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

[ManoftheHour333]

I know this was likely being developed during the humankind panic but man they may have messed up here. Obv wait 2+ years post release for the game to come out etc. but it's jarring that they didn't think to pivot when all the era-locked Civs of Humankind weren't memorable in the slightest. Again, they've only got leaders which have personality...but only a little bit.

I really think they could have gone a middle of the road path and make switching civs an option over a requirement. That kind of a choice I could see being fun. Plus, it'd represent empires like Rome and China that you could argue bleed into multiple eras. Meanwhile, I'm already seeing major ways that the AI won't be able to handle something like that which will be tough.

Also those leader interaction scenes...WHY. They look taken directly from HK and look stupid. A LOT of civ is about role playing as that civ (well, now just the leader lol) so me as the plasyer want to be the one DOWing and trading with individual leaders. That whole sequence is just silly and frustrating.

 

[The_J]

I think the concept as presented in the gameplay trailer is very different. it essentially splits Civ into 3 different games. One early, one middle, one late.
You may play the early game as the Romans, but then it kinda starts over in a middle age/exploration setting, where you might choose to play Spain or Venice instead, and many things are re-set in some way.

 

[moondog385]

I'm a bit mixed on the civ-switching mechanic, but the fact that you can stay in one era for the entire duration of the game kinda offsets it. The game itself looks great (very pleased with the art style) and I'm super excited by the choice of civs we saw -- Buganda, Shawnee, Mixtec; these aren't civs I expected at all much less at launch.

And a major plus of civ-switching means we'll finally get more Indian leaders. I was thrilled to see Ashoka! Not too crazy about how loose they're being with the leaders (e.g. Franklin and Confucius), but I have a feeling we'll be getting plenty of alternates so again, not a big deal!

I'm curious about how certain civs will be handled. Is France going to be an Exploration-era civ or a Modern-era civ? Is there going to be an England and a UK?

 

[bene_legionary]

As other people have mentioned, Civilization VII seems to have been in development before Humankind, and it also appears that the choice to switch civilizations isn't entirely forced.

 

[Uberfrog]

Hmm - I think the showcase was put together very well and it has left me feeling more positive than I expected.

I am surprised they have copied Humankind’s culture switching. I wasn’t a fan of Humankind, but it wasn’t because of that feature - the whole thing just felt soulless. I am interested in how the separation of ages will play out. I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea. Any complaint of “immersion-breaking” is a little silly given that we have been seeing Teddy Roosevelt in 4000 BC. Success will depend on how cohesive the game as a whole manages to feel, and how effectively they design the victory conditions. This is where I think Humankind failed, and also Spore, which had very different eras!

So I am intrigued, but not convinced. But I’m glad they have gone for a rather radical change. Civ 6 and Civ 5 get fairly similar so it was time for a bit more ambition. And I think the visuals and music are pretty good, and am looking forward to discovering the whole roster of civs!

 

[HorseshoeHermit]

I thought they contradicted themselves. They put each civ in its own Age, so that there aren't gaps of unique bonuses making it hard to balance. But then they give bonuses tied to the leader... so there will be balance issues for eternal leaders in the same way.

I think they got the graphical style right.

Three ages is hugely disappointing, and there will be hurdles to mod in others, judging by the "transition" mechanics mentioned.

Twenty minutes was up really fast.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm surprised you guys are so negative. The way the civ-switching looks like it's going to be handled seems to have what I had hoped Humankind would be; progression with logic and context attached, not just "I'm Venice today, I'm Russia tomorrow!"

Very excited to see what the unique mechanics are for each age.

I never got Humankind because of the civ switching though.
Unfortunately, Civ 7 just doesn't look very appealing right now to me.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

One the positive side, I think the fact that changing civ is not completely pick-and-choose at will, but is un-locked by historic ties as well as in-game actions, goes a long way to remove my worst concerns about this feature. On the negative side, I'm really not happy with the mix-and-match of the leaders, that really kills immersion for me.

