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

[thecrazyscot]

counterpoint though: do you think DLC (which seems to be 2 leaders and 4 civs consistently) is going to any cheaper than Civ 6 DLc? if not, ultimately it’s not just a blind cost cutting measure—it’s them cutting corners to provide less of an experience under a new gameplay mechanic

I don't think cost is or was the primary reason, but one reason among many. I definitely don't think any part of this decision-making process was "blind".

I suspect bits and bobs of the below reasoning were all involved in the decision-making process:
- we want to incorporate a mechanic where civilizations evolve over time
- we want players to feel more invested in each age, so we want player bonuses to be relevant to that age
- we want each player to have a recognizable "face" that stays static through the game
- we want to represent more cultures than ever before
- many cultures don't have a historically-known leader, but we still want to represent them
- it's very difficult to find people who speak many dead or near-dead languages, so we wouldn't be able to represent a leader for this culture to our standards
- it's easier for us to implement a civilization than it is a leader
- other internal and external considerations I can't think of

In reality, this decision was very carefully taken by very qualified people who arguably care more deeply about the Civilization franchise than any of us. They've got to balance gameplay with historical immersion pipe-dreams, and honestly while I do find immortal leaders kinda silly this decision makes the most logical sense - at least given my assumptions about what they were thinking

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Dont understand why they copy a disliked feature from Humankind, just compare the Steam charts between Humankind and Civ. Humankind game has almost no people playing the game.

Pretty sure both Firaxis and Amplitude mainly took cues from grand strategy games, mainly in how states transform in those games. Oh, and the Rhys & Fall mod

 

[Zaarin]

Having the same "avatar" for each player across ages keeps things really recognizable and less confusing.

This was part of HK's (many) problems. There was no basis to consistently recognize your opponents.

 

[Smellincoffee]

I like the idea of having a civilization that evolves in some way, but definitely don't like the Humankind-esqe approach. The civ-specific civics research is an interesting choice, almost reminds me of the way Civ 3 had some distinct techs in the Medieval scenarios for different culture groups.

 

[DWilson]

I think they've ended up too strict with it, in an attempt to make it more balance-able at the expense of what many love about the game.

If instead it was designed such that some cultures have the option of transitioning from one civ into another, I think it would be very popular. For example, being able to transition from Rome into successors (perhaps with trigger criteria). But not allowing someone to start and stay as the civ *of their choice* is a fundamental shifting of the game concept.

This is part of what makes it feels so good in many other games that it is more appropriate for

 

[CoconutTank]

So, there seems to be some hard feelings about civ switching in HK, but afair one always has a choice to transcend one's current civ in HK, which keeps it going into the next era. An Ancient era civ can be kept all the way into the Contemporary era this way, though this definitely has some functional drawbacks.

With that said,

• Why is the prevailing thought that civ switching is mandatory in HK?
• Though I haven't seen evidence of it yet, I'm definitely hoping that Civ 7 will provide an option to keep a civ through ages. I don't see why that couldn't be a possibility.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Though I haven't seen evidence of it yet, I'm definitely hoping that Civ 7 will provide an option to keep a civ through ages. I don't see why that couldn't be a possibility.

You can keep a civ through the ages. Unfortunately, it's only the Antiquity civs. Which means there's probably no way to start a game as France or Germany etc. unless you start a game from the Modern Era.

 

[Zaarin]

So, there seems to be some hard feelings about civ switching in HK,

It was one of HK's key features. After HK failed so badly, I think everyone had to get past that HK having a feature didn't automatically make the feature bad just because HK had it; I know I had to work past that. (I still have mixed feelings about the civ changing, but I'm mostly past it. At this point, my biggest complaint is how bad the leaders look and the bizarre design of the diplomacy screen.)

 

[thecrazyscot]

You can keep a civ through the ages. Unfortunately, it's only the Antiquity civs. Which means there's probably no way to start a game as France or Germany etc. unless you start a game from the Modern Era.

Do you have a source for that? All the information I've seen is pretty explicit that you have to choose a civ from the upcoming age.

Civilizations: Civilizations are Age-exclusive, and come equipped with Unique Abilities, Units, Civics, and Buildings and/or Improvements.

