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

[Razpor]

In the reveal video Carl states that thought that it was a problem that a civ's bonuses would be centered around one era of the game and during the other parts of the game you could be going without any bonuses. He says that switching civs is the answer to that problem is to have each player switch to a civ with a bonus for that era.

So they solved a problem by creating 20 more ,great.

 

[GeneralZift]

In the reveal video Carl states that thought that it was a problem that a civ's bonuses would be centered around one era of the game and during the other parts of the game you could be going without any bonuses. He says that switching civs is the answer to that problem is to have each player switch to a civ with a bonus for that era.

I don't want to pin it all on Carl but if he was responsible for designing the Civs in Civ6, the ones with dozens of bonuses and paragraphs to read...
I'm not surprised

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I don't want to pin it all on Carl but if he was responsible for designing the Civs in Civ6, the ones with dozens of bonuses and paragraphs to read...
I'm not surprised

Seems to me like switching to era specific civs will shorten the list of bonus.

 

[_hero_]

I don't want to pin it all on Carl but if he was responsible for designing the Civs in Civ6, the ones with dozens of bonuses and paragraphs to read...
I'm not surprised

I'm pretty sure he was not. If I remember he was responsible for balance testing and was promoted to development during the New Frontier Pass.

 

[Krajzen]

One more thought:

Decoupling leaders from civilizations makes it possible for Firaxis to finally add "leaderless archeological civilizations". You can also mod them without pain of inventing those silly fictional noname placeholders where you have absolutely no historical sources. Of course them being led by some other civs closest approximation leader is far from perfect, but again - what can you do if you have nothing to use from real life

So the road is much clearer for say Harappan civilization (I guess you lead them as Asoka - it almost feels right), Missisipi (you lead them as any given NA leader), Olmecs (you take leader from Maya), African archeological civilizations, Indo-Europeans and God knows what does your knowledge allows.

Strangely enough, it would also technically allow Firaxis to add those peoples to the game whose customs forbid depict their dead leaders (iirc that was the problem with Pueblo and many native Australian cultures?). You simply honor that wish and add Puebloans with no leader

 

[Bridog7]

The more I see of the gameplay from others who have played it. I want to like it, I really do, and I hope this new idea actually does steer the series into an exciting new direction. Change is needed to stay on top and relevant. Continuing to do the same is how you fall off. It may be controversial now but it could really work so as long as it is not loaded with flaws and issues that prevent it from having any kind of success

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Something to note I haven't seen elsewhere, especially to those stating their anger at Egypt to Songhai being a default option: at 16:09 of the Showcase, on the starting selection screen for 'Age and Civilisation' for Egypt, at the bottom it notes 'Age Unlocks: Unlocks Songhai in the Exploration Age; Unlocks Abbasid in the Exploration Age'. So Egypt has two default options for evolution, plus we've seen leaders can unlock civs by themselves (Amina being your leader was one possible prerequisite for Songhai, so even if you're Maurya in Antiquity, with Amina you can go to Songhai after)

View attachment 700097

that’s at least somewhat better, since the abassids were the first rulers of Arab Egypt, but I still don’t see the Songhai connection—wouldn’t the next best Exploration era leaders be the Copts or something to that capacity

 

[Zaarin]

Decoupling leaders from civilizations makes it possible for Firaxis to finally add "leaderless archeological civilizations".

I have the inverse hope of leaders difficult to attach to a civ. I'm thinking Zenobia, but other people will doubtless mention Charlemagne.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

If I were to guess, most likely this idea, it won't be a disaster that leads to the downfall of Civ lol, but it is not going to steer the civ series into an exciting new direction. It will instead be alright but it will have its problems and flaws

story of this game franchise

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

that’s at least somewhat better, since the abassids were the first rulers of Arab Egypt, but I still don’t see the Songhai connection—wouldn’t the next best Exploration era leaders be the Copts or something to that capacity

Rewatching the video, I almost see it as more of a gameplay thing. They are both African kingdoms that primarily thrive around navigable rivers that run through the desert.
Not that I necessarily agree with this criteria, but it's the most logical answer.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Rewatching the video, I almost see it as more of a gameplay thing. They are both African kingdoms that primarily thrive around navigable rivers that run through the desert.
Not that I necessarily agree with this criteria, but it's the most logical answer.

That seems to be the explanation that makes the most sense. I just wish they still qualified it, in that case like “two settlements on river” in some way

otherwise, the implication is that the Abbasids and Songhai share equal rights to the default “successor civ” to egypt, when one, while culturally different, shared the same geography (and studies suggest that the modern Egyptians were Arabized rather than replaced, so genetically they’d be successors too) and the others share nothing in common

 

[Krajzen]

I have the inverse hope of leaders difficult to attach to a civ. I'm thinking Zenobia, but other people will doubtless mention Charlemagne.

Yeah, this would be another benefit.
Civless leaders sound like a dumbass idea, but as long as we have hopefully obvious option "please make AI leaders always stick to their historical civs" then we have no issues and gain net benefit of having some additional possibilities. Zenobia, Charlemagne, Bolivar, Che Guevara, Saladin (finally we can avoid endless debate which civ should he be assigned to), Tamerlane, Babur...

