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

[Krikkit1]

The problem is that you have civilizations that transform randomly like Egypt (agrarian and sedentary African civilization) into Mongolia (a nomadic and livestock-based Asian civilization) just because Egypt has 3 horses and they will necessarily have different characteristics, how do we justify the transformation of a civilization (Egypt) that expanded little and lasted thousands of years (which therefore should have growth and culture as its main characteristics) into one that founded a huge empire and which however was divided into various states in a few centuries and then disappear quite quickly (which therefore should be based on militarism and expansionism)?

I have Humankind and unfortunately the civilization change part of the game is considered the WORST part because in everyone's opinion, it makes the game not a campaign, but a series of scenarios without any connection

Egypt-> Mongolia is a conquest either

external (plains nomads invaded for your bountiful horses)
OR
internal (some of the locals in the cities you founded had a strong horse traditions. over the past few centuries they have spread in power, eventually Imperial troubles allowed ambitious Cavalry generals to get more control…to the point where warlordism became a way of life)

 

[pokiehl]

The worst part of Humankind was not the culture changing.

Go read Steam reviews of it. Almost no one is complaining about that—it’s the game’s main gimmick and if they don’t like it they don’t buy the game.

The huge problems are balance and the shallowness of the core gameplay systems.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Even if it was the main issue, another take on the same concept can succeed. Lessons learned, iterations, tweaks, etc.

 

[Leucarum]

Humankind was full of great ideas implemented badly which civ 7 looks like it'll improve on.

Hunankind's district placement sounded good, but the sprawl it produced was chaotic, and in the late game it snowballed out of control. Civ 7's link of districts to pop growth, and the town/city split looks like it should reduce micromanagement and keep the sprawl more controlled. I am reserving judgement on whether it will be easier to follow on the map. But hopefully?

Humankind's civ switching was too frequent, and left few clues to track what was happening to other civs. Civ7 has significantly less of them, and it sounds like there'll be a bigger 'reset' each time. Hopefully the more identifiable and prominent leaders will help continuity too.

I'd also say Humankind's combat system and the prehistoric start left a lot to be desired in practice, but Civ7 has just flat out dodged both those bullets. Maybe made new problems but we'll see...

I think the thing I'm most worried about being similar to humankind isn't the civ switching, but map readability. Humankind looked gorgeous but the maps/civ graphics were horrible to interpret. Civ7 has gone for a similar enough graphical style that I worry it'll have similar problems.

Humankind's district layout puzzle was also very shallow and too easily solved.... I am not seeing too much to suggest civ7's will be much of an improvement.

 

[playshogi]

I can't wait for the earthquake to follow when Firaxis reveals that in the Modern Age hexes have been replaced by regions.

 

[lt22677]

Egypt-> Mongolia is a conquest either

external (plains nomads invaded for your bountiful horses)
OR
internal (some of the locals in the cities you founded had a strong horse traditions. over the past few centuries they have spread in power, eventually Imperial troubles allowed ambitious Cavalry generals to get more control…to the point where warlordism became a way of life)

Come on guys, how do you justify something like that? it is VERY poorly made and it is truly an absurd thing. The Egyptians were sedentary and agricultural and were invaded many times. Nonetheless, the characteristics of civilization have always REMAINED the same even in terms of military traditions. Mongolia EVEN TODAY is a people based on their economy on animal husbandry and they remained nomadic, the truth is that in the end we have three separate scenarios weakly linked, we might as well play the Civilization 3 Conquest scenarios (Mesopotania, Rise of Rome, Fall of Rome, Age of Discovery, etc.. ) and from the point of view of the game it would change LITTLE or NOTHING in short they have taken the WORST part of HUMANKIND and want to present it as a sensational innovation

 

[uppi]

Obviously I respect your opinion, but I ask you, have you ever played Humankind? I do and along with many others it is considered the WORST part of the game, then we'll see what Firaxis does, but I'm not very optimistic

Yes, I have. Last game was a few weeks ago, in fact. And no, civ switching was not the WORST (sic) part of the game.

 

[lt22677]

Yes, I have. Last game was a few weeks ago, in fact. And no, civ switching was not the WORST (sic) part of the game.