When one Age ends and you begin an Age Transition, it's an incredibly exciting moment. You'll select a new civilization to represent your empire in the next Age; you'll choose parts of your past civ to carry forward in the new one; and the game map expands, filled with new Independent Powers to befriend, new Resources to acquire, and new Discoveries to be made.

During an Age Transition, there are a few factors that determine which new civilization you choose to play as. This includes any historical connections between your previous and future civ, your choice of leader, and even certain gameplay decisions that you made in the past Age. Across your game, you might want to stay as true to history as possible, only selecting civs that have historical ties to each other, or you might switch to civs that fit your strategic needs.

Source

 

[DWilson]

Do you have a source for that? All the information I've seen is pretty explicit that you have to choose a civ from the upcoming age.



Source

They're talking about in Humankind

 

[thecrazyscot]

They're talking about in Humankind

Thanks - sometimes hard to keep track of which game people are talking about

 

[CoconutTank]

You can keep a civ through the ages. Unfortunately, it's only the Antiquity civs. Which means there's probably no way to start a game as France or Germany etc. unless you start a game from the Modern Era.

I guess this is a matter of aesthetics, but assuming "France" and "Germany" in this context were designed for the last age of Civ 7 and didn't have much of anything relevant before, would it be problematic to start with any other civ, then eventually swapping to either of those civs?

For me anyway, it's kind of boring to play as Civ 6 Americans for example (at least from Ancient all the way through), since their uniques arrive in Atomic or later. Their civ and leader abilities can be leveraged in some ways that allow some different strategies from other civs, but not by a whole lot. Other civs with similarly narrow designs tend to have very specific beelines or timing windows in order to achieve their greatest potential, and they basically all start playing the same once late game starts. My main hope with Civ 7's civ switching is to always have different and relevant capabilities in each age, and perhaps a failsafe to pivot into different strategies.

 

[GuiSKJ]

I guess this is a matter of aesthetics, but assuming "France" and "Germany" in this context were designed for the last age of Civ 7 and didn't have much of anything relevant before, would it be problematic to start with any other civ, then eventually swapping to either of those civs?

For me anyway, it's kind of boring to play as Civ 6 Americans for example, since their uniques arrive in Atomic or later. Their civ and leader abilities can be leveraged in some ways that allow some different strategies from other civs, but not by a whole lot. Other civs with similarly narrow designs tend to have very specific beelines or timing windows in order to achieve their greatest potential, and they basically all start playing the same once late game starts. My main hope with Civ 7's civ switching is to always have different and relevant capabilities in each age, and perhaps a failsafe to pivot into different strategies.

Absolutely. I remember the days before some of the unit gaps got filled and I had this crazy pressure to get the most use out of my Arabian Mamluks before they got outclassed and I had to baby sit them until I unlocked tanks. As an example.

At least I hope cases like this are gone from Civ7.

I just hope the Devs have figured out a way to still create a narrative connection between the Civs you are switching into. And "you built three cav units so now you get to be Mongolia" does not cut it for me.

 

[Josephias]

Kinda a combo of yes and no.
In fact, I think I could sum it up with TWO independent ways to implement this successfully.

1) Me_Leader leading My_Civ via Developing Leaders.
You aren't a "real" civ, so you don't get "specific bonuses" that a "specific civ" would get.
Instead, you develop in a certain direction that unlocks such bonuses via Traits or Civics or Resources, etc.
This way, YOU decide what YOUR civ becomes - down to its name and leader.

2) Cleopatra leading Egypt into Space Era.
You have the typical Civ rosters of rigidly fixed civs to choose from at the start.
Your civ has rigidly fixed bonuses that persist with it from day one all the way to the Moon landing.
But your civ still develops, maybe even with Developing Leaders of sorts.
The key point of this option is that your civ "lives" from the Start till the End as the same civ that you chose to represent you in-game.
It doesn't switch names, it doesn't even switch leaders (too tricky, though maybe this could be a fun thing), it just persists and survives.

So, these are two independent strategies how your civ can exist in the game.
Neither being about Egyptians turning into Mongolians simply at some point on the calendar.
Because the latter is outright DUMB.
The end.

