and not having much else attachment to them other than said abilities, but then why do you play civ as opposed to another 4x game?
I honestly wouldn't mind this unless it was based off of progressing by leaders through a single civilization. That way you could go from Ashoka's Mauryan Empire all the way to Gandhi's Republic of Gandhi. Same for Persian and Chinese dynasties.
This is assuming there will be a classic mode, or modders will be able to mod one in a game, which is still unconfirmed.
Right. Weirdly enough the only 4 civs in the demo were Aksum, Egypt, Rome, and Maurya, while the leaders were Amina, Hatshepsut, Augustus, and Ashoka. It's got me wondering whether there are leaders without designated civs in the game, or are there civs without designated leaders?
I play it because it's the best, it's always been the best, and I've loved every entry in the series. They've never let me down.
I am for the most part excited about this game, even though I don't like all the changes personally. I think Firaxis will make into a game that I will enjoy.
I don’t disagree with it! there’s no “right” way to play a game, esp open ended ones like Civ. But Civ isn’t groundbreaking nor unique in its gameplay alone. Pretty much everything it does can be found in other 4X games. That’s what happens when a game becomes the most iconic title in its genre.
this exactly. Historicity and being able to play as one civ all the way through are incredibly important to this fanbase. it’s why they’ve taken more and more care to bring in lesser-known civs, get the right languages and music, the right leaders, etc.
even a world with historical starts rarely fits when one city is the size of uzbekistan on the map LOL
Wouldn't hold my breath for a classic mode, given what was said during the showcase -- that all of the civs seem to be designed around this switching mechanic. They no longer have to worry about "balancing" for the late game, so on and so forth. But it's certainly possible if enough people complain (to put it nicely).I also wanted to point out, that the more I think about this system, the better it is at resolving all our 4d problems with civilization splits, separating them, combining them, arguing about their essence etc. It simply naturally allows to include both modern nation states and their various historical antecedents all in the same time without compromising either, enabling them to shine in their full glory. You may even switch to them from era to era, simulating complex history of say India.
It also solves the immersion problem all civ games had, of colonial and very modern civs feeling very out of place in the earlier eras. This time I simply take England and its most sensible predecessor and then turn to America in the modern age.
I have one more idea it is going to allow us to do. Many mods to civ5 were not even about separate civs but different leaders for the same civ, or different eras of the same country. In civ7 you'll be able to acommodate all such mods at once - you combine mods adding Roman emperors and you can switch them between eras, so Caesar is followed by Augustus
Really, guys, as long as Firaxis gives us the ability to play "classical mode" on release via mods or options we may eventually end up with strictly superior system which allows us to play the old way while transcending many of our old dilemmas and limitations in the long term.