Che Guevara is very good example of someone who really feels like being worthy of being civ leader while not really leading any country IRL. Similarly we can use this backdoor to reintroduce Joan of Arc or any extremely cool historical character who we can't pretend was a leader in literal sense - but who was a powerful symbol.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That seems to be the explanation that makes the most sense. I just wish they still qualified it, in that case like “two settlements on river” in some way

otherwise, the implication is that the Abbasids and Songhai share equal rights to the default “successor civ” to egypt, when one, while culturally different, shared the same geography (and studies suggest that the modern Egyptians were Arabized rather than replaced, so genetically they’d be successors too) and the others share nothing in common

Which is why I'm at least hoping that a civ like England would be able to diverge into either Great Britain (British) or America. That way at least natives in America could stay mostly native.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Right.
Let's play USA in 1000 and Incas in 2000.
I mean, this totally makes sense, right?

Of course it makes, in a game about alternative history. In the same game where all civs start at the same level and you will be able to, as Egypt, forge an alliance with Mayans and conquer Rome.

If Incas were left alone in an alternative timeline and became the most powerful civ on Earth, completely unaffected by any foreign invasion, migration, conquest or internal strife (something you can do in a game) - do you think they would just disappear just because it's 2000? Or switch completely to Spanish culture? Nope - they would continue their existence as Incan polity up to 2000s and beyond just like Germans, French, Japanese and many other nations did in the last 1000 years.

No civilization has stood the test of six thousand years as Civ presents it. No, not even China.

And does it mean that players have to be absolutely not allowed to achieve that in the game?
It worked successfully in all previous civ games, so why it absolutely can't be present in the next one and we must be forced to switch to a completely new mechanic?

THIS.
It was fine to play this way in Civ 1 or Civ 2, but Civ 4 introduced C2C and RFC... and now for anyone who tasted it, Civ will never be "allowed" to be as "primitive" as "USA in 1000".
At least that's what I think, duh.

I tried C2C. Absolutely disliked their idea of adopting civs, returned to AND2 and never touched C2C since. Same as my friend. So no, it's not some universally better and beloved feature.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Which is why I'm at least hoping that a civ like England would be able to diverge into either Great Britain (British) or America. That way at least natives in America could stay mostly native.

and yet…we still don’t have a great answer for who they’d turn into who wouldn’t be either just another native american, or the US

The shawnee being “exploration era” despite the 1700-1800 time frame also would mean that pretty much any “modern era” natives would still fall into the exploration era

even if a culture like the Haudenosaunee or Salish were categorized as modern era natives, but they have literally nothing in common with the Shawnee.

So the question remains, who would these cultures become that isn’t just the settler colonial states that replaced them

 

[King of Prussia]

I'll admit this is probably the most skeptical part of the reveal for me. I always enjoyed taking x civ and leader from 4k bce to "today". I will wait until we know more and try it out myself before i definitely say im a fan or not. If every starting Civ has a very close civ in the next era, so you can more or less play your "egypt" in all 3 eras as an example, a lot of my concerns will be lessened. We wont know this until they reveal the full list. Assuming mod support is there, it could lead to a lot of neat civs being added, in each era too.

I need to go back and watch the part about leaders again to comment.

 

[E.C.H]

I have the inverse hope of leaders difficult to attach to a civ. I'm thinking Zenobia, but other people will doubtless mention Charlemagne.

I suspect one confirmed leader, Amina, is already a beneficiary of this. Sure, you could put in her Kingdom, Zazzau, as a civ but practically it's almost certainly too small and obscure a player in world history for that, and attempting to place her as leader of another state would be cheesy at best, inaccurate and problematic at worst. With the detached leaders, there's no issue spotlighting her alone.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

I suspect one confirmed leader, Amina, is already a beneficiary of this. Sure, you could put in her Kingdom, Zazzau, as a civ but practically it's almost certainly too small and obscure a player in world history for that, and attempting to place her as leader of another state would be cheesy at best, inaccurate and problematic at worst. With the detached leaders, there's no issue spotlighting her alone.

you’d prob want Amina to represent the Hausa at large. I think I was originally concerned they incorrectly labeled her as a leader of Songhai, but seeing as leaders and countries are fully uncoupled, it looks like either the Hausa are a seperate civ and the Songhai are leaderless, or both are fully unlinked and given that she’s the closest leader she gets the shortcut benefit

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

and yet…we still don’t have a great answer for who they’d turn into who wouldn’t be either just another native american, or the US

The shawnee being “exploration era” despite the 1700-1800 time frame also would mean that pretty much any “modern era” natives would still fall into the exploration era

even if a culture like the Haudenosaunee or Salish were categorized as modern era natives, but they have literally nothing in common with the Shawnee.

So the question remains, who would these cultures become that isn’t just the settler colonial states that replaced them

I will say that I've seen that Ara has Wilma Mankiller leading the Cherokee. You could possibly have the Navajo with Code Talker UU. It might not be the most ideal answer though by adding a modern one, but it's to me better than turning them into the U.S.

 

[Thormodr]

Civ switching sounds horrendous. Egypt into Mongolia? Get that crap out of here.

Really, really, really disappointed. My heart literally sunk when I was watching the video. Implementing something that literally no one has asked for. *Ugh*

The whole tagline for Civ is: Build a Civilization to stand the test of time.

Not, build a civilization to last an age and then Egypt into Mongolia or Songhai.