The bold nature of civ7 goes deeper than just civ switching - it's about sandbox vs structured narrative

[TheGrayFox]

It's quite baffling that some people are still saying that you "end" your civilization and forced to change your civilization as if you were playing an entire different game because it changes name and gains new bonuses, while also:

• keeping your cities with their names;
• keeping the unique social policies (traidition) of your previous civ;
• keeping the buildings of your cities;
• keeping the world wonders you built;
• keeping the relationships you had with your neighbors;
• keeping bonuses based upon how you played your previous era (economic, scientific, cultural, militaristic);
• keeping your leader...

I'm not going to touch the marriage analogy with a 10 foot pole because i really don't think its very good one but I am going to question how you could still be baffled by this. You can put as much lipstick on the pig as you want but at the end of the day your original civilizations is ended and you are being forced by the devs and their now arbitrary crisis mechanic to change your civilization between seperated game rounds.

Most of the things you listed above could all be applied to how civ swapping in Humankind worked and we all know how well that went over.

It's not a laughable comparison if you can get around the idea that you're playing an alternate history game, not a recreation of actual history. If "this didn't happen in history, therefore I don't want it in my game" is a show stopper for you, that's fine. This won't be the game for you.

To me, the worst part of the Civ-switching we've seen so far as the default historical options. You shouldn't be able to just go Norman to France as a default, it should depend on what happens during your game.

No one thinks civilization is a recreation of actual history and no one here is looking for strict historical accuracy from a civilization game, I don't understand the conversation always comes back to this strawman. The reason why this is a show stopper for many of us has to do with the devs trying to force an arbitrary and restrictive sense of narrative down our throats in a 4x sandbox and making changes which undermine 20 years of series precedent while trying to peddle what amounts to gamey nonsense (ex: eras, crisises, and abbasids > Buganda) under the guise of "more historical"

There is a reason why the devs made "historical route" the default. You are probably one of very, very few that actually want Firaxis to seperate leaders from their civilizations and have civilizations be swapped like hats based on arbitrary conditions in between seperated game rounds.

 

[ombak]

I'm not going to touch the marriage analogy with a 10 foot pole because i really don't think its very good one but I am going to question how you could still be baffled by this. You can put as much lipstick on the pig as you want but at the end of the day your original civilizations is ended and you are being forced by the devs and their now arbitrary crisis mechanic to change your civilization between seperated game rounds.

Most of the things you listed above could all be applied to how civ swapping in Humankind worked and we all know how well that went over.

What if the game offered you the exact same choices (new bonuses for the era, legacies for the previous one etc). but did not associate them with picking a new civilization. Say you keep the name and visual aesthetic of the first civ you picked, not just the leader, and everything else gameplay wise was the same. Would that rectify the problem in your eyes?

 

[TheGrayFox]

What if the game offered you the exact same choices (new bonuses for the era, legacies for the previous one etc). but did not associate them with picking a new civilization. Say you keep the name and visual aesthetic of the first civ you picked, not just the leader, and everything else gameplay wise was the same. Would that rectify the problem in your eyes?

This is tough for me to answer personally because my criticism isn't only directed at civ swapping but also extends to the eras system splitting the game into three seperate campaigns and the arbitrary crisis mechanics used to justify them both. Leaders leveling up traits, legacies traits, and new customizable bonuses throughout the era are not the problem in and of themselves

 

[ombak]

This is tough for me to answer personally because my criticism isn't only directed at civ swapping but also extends to the eras system splitting the game into three seperate campaigns and the arbitrary crisis mechanics used to justify them both. Leaders leveling up traits, legacies traits, and new customizable bonuses throughout the era are not the problem in and of themselves

Fair enough. Even if your answer were positive on that front, there could still be an issue with labeling the exploration and modern era bonuses as part of that civ you kept from antiquity. So I don't think it was a solution, just an attempt to find a direction to go in.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

You are probably one of very, very few that actually want Firaxis to seperate leaders from their civilizations and have civilizations be swapped like hats based on arbitrary conditions in between seperated game rounds.

You're wrong on the first point, I suspect I'd rather leaders be dropped altogether or change each era, but I'll wait to see how the game plays in practice to confirm. As to the second point, I think it has the potential to dramatically improve gameplay, but we won't know until we actually play the game.

