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

[Thenewwwguy]

Civ4 - Rhye's and Fall of Civilization

(Public) Development forum for Rhye's and Fall of Civilization.

forums.civfanatics.com

...says Hi.
Yet again, "Civ 4 mods" have this covered, lol.

Rhys and Fall has been the gold standard for a civ experience for literal decades—but it was an overhaul mod that took the game in a different direction than how Civ devs have ever really conceptualized it, at least until now (kind of)

I feel like it’s true that these aren’t novel concepts but the core argument here is “is this a positive change or is it out of character” and mods can’t really factor it into that because Rhys and Fall wasn’t made by the civ devs.

 

[Somebody613]

The people who say things like “oh you’re still the Aztecs, just the Aztecs who pick up Horseback riding and become Mongol-like” misunderstand that even if it’s just a title with a couple of different abilities and thematically named cities, the ability to immerse yourself in the role play is hurt in a way that for a lot of ppl, they can’t look past in the same way they can look past immortal leaders and static nations for 6000 years

Hence my aforementioned Option (1): Me_Leader leading My_Civ, while developing various Traits on the way from day one to day last.
Why not this? You can name your civ in any way you like, and maybe even be allowed to RE-name it at any given moment.
Heck, this is basically the dream of all Self-Insert writers/readers: To lead the Ancient Romans not AS Cesar, but INSTEAD of Cesar, lol.
Isn't this also what we are supposed to feel when playing ANY iteration of Civ, eh?

 

[Somebody613]

Rhys and Fall has been the gold standard for a civ experience for literal decades—but it was an overhaul mod that took the game in a different direction than how Civ devs have ever really conceptualized it, at least until now (kind of)

I feel like it’s true that these aren’t novel concepts but the core argument here is “is this a positive change or is it out of character” and mods can’t really factor it into that because Rhys and Fall wasn’t made by the civ devs.

We clearly view the whole discussion from the opposite ends of the spectrum.
For me, I have stuff I had dreamed of (that had been used in mods), and I'm disappointed by how BADLY those are being implemented in Civ 7.
For you, all of that stuff is instead a case of "do I even want it altogether", and you as well end up disappointed because they are implemented BADLY.
We start from the opposite sides, yet we meet in the middle by concluding that "it's a FAIL", lol.
Or so it seems to me, ya know.

 

[Evie]

I made no claim about what the majority wants. The majority opinion is no more objective than individual opinion.

As to what people wanted, people seldom actually want a new game. Our idea of the future is the past with better graphics and/or AI. Innovation is rarely if ever present in what players want in tHe future of their game.

But that's how you get EA sports games, a new game every year and nearly all of them as forgettable as the others. The ones that stand our ARE the ones that innovate and do different things that most players never thought to ask for. Most other developers are not onboard with that kind of stagnant design, and rightly so.

That's not to say you shouldn't listen to the players at all, of course not. Players have good ideas too, just that "thenpkayers aren't asking for a major change" is never a reason not to have major change. Major changes - innovation - is what devs are supposed to be doing.

 

[Zaarin]

That's not to say you shouldn't listen to the players at all, of course not. Players have good ideas too, just that "thenpkayers aren't asking for a major change" is never a reason not to have major change. Major changes - innovation - is what devs are supposed to be doing.

100% this.

 

[Somebody613]

As to what people wanted, people seldom actually want a new game. Our idea of the future is the past with better graphics and/or AI. Innovation is rarely if ever present in what players want in tHe future of their game.

Which isn't even the case here, because there had been MODS doing the same stuff BETTER in the past.
I don't call something that I saw in a mod 5 years ago, "innovation" in a new game iteration.
At best, it's "trying to implement already working ideas" (and in this case, failing to do it right).
At worst, it's "stealing the ideas of others and pretending that you aren't paid money for doing that", lol.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Hence my aforementioned Option (1): Me_Leader leading My_Civ, while developing various Traits on the way from day one to day last.
Why not this? You can name your civ in any way you like, and maybe even be allowed to RE-name it at any given moment.
Heck, this is basically the dream of all Self-Insert writers/readers: To lead the Ancient Romans not AS Cesar, but INSTEAD of Cesar, lol.
Isn't this also what we are supposed to feel when playing ANY iteration of Civ, eh?

