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

[UncivilizedGuy]

One way that they could have done this is to have only the civ that wins an era continue on to the next. All other players would have to pick a new civilization because they have fallen

 

[Bosque]

This could either be the best civ game if they fit the pieces right, or a mess. I'm hoping for the former because there's a lot here that I like, and a lot that we need to really wait and see on until there's more than just a single gameplay reveal to pan new systems.

Right now, it looks more like a mess. I was planning to preorder after seeing the trailer. Now I will wait for additional reveals in the coming months before making a decision.

 

[Jkchart]

One way that they could have done this is to have only the civ that wins an era continue on to the next. All other players would have to pick a new civilization because they have fallen

that would be a fascinating feature actually, i love this idea

Right now, it looks more like a mess. I was planning to preorder after seeing the trailer. Now I will wait for additional reveals in the coming months before making a decision.

I can agree with waiting @Bosque especially at...that price. I don't want to pull the trigger yet either. I just don't want to doomsay quite yet

 

[Manol0]

I mean, I'm not a fan of the civ switching mechanic, but an immortal leader and a "France" or "Rome" that exists from 4000 BC to the present day as civ currently does is also entirely a "fantasy story"...

I wouldnt have problem if Romans become Italians or Goths become Germans.... but Romans become Aztecs and then Japanese makes no sense...

 

[Buni0ns]

Classic case of be careful what you wish for.

I was constantly saying take more features from Amplitude and put them in Civ.

Now I get the nightmare version of my wish.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

that would be a fascinating feature actually, i love this idea

I think this would undo the cultural immersion problem. Basically everyone would be starting from scratch

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

Has any content creators or interview clarified how the system works?

I have some confusion on how many choices you have per Era.

The screen shows three choices, but the way the third one is worded, it looks like you can choose any.

 

[Bosque]

Yeah, it sounds very much like it's 3 different games - you have a full game in the ancient era, and then when the age switches over, things change heavily moving to the next age.

In the stream they did mention that you could play from antiquity to the modern age - or you could just play a single age. It might be a viable and enjoyable game in that case.
But it wouldn't really be Civilization, where you are challenged to stand the test of time.

 

[bitula]

Interesting, not a single person likes this civ mix. A minority are just saying maybe it is not that bad, but most (including myself) feel it is just outright wrong. I've decided to buy the top package on steam even if I don't like the reveal video, just to keep the tradition, but now not sure that I'll buy even the standard one... I mean what an oversight from FXS? Unbelievable! I mean OK, maybe Firaxis thought this out much better than Humankind devs and so one would need to play the game to see/feel it for himself. But what to see? It is already confirmed that you can jump from one historically unrelated leader/civ to another.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I like that there are requirements for picking a civilization at the era change. At least this adds some sense of realism

 

[Jkchart]

I think this would undo the cultural immersion problem. Basically everyone would be starting from scratch

Oh sure thing. The hardest part would be balancing the start of it. Do you just "switch" and your cities are magically that new culture? Do you become a conqueror civilization/civil war civilization and the old civilization a NPC in disarray? Do you get a new settler and settle on an undiscovered continent? Lots of thought to consider with such a mechanic, while the "winner" civ continues in its glory, but may not get access to a new kit while the others do to catch up.

 

[Foxforch]

Has any content creators or interview clarified how the system works?

I have some confusion on how many choices you have per Era.

The screen shows three choices, but the way the third one is worded, it looks like you can choose any.

View attachment 699890

What if I don't want to switch to Songhai or Mongolia and stay as Egypt...

 

[seasnake]

I mean, isn't this exactly evidential of the issue with this system? We as fans asked for more cultural granularity in civs for so long--give us the Maurya, Chola, Mughals instead of just "India"...give us Rome AND Italy, France AND Franks, more indigenous american represnetation through the Haudenosaunee and Chinook and Cree and Cherokee.