 

[Krikkit1]

Option of keeping (or customizing) the civs name is Very important.

Also it’s important to havean easy way to recognize the previous civs of another player … I might want to know if I’m dealing with Greek Mongol America or Egyptian Abassid America in a MP game with someone I didn’t meet before.

 

[Trengilly]

You wouldn't say that a woman marrying, taking her husband's name and decided to go from brunette to blonde is an entirely different person, right? You wouldn't say that she "ended"? You'd realize that she's the same person, just with new aesthetics, a new name and potentially new "abilities" (joint income, for example)?

Wait . . . are you trying to take away women's freedom to keep their last name! Unacceptable! They aren't possessions, they are free to make their own decisions in today's modern egalitarian world.

And on a side note . . . I can say from personal experience that when women change their hair color they DO sometimes become entirely different people!

 

[Trengilly]

I'm not going to touch the marriage analogy with a 10 foot pole because i really don't think its very good one but I am going to question how you could still be baffled by this. You can put as much lipstick on the pig as you want but at the end of the day your original civilizations is ended and you are being forced by the devs and their now arbitrary crisis mechanic to change your civilization between seperated game rounds.

This idea of 'your original civilizations is ended' is strictly your personal interpretation of what 'civilization' means to you and how you interpret the situation.

Other people like me, do NOT think that. For me nothing is ended or lost and instead I'm excited about my civilization growing, expanding, learning, maturing, and getting stronger. Its still 100% the same Civilization to me.

I accept and understand your view . . . its just not the same as mine. This isn't absolute . . its just opinion, personal preference or interpretation

How successful Civ 7 will become will likely be decided in part by how many players share which viewpoint.

 

[vorlon_mi]

It's a New Game.

Over in the Civ3 forums (and more rarely in the Civ4 forums),people would ask, "I've never tried Civ5, should I?" "I wonder if I should give Civ6 a try? It's on sale" I would tell those posting, "yes, get it on sale. Yes, give it a try. Remember that it is a different game."

Feature X doesn't work the way you expect from Civ3. Feature Y didn't exist in Civ3 or Civ4, but it's a big deal in this game.

Civ7 is a different game. It's divided into three chapters, on purpose. It has added Crises and Legacies and new yields and map growth on purpose.

If someone who loves Civ3 or Civ4 (or Civ5 or Civ6) asks about trying Civ7, my answer is the same. Yes, while remembering it is a new game.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

It's a New Game.

Over in the Civ3 forums (and more rarely in the Civ4 forums),people would ask, "I've never tried Civ5, should I?" "I wonder if I should give Civ6 a try? It's on sale" I would tell those posting, "yes, get it on sale. Yes, give it a try. Remember that it is a different game."

Feature X doesn't work the way you expect from Civ3. Feature Y didn't exist in Civ3 or Civ4, but it's a big deal in this game.

Civ7 is a different game. It's divided into three chapters, on purpose. It has added Crises and Legacies and new yields and map growth on purpose.

If someone who loves Civ3 or Civ4 (or Civ5 or Civ6) asks about trying Civ7, my answer is the same. Yes, while remembering it is a new game.

If I could double like this post, I would.

 

[TheGrayFox]

This idea of 'your original civilizations is ended' is strictly your personal interpretation of what 'civilization' means to you and how you interpret the situation.

Not really though as its exactly what the devs have presented to us and are trying to abstract with the seperated age system and civ swapping. Your original civilization,culture, empire, etc is forced to end because of arbitrary crisis and is conquered/built over or forced to "evolve" into a new distinct civilization/culture in response between rounds. You can put the lipstick on the pig and it might not bother you but that is what it is.

Other people like me, do NOT think that. For me nothing is ended or lost and instead I'm excited about my civilization growing, expanding, learning, maturing, and getting stronger. Its still 100% the same Civilization to me.

I accept and understand your view . . . its just not the same as mine. This isn't absolute . . its just opinion, personal preference or interpretation

How successful Civ 7 will become will likely be decided in part by how many players share which viewpoint.