Then you are one of the few, BECAUSE most people (including me) consider it a ridiculous part

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Then you are one of the few, BECAUSE most people (including me) consider it a ridiculous part

Have you read their reply? Steam reviews don't complain at all (or so little) about the civ-swtching mechanic. If hating it was the majority, it would be visible.

Don't forget it's so easy to be in an echo chamber and consider your anecotical experience as a universal truth. Because, on the opposite, all the people I know really enjoyed it, it's the pacing and the racing that's problematic, and people are especially more about making the civ swapping more impactful because they like it.

 

[lt22677]

Have you read their reply? Steam reviews don't complain at all (or so little) about the civ-swtching mechanic. If hating it was the majority, it would be visible.

Don't forget it's so easy to be in an echo chamber and consider your anecotical experience as a universal truth. Because, on the opposite, all the people I know really enjoyed it, it's the pacing and the racing that's problematic, and people are especially more about making the civ swapping more impactful because they like it.

Ok you look at the reviews on steam, I would look at the various forums instead however the game GONE BAD (it has much less DLC than Endless Space 2 and Endless Legend) and the developers haven't released patches for a while now (while the others 2 games were supported for the longest time)

PS: Looking at the reviews on steam:

Endless Legend: Very Positive

Endless Space 2: Very Positive

Humankind: Average

I find some differences and what do you think?

 

[Venceslau Pietro Pietra]

For me the major problem with Humankind was the really poor balance, everything or is complete broken or complete useless, the star system always push you toward a meta path otherwise the Ai stomps you.
Also the unique traits of each civ are bland, mostly being flat +1 culture/science/gold per district or similar. Civ 7 atleast as creative traits for the leaders as we can see (look at napoleon), so isnt everything about civ switching, theres much more around it to look into

 

[cinattra]

Don't devs realize doing this "quirky" little change basically forces anyone playing Native American civs to always have their civ be colonized by Europeans?

Yes, using dev logic that would mean also even middle-era African civs would have to become European civs in the modern era. Would there even be modern-era African civs other than Ethiopia? Would there be modern-era Native American civs? Maybe the Native American civs could all branch into Mexico? Because honestly how gross for the game if Native American civs had to become a civ that almost wiped them out off the map.

 

[pokiehl]

Would there even be modern-era African civs other than Ethiopia?

What? We already have a Buganda confirmed as a modern civ. You can’t think of any modern African civs besides Ethiopia?

 

[Professor Phobo]

Yes, using dev logic that would mean also even middle-era African civs would have to become European civs in the modern era. Would there even be modern-era African civs other than Ethiopia? Would there be modern-era Native American civs? Maybe the Native American civs could all branch into Mexico? Because honestly how gross for the game if Native American civs had to become a civ that almost wiped them out off the map.

I don't know if we can jump to that conclusion. We don't have a list of the modern-era Civs yet.

 

[ButtBillionaire]

I can't wait for the earthquake to follow when Firaxis reveals that in the Modern Age hexes have been replaced by regions.

This would most likely be the absolute dealbreaker for me. I really really really don't like the Endless style of claiming entire pre-set regions. I think it's completely inferior to the Civ style of settling cities that, unlike the outposts and cities of Humankind in a world ruled by its arbitrary magic regions, decide what the world's borders will look like.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yes, using dev logic that would mean also even middle-era African civs would have to become European civs in the modern era. Would there even be modern-era African civs other than Ethiopia? Would there be modern-era Native American civs? Maybe the Native American civs could all branch into Mexico? Because honestly how gross for the game if Native American civs had to become a civ that almost wiped them out off the map.

Given Buganda, a power that was strong in the 1800s before being conquered, I could se a modern Native American civ (since there were serious battles/wars with certain groups in the 1800s)

 

[Professor Phobo]

This would most likely be the absolute dealbreaker for me. I really really really don't like the Endless style of claiming entire pre-set regions. I think it's completely inferior to the Civ style of settling cities that, unlike the outposts and cities of Humankind in a world ruled by its arbitrary magic regions, decide what the world's borders will look like.

I kind of like regions, they make the map look cleaner, but I'd want them generated in some kind of logical way, like a city grabs tiles until it hits a certain value threshold and that becomes the region. So depending on where you place the city, the region might be small if it's got a lot of value, or very large if it's in a wasteland.