It’s not that I’m opposed to this, but more that it feels like it shouldn’t have come to this, and that would a cop-out response. I like having leaders leading their civs so that I can learn more about them. I didn’t know who Ambiorix was before he was released. I learned about the Meroe civilizations because of Nubia’s release. Seeing Hawai’i included in Civ 5 helped me go back and learn more about Kamehameha’s unification of the islands.

When i’m playing, i don’t really relate to the leader anymore than being like a crystallized, manifested version of an iconic leader of that civ and their wishes for the nation they led. I mostly think about “what could’ve been” for the civ. but that being said, the leader not being there, or being forced to change the civ, doesn’t feel “better” to me just because I can rename them and pretend it’s all the same. I’d much prefer them to give us options to play as the same civ all the way through, whether that be Classic mode or a way to keep your previous era’s civ

I made no claim about what the majority wants. The majority opinion is no more objective than individual opinion.

As to what people wanted, people seldom actually want a new game. Our idea of the future is the past with better graphics and/or AI. Innovation is rarely if ever present in what players want in tHe future of their game.

But that's how you get EA sports games, a new game every year and nearly all of them as forgettable as the others. The ones that stand our ARE the ones that innovate and do different things that most players never thought to ask for. Most other developers are not onboard with that kind of stagnant design, and rightly so.

That's not to say you shouldn't listen to the players at all, of course not. Players have good ideas too, just that "thenpkayers aren't asking for a major change" is never a reason not to have major change. Major changes - innovation - is what devs are supposed to be doing.

that’s a fair response, and a good point. I just don’t agree to the notion that Civ’s most basic premise—you lead one civ through eras they did not exist in and create your own history—should’ve been something that had to change jsut for the sake of innovation

I don’t think innovation or rerelease for the sake of rerelease is good. I agree with you that Civ 7 needed to be distinct, not iteration. HOWEVER, innovation for the sake of innovation is no better than not changing things at all and rereleasing the same stuff (like your EA example)

ofc, you’re right in that “just because players say this doesn’t mean they should do it” and also that “players are unlikely to ask for radical change”—both of those are undoubtedly true.

I just question whether *this* was the change that needed to be made, and I think it’s very fair for the fanbase to dislike that a core change to what this series was made just to be “innovative and new”

 

[Evie]

Ironically, I would have preferred this. But I still wouldn't force anyone to do that. For example, if you chose France and wanted to expand quickly early game you could start the game as Napoleon. By the time the mid-game rolls around and you can switch to Louis XIV and focus on wonder building and acquiring culture by changing governments.

You realize, of course, that for it to work in the game where many civs don't have ancient or modern leaders, you would STILL end up with leaders separated from civilizations. Right?

Especially given again that detailed leader animations means leaders are *the* big limit on how many of anything you can have in the game.

Yes, on paper, it sounds better. That's why everyone who wanted change suggested it: it's the obvious solution. I liked it too, and I spent a lot of time trying to come up with *some* sort of way to make it work.

In practice, though, it didn't actually work without destroying any hope of diversity in the game. That's why people condemned it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You realize, of course, that for it to work in the game where many civs don't have ancient or modern leaders, you would STILL end up with leaders separated from civilizations. Right?

Especially given again that detailed leader animations means leaders are *the* big limit on how many of anything you can have in the game.

Yes, on paper, it sounds better. In practice it's not doable.

Leaders wouldn't be time locked, with my idea. In my example that I gave you could start off as Napoleon in the Ancient Era, and then switch to Louis XIV or Joan of Arc later. Then again you could even go back to him if your neighbors start getting aggressive. Or just play as Napoleon or Louis XIV for France all game like before.

Maybe it's not doable, and time and money constraining, but I was just stating my preferences.

 

[Evie]

Even then, you still need Louis XIV, Napoléon and Jeanne d'Arc animated leaders. And that's one civ. Every civ gets to swap between three? Okay, even assuming twenty four leaders in vanilla, that's a whole...eight civilizations.

Allowing some civilizations to pick other civ's leaders help, but even then remain limited, and you're already hitting the problem of leader/civ separation anyway.

Like, don't get me wrong, I like the theory of this idea! I soent hours trying to make it work in the old ideas forum. But the only way that ever came close was splitting leader names and animated leaderhead. Having some kind of iconic national figure as a "herald" to serve the role of the animated leader, and the actual leaders who give bonuses being 2d icons or small simple animations that can easily be mass manufactured. That would work. It just would be boring, and would eliminate much of the leader personality effect.