No time to read all new posts, but just wanted to drop an idea that just come to my mind (and relatively similar to the option 1) above).

All (or most) the fuss in here could be solved, IMHO, with two - three minor interface features:

-> Allow player to customise name and icon for their starting civ (and also, for the opponent civs - if random, once encountered).
-> Allow player three options when changing Era for the civ name: 1) Keep their starting civ name, custom or not (with the new civ bonuses), 2) Change to the new civ name, 3) Customise civ name again. Same for opponents (at the same time of era change if known, or when found).
-> For the civilization crest / icon, same options 1) Keep, 2) Change, 3) customise again and, if not too difficult to implement, I'd add a cool 4) Get a combined crest out of the old+new civ logos.

Basically, allow the players to identify their civs and the civs they are playing with as they please: continuist option, switching option, fully custom option, or maybe start already with the name of the targeted 3rd Era Civ (eg. America when playing as Ben. Franklin)

This is just allowing to manage the naming record entries of the game trough interface and should not be too dificult to implement.

 

[jollysox]

Clearly this controversy isn't dying down in day 2, if anything, it's getting worse. And a lot of it comes down to Firaxis not properly explaining how this will work, and so the holes are being filled being filled by wild speculation.

For instance, it seems you now cannot chose a civilization like England or France in Antiquity. You have to chose a civilization like the Celts or the Gauls instead. So in the Exploration era, I can then choose England or France. But what determines who I can choose next as opposed to the other AI (or human) players? What if I'm Gaul, but then Rome decided to become France and then doesn't give me the opportunity to become France, even though that's my "successor civilization"? So now I can't become France and I have to go from Gaul to Mongolia?

There are so many ways AI could have been used to make the game richer, more immersive, and even more flexible than ever before. Instead we get something so restrictive, random and history-breaking that it borders on the absurd. It would have been much better if we had options of successor historic civilizations. Like ok Russia, there's been an age change and a revolution, now you need to become either the Soviet Union or the Russian federation. Now maybe that could happen, but it also seems like England could become the Soviet Union and then Russia could become the United Kingdom based on... what? Who has more built up score or mets certain conditions? There's a way to do this to make everyone happy... but it almost seems like Firaxis itself hasn't properly thought this through. Indeed, if you watch those YouTube influencer videos, it seems like Firaxis wasn't sure how it would really work either in their presentations and so the YouTubers were left scratching their heads as well.

 

[Zaarin]

Clearly this controversy isn't dying down in day 2,

TBH I've found the controversy surprisingly tame once everyone got over the initial shock. Sure, there are still a lot of people skeptical or with questions (including me) or even outright rejecting the idea, but it hasn't generated nearly the tantrums Civ6's art style did, for example.

 

[GuiSKJ]

TBH I've found the controversy surprisingly tame once everyone got over the initial shock. Sure, there are still a lot of people skeptical or with questions (including me) or even outright rejecting the idea, but it hasn't generated nearly the tantrums Civ6's art style did, for example.

Honestly, although I think the art looks gorgeous for Civ7, WTH is going on with Augustus/Octavian? That model looks so much worse than all the others. I hope it just didn't get polished in time for the reveal.

 

[ombak]

Listening to Potato and the Spiffing Brit talk about their experience with the game on youtube (just now, SB is still on on his own channel) does reinforce the idea that the pitch (Ages! Civ-switching!) undersells or "mis-sells" the game and does not communicate just how much this plays like Civ.

 

[Zaarin]

Honestly, although I think the art looks gorgeous for Civ7, WTH is going on with Augustus/Octavian? That model looks so much worse than all the others. I hope it just didn't get polished in time for the reveal.

Octavian looks better than Ben Franklin, but all the leaders look bad. It's obvious they'll go through more art passes (e.g., Amina has serious and obvious clipping issues), but the overall style looks bad to me.

 

[Kjimmet]

TBH I've found the controversy surprisingly tame once everyone got over the initial shock. Sure, there are still a lot of people skeptical or with questions (including me) or even outright rejecting the idea, but it hasn't generated nearly the tantrums Civ6's art style did, for example.

Really tells where peoples priorities lay...