The one other game feature that really caught my interest was the mention of "rural and urban developments" and that "towns may or may not evolve into cities in their own right", which is a feature that's been very high on my wish list since City Lights mod became a thing.

I think for me, the issue is at least the direct (presumably best) example they gave in this trailer was Egypt to Songhai, which is very much not a historical tie...Like you noted, also not a fan of the fact that i could pick Benjamin Franklin and never lead the USA if I don't want to, lol. What's the point of tying leaders to civs at all if there's no gameplay connections anymore? Like, you could jsut give us Shaka Zulu but never the Zulu, or just the Zulu and never Shaka, since leaders and civs aren't tied together anymore

I'm surprised you guys are so negative. The way the civ-switching looks like it's going to be handled seems to have what I had hoped Humankind would be; progression with logic and context attached, not just "I'm Venice today, I'm Russia tomorrow!"

Very excited to see what the unique mechanics are for each age.

Logic and Context insofar the in-game actions, sure. But Venice today, Russia tomorrow is literally what Egypt to Songhai is.

 

[Razpor]

it was always going to be weird considering one of the sad, but very real issues with this system is that most of these cultures just aren't around, or don't have real-world direct correlaries

probably the most unfortunate part? some of these cultures (again, microfocusing on the Buganda reveal) have real-world correlaries in the other time periods, but I somehow doubt that Firaxis found modern-day Uganda itself of meriting a civilization slot, and if you're going to actually go about this new system in that manner, its doubly offensive. Not only are you forcing disparate cultures to evolve into each other, but you're also excluding the actual real world successor cultures at the cost of including the cultures you feel merit inclusion more

this exactly , imagine starting out as Aztecs but continuing as european colonizers in the next age....how is that any fun??? and not to forget offensive.

 

[Duke William of Normandy]

On the plus side, modders are gonna have a field day coming up with new Civs and Leaders, lol.

 

[djvandyke]

This is so depressing. Literally the worst idea they could have gone with.

 

[Foxforch]

As other people have mentioned, Civilization VII seems to have been in development before Humankind, and it also appears that the choice to switch civilizations isn't entirely forced.

I really hope so.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

No, the card policies in 6 were the flat-out worst.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I feel like the gameplay showcase didn't really do a good job of laying out how everything fits together. Just implied it.

From my perspective, this is literally a 3-in-1 game where each Age is its own ruleset and game, this means that the evolution is less.

I can see the immersion bit but I think fundementally it's not as bad as it seems.

It seems to imply your actions, your previous choices, and your leader choice influence your options, so the odds of you going from Mayans to Sweden to USA might not be as straightforward.

You also retain elements from previous age, so it seems like you're not just "carrying on".

 

[player1 fanatic]

Aren't civs that peaked in Medieval time shafted with this change?
You can't fit them either in Antiquity nor in Exploration Age. For example, Byzantium.

 

[Ashbery76]

So you have Rome,Greece,Egypt on your border and press turn then it's Mongols,Venice,Russia.It was horrible in Humankind.Immersion killer.The immortal leader being the only constant doesnt matter.You are immersed by the Civ.

Huge mistake mark my words.

 

[moondog385]

this exactly , imagine starting out as Aztecs but continuing as european colonizers in the next age....how is that any fun??? and not to forget offensive.

Interested to see how this is handled. Maybe most of the Native American civs will be "modern"?

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Aren't civs that peaked in Medieval time shafted with this change?
You can't fit them either in Antiquity nor in Exploration Age. For example, Byzantium.

Ancient Egypt all the way to 1492 is a very weird thing to lock behind DLC if more ages are going to be involved in DLC

 

[Xandinho]

Having an Egyptian leader not leading Egypt and suddenly discovering that your neighbor who was Babylon is now Mongolia is totally immersion breaking. It didn't work in HK, why would it work in Civ?
Obviously I'm going to have to play the game to form a solid opinion, but that doesn't look good to me. It's not immersive and it's a step back from what makes Civ unique.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Interested to see how this is handled. Maybe most of the Native American civs will be "modern"?

Shawnee are an "exploration era" civ according to the preorder reveal