Or regions are based on contiguous biome/land types; so a mountain region, a forest region, etc.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Given Buganda, a power that was strong in the 1800s before being conquered, I could se a modern Native American civ (since there were serious battles/wars with certain groups in the 1800s)

Like the Shawnee?
But yeah, they should have been put in the Modern Age, in my opinion.

 

[Zaarin]

Like the Shawnee?
But yeah, they should have been put in the Modern Age, in my opinion.

War of 1812 was Exploration age by the dates we've been given, but perhaps we'll see modern Lakota.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

Ok you look at the reviews on steam, I would look at the various forums instead however the game GONE BAD (it has much less DLC than Endless Space 2 and Endless Legend) and the developers haven't released patches for a while now (while the others 2 games were supported for the longest time)

PS: Looking at the reviews on steam:

Endless Legend: Very Positive

Endless Space 2: Very Positive

Humankind: Average

I find some differences and what do you think?

The reviews are bad, I don't deny it, but they don't complain about the switching civs, but about balance, about genericity, and the overall blandness, the race, the pace... But the civ switching is overall quite liked.

It's like complaining about the French Ancien Régime and taking as a conclusion that kings are inherently bad and we should automatically get rid of them, while it's more complex than that. The idea of kings is not necessarily bad, it's the implementation in France that was a problem, but looking on the other side of the Channel, the way they implemented their monarchy made it much more palatable. Well, I'm still utterly convinced that republics are far superiors than monarchies, but for different reasons than some people.

Same thing: people complained about Humankind, but not because of the civ-switching, but because of all the other things that were around it and made the mechanic meh. But all the complaints about Humankind seem to have been answered by how Civ VII will implement them:

1. The Humankind culture switch was just a first-grab so planning your empire was difficult -> everyone will switch Ages at the same time, and multiple version of the same civ will coexist (not really sure if I'm fan of that duplicate thingy in particular, but let's see).
2. Because you wanted to be sure to grab the culture you wanted, you were encouraged to rush through the eras and not really enjoy each culture you have, lacking engagement and attachement to it -> each Age will be longer, so you'll have time to get attached to your civ.
3. Each culture had quite generic and bland bonuses, due to the inflation of cultures, so you switched and had a +10% influence generation, which does not strike as memorable compared to the culture that god +10% science generation (they changed it with some of the DLC cultures, like the Nazcans or Swahilis who could really influence your gameplay) -> we saw some of the bonuses of some civs, and as for now, they really have peculiar mechanics and not just flat modifiers, which would already make each culture more memorable.
4. There was basically no interaction with emblematic districts, you put one at a place and then considered it just like any other regular districts for adjacency bonuses -> for what we know, each civ will have 2 emblematic buildings that, when put in the same district, will create a new emblematic districts, there is progression, there is goal, some sort of mini-quests that makes you attached to the civ.
5. Outside of the legacy trait and an emblematic district, there was nothing really different to do between factions and cultures -> the fact that you already have a small policy tree for each culture adds a small layer of uniqueness.
6. There was no way to remember your cultures and your neighbours' in Humankind apart from the colour and the avatar, but the avatar were also so generic and looked like each other so much that it didn't really help, none of them had a personality you could remember -> right from the four we saw, each of the Civ leaders is more alive than the whole roster of Humankind, Augustus looks nothing like Hatchepsut or Ashoka or Amina, it will make a much bigger and stronger link throughout your story than whatever Humankind tried to achieve. And we remember people a lot more by their personality than their look, usually: I mean, we can distinguish Wilhelmina from Gilgamesh, but Gilgamesh is ingrained in our collective civfanatic minds as Gilgabro who is extravertidly large, and Wilhelmina as the small rotund woman who throws tantrums for trade routes. I don't remember any personality from any Humankind avatar.

For all of that (and probably other elements I forgot), comparing Humankind to Civ VII grinds to a halt quite quickly and is not relevant at all whatsoever once you scratch the surface. It's like saying the British should get rid of Charles III because Louis XVI was guillotined by the French. Like, it has nothing to do with eachother anymore, and the circumstances are so far apart that comparing them on the sole quality of being monarchs (or being games with civ-changing mechanics) is ludicrously nonsensical.

*Snip*

Moderator Action: Post edited to remove inappropriate comment. ~ LK