In the civilization series, you civilization has always grown, expanded, learned, matured, and got stronger. Only difference is now you can't grow, expand, learn or mature too much because the devs have decided you can't get too far ahead during the round (because the game is now seperated into three seperate chapters...) and they have designed the game to arbitrarily and deliberately set you back at the end and start of each new round, if you're too powerfull, while forcing you to change civilizations between those rounds....

I accept and understand your view too even if I disagree completely. You are more than welcome to enjoy the game, the quarter here who have no interest in the sequel because of civ swapping/eras and the loud and seeming majority of most other communities dedicated to civ who remain hostile or indifferently negative to some of the changes probably won't.

 

[Trengilly]

Explaining how expanded mechanics from overhaul mods work when you have no reference to IV at all will be tough but I'll try and as succinctly as possible and to the best of my memory

Civilization IV's unsuccesful attempt at limiting expansion was with maitainance for cities that increased with distance from capital. Culture was modeled on a per city basis and your cities demographics and borders would fluctuate and be determined by the cultural output of your city and its neighbors (including your own and neighboring civs). This culture system like many others would tie into the city happiness mechanics which was also modeled on a per city basis.

So for example a small/newly founded or conquered city on the outskirts of your empire might be overwhelmed by the cultural output of a neighboring civs depending on proximity and the borders would shift overtime in the enemies favor and might demographically be 70% enemy 20% you own culture 10% some other civ near by. This (among several other internal management factors) would make your city unhappy and if this culture pressure is too overpowering it could cause your city to "flip" to the dominant culture (only excemption being conquered cities by defaullt) There was also a cool feature that if you settled a certain amount of cities on an overseas continent that you could choose to create a colony, which was a new civilization that would be your vassal or suffer exhuberent overseas maitainance cost. (this colony could revolt and gain independence if unhappy enough)

Now these mechanics alone wouldn't stop civilizations from expanding as rapidly as maintainance would allow or prevent a player/s running away with the game but what overhaul mods with revolutions did is overhaul all of the above and introduce a stability mechanic tied to civic choices and internal management to work into an event system that could create more dynamic rebellions and revolutions from unhappy citiies. Particularly unhappy cities could revolt and potenitally form factions to make demands of their rulers having the potential to eventual devolve into them forming a brand new civ and demanding indpendence, autonomy, or even to join other player civilizations if left unchecked and the players had the choice of responding to these revolutions by sating them bribes, choosing force, granting autonomy, or even chosing to continue playing as the rebels. Depending on how factors and management you could see small localized insurgencies or civilizations being completely ripped apart by revoltuion with those who agressively overextend and find themselves weary from constant war being the most likely to suffer, helping to curb snowballing.

The Revolution mods ended up creating a sense of rise and fall in Civilization games and helped address snowballing and fatigue with the late game while also remaining completely dynamic and organic events created within the sandbox established by the game's mechanics without restrictively/arbitrarily forcing a narrative on the player and without underming the series' mantra of building an empire to span time

To be fair to Firaxis . . we don't yet know how the Exploration and Modern ages or their Crisis will work (or really how any of the Crisis work).

Its entirely possible that they do introduce a colonization system for the Exploration age. And that the Exploration Age crisis we encounter may be revolutions or rebellions.

We also know that there are many different crises and there was some mention that they may be tailored to your empire. If we get a specific crisis that fits with how we have developed our empire it could make for a very immersive gaming experience.

I agree that it would be amazing if the game was 'freeform' and events and challenges would just develop organically based on gameplay . . . but that is extremely difficulty to design and control for.

A big factor in the three Ages system is that is gives structure to the game making it much easier for the developers to introduce these elements in a controlled environment.

Firaxis feels this structure will allow them to present a more balanced and compelling gameplay experience then if they didn't have it. They understand the concepts of choice vs narrative and all these other topics that have been discussed. This is how they feel they can best address things.

 

[Krikkit1]

Wait . . . are you trying to take away women's freedom to keep their last name! Unacceptable! They aren't possessions, they are free to make their own decisions in today's modern egalitarian world.

And on a side note . . . I can say from personal experience that when women change their hair color they DO sometimes become entirely different people!

The joke is actually a significant point. It is an option, the default can be change, first option keep, second option customize (hyphenate, use last names etc.)

