Switch Leaders, not Civs

[AffineConstant]

The current poll on this forum is sitting strongly at "dislike" for switching Civs.

I'm neutral on a personal level, but I do think it will hit sales. A lot. The amount of people that want to play as Insert Civ seems huge just from casual observation. Switching "civilizations" shatters that illusion entirely, and I get that.

So out of my own self interest in hoping Civ sells a lot because I love this type of game and self aggrandizement, here's a proposal that I suspect will have the opposite reaction: Switch leaders each age.

The sentence "Napoleon lead Rome to glory in the Age of Exploration" sounds, to me, like marketing's dream tagline come true. It's sounds like absolutely everything the average Civ player daydreaming about an alternate history loves. Well enough self aggrandizement out of me, would you buy this game?

 

[ColtSeavers]

Sorry, but your idea doesnt make any sense to me either. Switching Leaders could work, but more Like switching from Victoria to Churchill for England, or George Washington to Roosevelt. Napoleon leading Rome to Victory however, doesnt feel right to me.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Leaders take a lot more time and money to create. There will be 6 playable civs if we needed 3 for each of them.

 

[Heinage]

While I’m still in the “wait and see for implementation” crowd, I think we should all take the numbers in the aforementioned poll with a grain of salt, for a couple of reasons.

Firstly, people who strongly dislike something are more likely to speak up and vote than those who are either ambivalent or in favour of the change. (It seems people are generally more likely to complain than praise - out loud - unfortunately).

Secondly, this is civ”fanatics”. As a group, we tend to be more purists in what we expect from “Civ”, with many having followed the series literally for decades. I think that would, generally (definitely not saying this applies to everyone), lead to a more conservative crowd which struggles with change - especially revolutionary change such as this. As such, I don’t think the poll is representative of all people who enjoy civ.

Remember the studios long-standing mantra of 33% new, 33% reworked, 33% same. Each iteration of Civ will try to shake things up in some way. Usually they pull it off well. They love the game just as much as we do!

 

[Zaarin]

Changing civs makes me cock an eyebrow; changing leaders would be a deal breaker for me.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Changing civs makes me cock an eyebrow; changing leaders would be a deal breaker for me.

I do actually feel the opposite way, but I understand this sentiment...
For me I'm really attached to the people and it doesn't irk my mind too much if the Leader happens to change from era to era (ie what if Augustus was born in Africa?)
Because that's not as nonsensical as everyone changing magically (to me)

 

[Gorbles]

The current poll on this forum is sitting strongly at "dislike" for switching Civs.

This forum isn't an accurate poll of the playerbase (real, potential or imagined).

This isn't a knock on the folks here (Christ, I've been here a decade already?!), just an observation I believe has to be factual. Civ VI has what, 50k concurrent players on Steam alone?

 

[pokiehl]

Switching leaders is even more unappealing to me.

 

[nzcamel]

The current poll on this forum is sitting strongly at "dislike" for switching Civs.

I'm neutral on a personal level, but I do think it will hit sales. A lot. The amount of people that want to play as Insert Civ seems huge just from casual observation. Switching "civilizations" shatters that illusion entirely, and I get that.

So out of my own self interest in hoping Civ sells a lot because I love this type of game and self aggrandizement, here's a proposal that I suspect will have the opposite reaction: Switch leaders each age.

The sentence "Napoleon lead Rome to glory in the Age of Exploration" sounds, to me, like marketing's dream tagline come true. It's sounds like absolutely everything the average Civ player daydreaming about an alternate history loves. Well enough self aggrandizement out of me, would you buy this game?

If the leaders were different within the same Civ I'd love that. i.e. An Anglo-Saxon king, a Norman king, and a prime minister for England?
But swapping in leaders from different Civs, no, I wouldn't like that at all.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Civilization switching in Civ 7 is a done deal. It's a central mechanic that much of the game is built around. Whether you like it or not it's not going anywhere.

 

[nzcamel]

Civilization switching in Civ 7 is a done deal. It's a central mechanic that much of the game is built around. Whether you like it or not it's not going anywhere.

Noted.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'd much prefer this as long as the leaders would stay in their own civ.
For one that would solve the problem of how to include different dynasties of India, China, Persia etc.

 

[GeneralZIft]

I'm probably going to end up playing those Civilisations that HAPPEN to go on to the next era every time (eg China) but I do feel sorry for people whose favourite Civilisations have no realistic or genuinely appealing successors, especially those who like to play what-if Natives.

I find that this new mechanic is somehow even more Eurocentric than past games.

Like, sure, it's okay when you're playing the Brits who can be traced very easily through the ages between various cultures, But it is not exactly the same for those who were colonised and had their identities erased.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

How about we just keep civ's and leaders?

 

[Hannibal XIII]

I'd definitely prefer that, because a polity changing leaders and approaches over time feels natural and abides by history, whereas some of the leaps the civ switching has in screenshots (frex, Aksum and Egypt both having the option to become Songhai which has no relation to either other than being located thousands of miles elsewhere on the African continent) do fill me with trepidation...

 

[Disgustipated]

Probably too late to change now. I do think the game will sell well, but perhaps not as well as Civ 6.

I suspect this is the only entry we'll see this feature. It won't last until Civ 8.

 

[TheGrayFox]

How about we just keep civ's and leaders?

this

how about we keep the failed swapping gimmicks to Humankind and leave Civilization's fundemental philosphy of leading a civilization to stand the test of time alone?

 

[canadamufc]

How about we just keep civ's and leaders?

And I still don’t know why they changed something that wasn’t broken.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

And I still don’t know why they changed something that wasn’t broken.

I guess to be different/fresh, but that alone isn't justification for most serious things.