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

[TheGrayFox]

I believe, we will still build an Empire, just with 3 different cultures.

We Build empires, with three completely different civilizations with the implication between changes in age and crises being that one civilization replaces/assimilaes the other and starts building over it*

 

[fdrpi]

I think I would have preferred leaders being specific to an age as opposed to civs. I am still planning to pre-purchase despite my initial disappointment over this feature.

I've felt the same way re: leaders. It's so much more intuitive imo. Civilizations last far more than a human lifetime!

 

[Zaarin]

I've felt the same way re: leaders. It's so much more intuitive imo. Civilizations last far more than a human lifetime!

Civ leaders aren't people; they're avatars. They're meant to make you feel like you're playing against someone rather than an abstracted mass. Changing leaders would go against the spirit of that far more than changing civs.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Civ leaders aren't people; they're avatars. They're meant to make you feel like you're playing against someone rather than an abstracted mass. Changing leaders would go against the spirit of that far more than changing civs.

Yeah, you kind of develop this sort of pretend relationship with the other leaders in a campaign. Like Cleopatra has been a pain since the start, but you've been best friends with Gilgamesh. That continuity is probably important for the game flow.

 

[Zaarin]

Yeah, you kind of develop this sort of pretend relationship with the other leaders in a campaign. Like Cleopatra has been a pain since the start, but you've been best friends with Gilgamesh. That continuity is probably important for the game flow.

It can carry across games, too. I'm still annoyed every time I see Dom Satan (Pedro II) in Civ6 because of the number of times he's backstabbed me.

 

[Professor Phobo]

It can carry across games, too. I'm still annoyed every time I see Dom Satan (Pedro II) in Civ6 because of the number of times he's backstabbed me.

I kill the Aztecs on sight in Civ 5. Montezuma knows what he did!

 

[Zaarin]

I kill the Aztecs on sight in Civ 5. Montezuma knows what he did!

It was Attila for me.

 

[pokiehl]

I will always know Harun Al-Rashid as a cowardly traitor thanks to Civ 5.

And I love that about these games. The immortal leaders are such an important aspect.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I think the map expands

We know it expands in the Exploration Age, but do we know if it expands in the Modern Age? That would make less sense.

 

[pokiehl]

We know it expands in the Exploration Age, but do we know if it expands in the Modern Age? That would make less sense.

My assumption is yes, since modern age MP has a limit of 8 players vs 5 for the two earlier ages.

 

[Professor Phobo]

We know it expands in the Exploration Age, but do we know if it expands in the Modern Age? That would make less sense.

Could be it expands gameplay in some way rather than literal map expansion. The internet or orbit as new "space" on the map.

 

[thecrazyscot]

My assumption is yes, since modern age MP has a limit of 8 players vs 5 for the two earlier ages.

Right, and that makes perfect sense - I'm just spit balling that if the Exploration Age crises theoretically focus on revolution that could account for the extra increased player count. Of course, that would be more complicated to implement so is less likely, but still...that would be cool.

 

[pokiehl]

Right, and that makes perfect sense - I'm just spit balling that if the Exploration Age crises theoretically focus on revolution that could account for the extra increased player count. Of course, that would be more complicated to implement so is less likely, but still...that would be cool.

That’s a good point. Honestly I don’t know what to expect but I’m excited to find out.

 

[Brutus2]

At one era I am fighting France that eliminated my friend China and peaceful Mongolia is on my borders. Next turn I am China fighting Mongolia that killed France? Seems confusing.

This is the real issue with why the civ switching system is bad. The debate on how historically accurate it may be is irrelevant. Even if you think civ switching makes sense because "it happens in real life," that's not the point. Gameplay wise it is just confusing and frustrating. It's really hard to understand until you actually play with it but nearly everyone who played Humankind hated it because it seems like a fun, interesting idea in theory until you actually experience it.

What is going to happen here is you are no longer going to feel like you're playing a single game from the beginning of civilization into the future. Now, your cities and leader will persist but basically you are playing three separate scenarios back to back, each with their own victory condition and with a different set of opponents in each scenario.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Civ leaders aren't people; they're avatars. They're meant to make you feel like you're playing against someone rather than an abstracted mass. Changing leaders would go against the spirit of that far more than changing civs.

One of the very first things a human baby can focus on and recognize/react to is a Human Face. Even an abstracted human face like Wal-Mart's 'happy face' is more recognizable to a human baby than any other animal or thing. This is one of the very few things that seems to be 'built in' to all modern humans.

Which means we can identify and identify with Human figures better than any other image, icon, or construct in a game.

This is a huge advantage for the Civilization series, because the series has emphasized that human connection: animated Leaders, named Great People, Governors - far more than any other game.

I maintain: Humankind's mistake was not in switching Civs in-game, it was in the utter lack of identification with ANY of the Civs: no Leaders, no names, nothing but a generic Avatar made up by the game or the gamer with no connection to anything you were playing.

Which is precisely the difference between Humankind and Civ VII. In Civilization VII, that Leader, no matter how wonky he/she looks, is with you throughout. He may be Augustus of Slobbovia rather than Augustus of Rome, and he may look like a Schmuck, but he is your Schmuck and you will be surprised at how easy it is to remember that.

Or at least, that's the lesson from my Psychology 200 class at Penn State in 1968. Thank you, Doctor Foxx.

So everybody's concerns about It Didn't Work In Humankind, So It Cannot Work In Civ are so much Funglecarb: it isn't the same.