And even when the default (AI) option is change to new, plenty of women professionals keep their name professionally because that help the “immersion” of those they deal with in believing this is the same person (even if they now have joint income, a new address, etc.)


The option to keep your civ name, and them showing it in some marketing would probably deal with 80% of the issue people have with it.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Can we please stop with marriage analogy...? The civilization you play as in a historically themed 4x video game and how you as a player identify to them is not comparable to people in real life marriages and relationships, please just stop.

To be fair to Firaxis . . we don't yet know how the Exploration and Modern ages or their Crisis will work (or really how any of the Crisis work).

Its entirely possible that they do introduce a colonization system for the Exploration age. And that the Exploration Age crisis we encounter may be revolutions or rebellions.

We also know that there are many different crises and there was some mention that they may be tailored to your empire. If we get a specific crisis that fits with how we have developed our empire it could make for a very immersive gaming experience.

True which is why I'm still here hoping to here them pull some rabbit out of their hat that makes me not dislike so many of the major features this sequel has been devoloped around... can't say I'm optimistic

I agree that it would be amazing if the game was 'freeform' and events and challenges would just develop organically based on gameplay . . . but that is extremely difficulty to design and control for.

A big factor in the three Ages system is that is gives structure to the game making it much easier for the developers to introduce these elements in a controlled environment.

Firaxis feels this structure will allow them to present a more balanced and compelling gameplay experience then if they didn't have it. They understand the concepts of choice vs narrative and all these other topics that have been discussed. This is how they feel they can best address things.

and this is the crux of the issue and what the OP addressed. This is about forced structured narrative down our throats vs the organic 4x sandbox built from rules and mechanics the series is built on.

This latest Firaxis dev team may have concluded that this was the best way to address and design these things and it seems many long time fans vehemently disagree. You say the devs understand, I disagree based on what they've presented me.

 

[Krikkit1]

Can we please stop with marriage analogy... The civilization you play as in a historically themed 4x video game and how you as a player identify to them is not comparable to real life marriages and relationships, please just stop.


True which is why I'm still here hoping to here them pull some rabbit out of their hat that makes me not dislike so many of the major features this sequel has been devoloped around... can't say I'm optimistic



and this is the crux of the issue and what the OP addressed. This is about forced structured narrative down our throats vs the organic 4x sandbox built from rules and mechanics the series is built on.

This latest Firaxis dev team may have concluded that this was the best way to address and design these things and it seems many long time fans vehemently disagree. You say the devs understand, I disagree based on what they've presented me.

Part of the problem is the “historical” nature of the game.

If team red develops a strong warrior culture that leads to a deeply isolated cultural powerhouse, that sounds cool…but it doesn’t sound like England, or the Inca.
As soon as they made civ more than just color+city name list+AI leader, the name had to fit with the bonuses.

But as you do that you lose some of the open form…but you then open the door to alt-history on a different world, what if Romans an Maya we’re neighbors not Rome and Greece…(and it makes sense because your Rome actually has Rome bonuses)

But for any civs not in antiquity, their bonuses are partly based on the civs predecessors (that they either conquered or were conquered by, or just brought in as migrants)

This makes for another type of alt history, what if the Mongols conquered the Greeks and became Hellenized instead of China and becoming Sinicized.

However, a key thing is the player should decide the flavor of the althistory they are making. They get to provide the actual gameplay decisions… they should also get to control the Name.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I think most city names should be dynamic and change based on their counterparts in the new empire you've picked.

If your Exploration Civ never owned your Antiquity cities historically. keep the names the same. But if you settled Londinium as Rome, there's no real reason for that not to turn into London under the Normans. Same for Egypt where Waset can (and should) become Caïro and Men-Nefer can become Luxor under the Abbasids.

At the very minimum you should be able ask you replace your each of your Roman settlement names with a random Norman name, not just your capital.

A small tweak that I think would help immersion a lot. If a mod like Rosetta can do the same in Civ6, i see no reason for that little QoL tweak to be included in Civ7. May we ask of the devs whether it can be done, @FXS_Sar?

 

[Zaarin]

I think most city names should be dynamic and change based on their counterparts in the new empire you've picked.

If your Exploration Civ never owned your Antiquity cities historically. keep the names the same. But if you settled Londinium as Rome, there's no real reason for that not to turn into London under the Normans. Same for Egypt where Waset can (and should) become Caïro and Men-Nefer can become Luxor under the Abbasids.