Animated leades are a scarce resource. That's just something that has to be worked with.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

If I had my way, I'd honestly get rid of leaders entirely, and instead have the player play as The People of each country, with the diplomacy communicated mainly though strongly worded letters from unnamed and/or fictional representatives

 

[Thenewwwguy]

If I had my way, I'd honestly get rid of leaders entirely, and instead have the player play as The People of each country, with the diplomacy communicated mainly though strongly worded letters from unnamed and/or fictional representatives

not going to lie, I don’t hate this idea. I’ve always felt like I’m playing more like the civ and the leader is a manifestation of the “ideals” of the people and their leaders than actually being that person

 

[DeckerdJames]

I would not have had any complaints if the game still had us play through with one civilization and leader. I would not have thought twice about it. Now the question is, will I still think that after playing a full game of civilization.

I think their trouble, or one trouble, is that no matter how good they make it, they’re still gonna be 1 million reviews about how bad it is. And it’s just because people might not prefer it.

I will keep an open mind. I like the civilization franchise. I think the game rules look very interesting. I’m glad they are making a new game out of it. that is a good thing. I think it’s good to try to make a new game but we have to see if it’s still a good game. It looks good to me. I will pre-order.

There’s not much detail on how the evolution works. Of course, we know it follows the dramatic end of an age. So if the details of that dramatic crisis at the end of the age is related to the civilizations that you’re going to get to go on as, it might feel like it has continuity.

I think continuity is an issue. Basically if the new civilization is an achievement that you have to strive for and striving to remain, or at least evolve into a civilization that is culturally genetically logically the descendant of your original civilization is an option, then it might seem like it has continuity.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Even then, you still need Louis XIV, Napoléon and Jeanne d'Arc animated leaders. And that's one civ. Every civ gets to swap between three? Okay, even assuming twenty four leaders in vanilla, that's a whole...eight civilizations.

Obviously every civ wouldn't get three leaders, maybe not even two. It wouldn't be any different from Civ 6 where some would only have one yet China ended up having 4 (along with a persona that was essentially 5 in total).

 

[Lord Lakely]

What is most likely going to happen is that every major Civ "family" if you will, shall have one leader, who may or may not be loosely related to the Civ itself.

Amina, the queen of Zazzau is linked to Songhai, an ancestor empire to her own.

I would imagine that Napoleon represents any of the French and French-like Civs in the game. Same with Ashoka and the Indians.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

What is most likely going to happen is that every major Civ "family" if you will, shall have one leader, who may or may not be loosely related to the Civ itself.

Amina, the queen of Zazzau is linked to Songhai, an ancestor empire to her own.

I would imagine that Napoleon represents any of the French and French-like Civs in the game. Same with Ashoka and the Indians.

The Songhai are not an Ancestor Empire to the Hausa. They did not occupy the same land, and Zazzau and other Hausa kingdoms existed while the Songhai existed to their north.

 

[Zaarin]

If I had my way, I'd honestly get rid of leaders entirely, and instead have the player play as The People of each country, with the diplomacy communicated mainly though strongly worded letters from unnamed and/or fictional representatives

Leaders are more interesting to interact with than "the People." The high production values of Civ5 and Civ6 leaders are something I valued, and the low quality of Civ7 leaders combined with the baffling layout of the diplomacy screen are honestly the reasons I haven't preordered yet.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

My guess is that Songhai had to have some predecessor, and there weren't enough time and/or resources to put an Amazigh civilization in the early game

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Leaders are more interesting to interact with than "the People." The high production values of Civ5 and Civ6 leaders are something I valued, and the low quality of Civ7 leaders combined with the baffling layout of the diplomacy screen are honestly the reasons I haven't preordered yet.

also a very fair point! I do really like interacting with the leaders since they feel very alive—I’m just personally more attached to the civs, hence why civ-switching is a bigger deal to me than the flexible leaders

 

[Zaarin]

My guess is that Songhai had to have some predecessor, and there weren't enough time and/or resources to put an Amazigh civilization in the early game

The Songhai aren't Amazigh, though. (I did enjoy listening to Civ5 Askia speak Songhay.)