Civ 6 was a huge huge step in that direction. And now it genuinely feels like a step back, because we're forced to have our own civs colonized in their succession, and civs with no commonalities are being pigeonholed together, even though it seems like the most diverse set of civs we've ever had is about to be showcased

But the thing is colonization is both historical and baked into the cake of any 4x game. Even claiming land is by nature exclusive, and every civ fought for what they thought was theirs. There were winners and losers, but usually civs won a lot in their day and then lost as they declined and fell. The truth is history is messy, and any game that reflects it better than Disney's Pocahontas can't avoid it.

 

[UWHabs]

In the stream they did mention that you could play from antiquity to the modern age - or you could just play a single age. It might be a viable and enjoyable game in that case.
But it wouldn't really be Civilization, where you are challenged to stand the test of time.

It seems like the focus is that the leaders are eternal, and the civ around them can change each era.

 

[Evie]

The Shawnee may be Exploration era, but then they are *best known* for their role in he Colonial European wars of North America (of which the War of 1812, in which Tecumseh died, was essentially the last), so that's not unexpected.

I would rather expect nations more associated with the eras of Manifest Destiny, and later parts of North American history up to today are where you are more likely to find Modern natives civilizations. The Dakota/Lakota loom RATHER large as a possibility.

NOTE: Yes, I know the Shawnee and, say., Lakota are very different people. I'm just supremely uninterested in that "is this mechanic sufficiently realistic", because I never looked for realism in Civ.

 

[Jkchart]

Interesting, not a single person likes this civ mix. A minority are just saying maybe it is not that bad, but most (including myself) feel it is just outright wrong. I've decided to buy the top package on steam even if I don't like the reveal video, just to keep the tradition, but now not sure that I'll buy even the standard one... I mean what an oversight from FXS? Unbelievable! I mean OK, maybe Firaxis thought this out much better than Humankind devs and so one would need to play the game to see/feel it for himself. But what to see? It is already confirmed that you can jump from one historically unrelated leader/civ to another.

I do want to say, Civ is still a series and game of "what ifs", and therefore you can ask the question "what if Songhai dominated beyond the Sahel" and like questions.

I am skeptical of the implementation as well, but strict historical requirements only would rightly be seen as both less fun and extremely problematic as others point out with colonizers inherently dominating.

I have no idea how they will handle indigenous civs for the Modern age. That is one area I am greatly concerned about as well. Perhaps they have a good solution, perhaps not. Only more time and footage will tell imo

 

[Tecumseh1]

What were they thinking.

What were they drinking/smoking might be the better question

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

In the stream they did mention that you could play from antiquity to the modern age - or you could just play a single age. It might be a viable and enjoyable game in that case.
But it wouldn't really be Civilization, where you are challenged to stand the test of time.

I assume that if you stay as one civ throughout the whole game it would only be a civ that spawns in antiquity though, right?
That means you could never play as England, France etc.

 

[Jkchart]

I assume that if you stay as one civ throughout the whole game it would only be a civ that spawns in antiquity though, right?
That means you could never play as England, France etc.

It sounds like you can have an "Exploration only" game and the like, is what I think they are going for so you can jump in at one point for a faster online experience

 

[seasnake]

Interesting, not a single person likes this civ mix. A minority are just saying maybe it is not that bad, but most (including myself) feel it is just outright wrong. I've decided to buy the top package on steam even if I don't like the reveal video, just to keep the tradition, but now not sure that I'll buy even the standard one... I mean what an oversight from FXS? Unbelievable! I mean OK, maybe Firaxis thought this out much better than Humankind devs and so one would need to play the game to see/feel it for himself. But what to see? It is already confirmed that you can jump from one historically unrelated leader/civ to another.

I neither like nor dislike it. I think it could be great or it could be terrible. I am optimistic knowing there needs to be gameplay ties or regional ties to justify your choice, that removes a lot of my chief complaints about it in other games, but it's going to depend on the execution.