Furthermore, and contrary to many pronouncements in these Forums (including mine!) the Singularity Change between Ages and Civilizations is not Complete. You can choose or obtain Legacies that carry over, there are buildings that persist from Age to Age (possibly with different effects, I suspect), and you can even modify your Leader's attributes and bonuses (how, exactly, is still Unclear)./ Which means, simply, that you do not start with a Blank Slate in a new Age, and all of your efforts in the previous Age are not entirely wasted. You may be playing a Post-Roman Second Age Angleland, but there will still be some of your 'ancestral' Roman Civ buried in it. Exactly what and how you apply the Legacies will be very interesting . . .

In fact, I will postulate that the 40-page discussion after Launch will be on the best combination of Civs, Leaders and Legacies to give you the 'best' progress from one Age to the next. No, I'll go farther and do what I try to do very seldom: I will Predict that Progression techniques between the Ages will be a major topic of post-launch discussion concerning Civilization VII.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I maintain: Humankind's mistake was not in switching Civs in-game, it was in the utter lack of identification with ANY of the Civs: no Leaders, no names, nothing but a generic Avatar made up by the game or the gamer with no connection to anything you were playing.

Which is precisely the difference between Humankind and Civ VII. In Civilization VII, that Leader, no matter how wonky he/she looks, is with you throughout. He may be Augustus of Slobbovia rather than Augustus of Rome, and he may look like a Schmuck, but he is your Schmuck and you will be surprised at how easy it is to remember that.

So everybody's concerns about It Didn't Work In Humankind, So It Cannot Work In Civ are so much Funglecarb: it isn't the same.

This doesn't make sense because you could literally create your own leaders and create historical figures for the AI in Humankind if you wanted. Civ VII's mix and match philosphy to both historical leaders and civilizations swapping is going to lead to the same dissonance problem encountered in Humankind.

You may be playing a Post-Roman Second Age Angleland, but there will still be some of your 'ancestral' Roman Civ buried in it. Exactly what and how you apply the Legacies will be very interesting . . .

and you may also be playing a Post-Roman Aztecs whose immortal leader Benjamin Franklin has decided to build Meso-american archietcture over your the ruins of Rome and replace Roman citizens with Mexicans who speak Nahuatl.... because Rome did not stand the test of time, oh and then the Aztecs get replaced by Arabs because they settled near oil.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I feel like there's some divide between people who get attached to their civ, people who get attached to their leader, and people who get attached to their cities. I'm a cities guy, I'm in it to make big places with lots of stuff. I'll happily play different civs or leaders but I'll pretty much always want to build as much of The Stuff (TM) as I possibly can.

If you're attached to your civ, losing it is a feelsbad. If you're attached to your leader, immortal leaders is a feelsgood. We'll have to see how the city changeover happens with the era transition because if it's all ruins and rats I'll be sad.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This doesn't make sense because you could literally create your own leaders and create historical figures for the AI in Humankind if you wanted. Civ VII's mix and match philosphy to both historical leaders and civilizations swapping is going to lead to the same dissonance problem encountered in Humankind.



and you may also be playing a Post-Roman Aztecs whose immortal leader Benjamin Franklin has decided to build Meso-american archietcture over your the ruins of Rome and replace Roman citizens with Mexicans who speak Nahuatl.... because Rome did not stand the test of time, oh and then the Aztecs get replaced by Arabs because they settled near oil.

It makes sense because throughout the testing and post-release of Humankind I never heard anyone even suggesting they should make upa n entire set of 'historical' Leaders for the game. That may have developed in the player-base (small as it is) since, but it was not a consideration with the game as it was released.

By the same token, I'm sure an early Mod of Civ VII will be related to 'Historical" Leaders and Progressions.

Your immortal Leader (a Civ staple since at least Civ II, my first Civ game) B. Franklin will, however, have attributes somewhat appropriate to the later Age Aztecs, or you are playing the game very poorly. The 'mix and match' system is better characterized as 'modify to match requirements/desires' within limits. Not the Same and repeating inaccurate arguments does not make them so.

I stated clearly why the same dissonance problem will not occur in Civ VII that occured in Humankind and you've posted nothing to make me change my mind.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It makes sense because throughout the testing and post-release of Humankind I never heard anyone even suggesting they should make upa n entire set of 'historical' Leaders for the game. That may have developed in the player-base (small as it is) since, but it was not a consideration with the game as it was released.

it was literally something the game advertised and they even gave you a few historical and mythological characters to showcase this feature...

By the same token, I'm sure an early Mod of Civ VII will be related to 'Historical" Leaders and Progressions.

Your immortal Leader (a Civ staple since at least Civ II, my first Civ game) B. Franklin will, however, have attributes somewhat appropriate to the later Age Aztecs, or you are playing the game very poorly. The 'mix and match' system is better characterized as 'modify to match requirements/desires' within limits. Not the Same and repeating inaccurate arguments does not make them so.

I stated clearly why the same dissonance problem will not occur in Civ VII that occured in Humankind and you've posted nothing to make me change my mind.

No thanks and I disagree

 

[aieeegrunt]

This is the real issue with why the civ switching system is bad. The debate on how historically accurate it may be is irrelevant. Even if you think civ switching makes sense because "it happens in real life," that's not the point. Gameplay wise it is just confusing and frustrating. It's really hard to understand until you actually play with it but nearly everyone who played Humankind hated it because it seems like a fun, interesting idea in theory until you actually experience it.

What is going to happen here is you are no longer going to feel like you're playing a single game from the beginning of civilization into the future. Now, your cities and leader will persist but basically you are playing three separate scenarios back to back, each with their own victory condition and with a different set of opponents in each scenario.

This is the part that is getting obfuscated with semantics

It’s terrible gameplay.

My first reaction to this mechanic was similar; this is basicly a scenario generator