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

[durfal]

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

Aren't the Navajo/Dineh better suited for this. They are the biggest and richest first nation inside the US. They are still growing and the culture is still standing strong.

 

[Zaarin]

Aren't the Navajo/Dineh better suited for this. They are the biggest and richest first nation inside the US. They are still growing and the culture is still standing strong.

They'd be a good choice, too. I suggested the Lakota because they were powerful in the late 19th century. (And I'm always happy to have more Native American civs so I'll go ahead and add, "Why not both?")

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Aren't the Navajo/Dineh better suited for this. They are the biggest and richest first nation inside the US. They are still growing and the culture is still standing strong.

They've been my most wanted new tribe, so I wouldn't mind. They could also have access to a modern Code Talker UU.

They'd be a good choice, too. I suggested the Lakota because they were powerful in the late 19th century. (And I'm always happy to have more Native American civs so I'll go ahead and add, "Why not both?")

You mean you didn't suggest them because they were your favorite?

 

[lt22677]

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.

So we can be wary, of course, I'm not saying otherwise, but if you want to complain about something, at least make the effort of knowing what you're complaining about. It's embarrassing.

Yes, you're right, I'm very ashamed of having expressed my opinion on a game that I have and that I didn't like (and about which many other people think so and it's true that it went VERY BAD. I recommend taking a look at other forums to give in what do they think about Civ-Switching) I would say that now we can ignore each other

 

[Zaarin]

You mean you didn't suggest them because they were your favorite?

I know I've objected to the Lakota before on account of their ubiquity, but as long as they're not the only Native American civ in the game, I don't mind.

 

[TheGrayFox]

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)

Having indiegenious people morph into their colonizers is bad but having a native american tribes morphs into a completely different tribes on the other side of the continent or all Africans nations feed into Buganda or Modern Ethopia is just as jarring and offensive.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Having indiegenious people morph into their colonizers is bad but having a native american tribes morphs into a completely different tribes on the other side of the continent or all Africans nations feed into Buganda or Modern Ethopia is just as jarring and offensive.

Everyone is going to morph into someone else, this isn't limited to Native Americans and Africans

 

[bv98132454]

Everyone is going to morph into someone else, this isn't limited to Native Americans and Africans

My guess is everyone except China. Can't imagine the CCP censors are going to be wild about China turning into Buganda.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

My guess is everyone except China. Can't imagine the CCP censors are going to be wild about China turning into Buganda.

Did they censor Kublai leading China in Civ 6? If not, I don't see why they couldn't go the route of Han China into Mongolia. It's less absurd than other scenarios and at least has historical precedent no matter what the CCP sees.

 

[Siptah]

My guess is everyone except China. Can't imagine the CCP censors are going to be wild about China turning into Buganda.

Humankind had no issues with all the Chinese civs changing just as the others did. If Bantu > Goths > Taino > Ming > Zulu > PRC isn't a problem, why would Greece > Ming > Buganda be one?

 

[bv98132454]

Did they censor Kublai leading China in Civ 6? If not, I don't see why they couldn't go the route of Han China into Mongolia. It's less absurd than other scenarios and at least has historical precedent no matter what the CCP sees.

The Chinese look at things from a civilizational perspective. Who the leader is at any time, while important, is secondary to the fact that Chinese civilization goes on, whether led by the Han, Manchu, or Mongols. Changing the Chinese civilization into Mongol civilization, Bugandan civilization, or Korean civilization says something entirely different from the situation you pose.

For this reason, I expect that China will be handled differently from every other Civ in the game. The Chinese version of the game will likely present different Chinese dynasties which transition from one to the other, not presenting the player options. The only question is whether the CCP chooses to exert leverage and make this part of the global version or not.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Chinese look at things from a civilizational perspective. Who the leader is at any time, while important, is secondary to the fact that Chinese civilization goes on, whether led by the Han, Manchu, or Mongols. Changing the Chinese civilization into Mongol civilization, Bugandan civilization, or Korean civilization says something entirely different from the situation you pose.

For this reason, I expect that China will be handled differently from every other Civ in the game. The Chinese version of the game will likely present different Chinese dynasties which transition from one to the other, not presenting the player options. The only question is whether the CCP chooses to exert leverage and make this part of the global version or not.

I don't see a situation why China should get any special treatment.
I do agree that for China there would be an easy path for them to do three separate dynasties. But as we've seen from other civs there's not a singular straight path. So, I wouldn't be surprised if a civ like Han China could go into either Ming China or Mongolia as their "historical" choice.

 

[lt22677]

So are we just making stuff up wholesale now? Can I join in? There will be a 4th sci-fi age added but the only playable leader will be Techno-Nuclear Gandhi.

Well, come on, soon there will be the Egypt/Norman/America situation led by Augustus and we will all be happy

 

[bv98132454]

I don't see a situation why China should get any special treatment.
I do agree that for China there would be an easy path for them to do three separate dynasties. But as we've seen from other civs there's not a singular straight path. So, I wouldn't be surprised if a civ like Han China could go into either Ming China or Mongolia as their "historical" choice.

I don't think they should, but I believe they will.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I don't think they should, but I believe they will

But they didn't in Humankind, which has a considerable Chinese playerbase

 

[Thenewwwguy]

My guess is everyone except China. Can't imagine the CCP censors are going to be wild about China turning into Buganda.

Ngl, civ fans, esp in this forums, overplay this ccp censor stuff all the time. civ fans will be like “the ccp would never let kublai khan lead both mongolia and china” and then they do it…ok, now what???


like realistically, the chinese government is not preoccupied with whether or not a strategy game with a cult following is allowing china to become buganda, be so for real.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Don't worry, the CCP's cool with it. It's all part of the Belt and Road initiative.

 

[Potworny]

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.

This is one of the things that bring me hope regarding the new mechanics - we would all be scared of radical changes whether or not it would be the best possible course of action, a godly stroke of game design genius or an unspeakable mess. Our common worried reaction to the new is inherently negatively biased, because we are attached to the old. With it, I think, we may tend to hyperbolise arguments against civ switching, like that it was the worst mechanic of Humankind. I've skimmed through reviews of Humankind back from 2021 on Steam too, and the cons of Humankind mainly consist of game balance issues, AI, bugs and town management according to them. Civ switching wasn't mentioned that often really from what I've seen. It obviously is scary to see Civ assume characteristics of another game, one that is boring and unbalanced, but there's a good chance that they'll take the good ideas and make them interesting and well-rounded.

I see similar reactions now with the Team Fortress 2 community vehemently opposed to Valve's new game, Deadlock. I've put a good amount of time into Team Fortress, and while the newer of the two will not be for everyone, man, in my opinion Deadlock is awesome and makes the complainers who claimed the game would die in a month look silly. And I'd like me from the time of the reveal, who didn't want the series to go where it will go, be proven wrong because I very well might have been. Worst case scenario I'll have Deadlock as a fresh game to pour hours into.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Ngl, civ fans, esp in this forums, overplay this ccp censor stuff all the time. civ fans will be like “the ccp would never let kublai khan lead both mongolia and china” and then they do it…ok, now what???

They also forget Hong Kong is an independent city-state in Civ5

 

[Zaarin]

They also forget Hong Kong is an independent city-state in Civ5

And Civ6.