At the very minimum you should be able ask you replace your each of your Roman settlement names with a random Norman name, not just your capital.

A small tweak that I think would help immersion a lot. If a mod like Rosetta can do the same in Civ6, i see no reason for that little QoL tweak to be included in Civ7. May we ask of the devs whether it can be done, @FXS_Sar?

I'm not expecting the level of detail Rosetta brings--but I eagerly await Rosetta's Civ7 sequel (which I think SeelingCat already mentioned being eager to make). If I'm Egypt and become Mongols, I 100% want Waset to become Tipe; if I'm Abbasids and somehow become Qing, Baghdad should become Bāgédá; etc. Again, this is a level of nuance I don't necessarily expect from the devs, but I do look forward to modders providing it. (I'm also very okay with some speculation from modders--e.g., I don't know the Nahuatl name for Athens, but I'm okay with something like Atenatl or Atellān.)

 

[King Flevance]

Having started the series with 5 and never experienced 4 beyond seeing some gameplay on youtube, what exactly happens in 4 with these "empire management/revolution/colonization mechanics"?

4 is my personal favorite still and I stuck mostly with it through 5 and 6's lifecycles. 4 was unique in this regard for empire management. I could go into the details, but it gets hairy as there are some things I have grievances with in it. But it also held some highlights for building up vs. building out and this was the first time building up was ever really a strategy in Civ. In a nutshell, Civ 4's empire management was based on if you wanted to build out and channeling your commerce through sliders, and specialists if you were going to build up. ( ,,, etc) This meant you relied more on and you could mix and match these two styles in between if you wanted, making every play style viable if you knew how to manage it. You didn't necessarily HAVE to pick one play style or the other. Revolutions were culture based and Civ 6 actually improved this IMO with loyalty. However, to cut costs on expanding out you could "break off" part of your empire and make it a colony that would bring a new leader into the game and essentially just vassal them to you. However, if their power exceeded a barrier a vassal could declare its freedom from you. However, in 4 it was too easy for puppets and colonies to snowball your power onto the global scene if you knew how to leverage it. This would create games where half of the map is in your pocket, divided between 5 empires. At this stage the game is pretty much already won, and you can easily complete a "religious (AP) victory" or play out the game you already know you are going to win. There is plenty of room for improvement in its system for sure, but I will vouch for its versatility in playstyle and I really love Civ 4's diplomacy model.

I both like the concept behind this "narrative structure" in Civ 7 and also worry about it. I saw today that some Civs won't be getting ANY great people while others are going to receive 8-10. Egypt and Greece for example will be getting them while Rome will get Great Generals and some Civs won't get anything. I do understand that you can give them other benefits but comparing the weight of 5 Great Generals to 8 Great Scientists vs. 2 unique units and a trait or whatever is very hard to establish what is balanced. I also understand that they want each Civ to hold the flavor of their historical counterpart but - for one, I play Civ because it is fun to have India build the Pyramids and maybe warmonger. But also for play style flexibility and a lot of these great people (your civ's unique ability) require you to play in a specific style like you must build your unique district to get the great people. This concerns me because then picking Egypt locks your playstyle every game into playing Egypt's strategy. So, district management isn't as flexible as it is being represented. (Think Civ 6 districts) Sure you can split your unique buildings into separate districts and not get your unique district as a result thus, missing out on GP boosting all your other districts, but why would you? This seems like a huge advantage (**based on very little and incomplete game knowledge**) vs just opting out of getting the great people ONLY your Civ has access to.. Little things like this really concern me in regard to how well balanced or repetitive this will play upon release. I do understand the desire to have the Civs feel unique as without that, the civ swapping mechanic is really stupid and pointless. I am not saying this cannot work, just simply that I feel it can go very wrong if they are not careful and get too excited and blinded by their own ambitions. Hopefully, they can create a really good example of how this mechanic should be done, as no one else has managed to do so, so far.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm not expecting the level of detail Rosetta brings--but I eagerly await Rosetta's Civ7 sequel (which I think SeelingCat already mentioned being eager to make). If I'm Egypt and become Mongols, I 100% want Waset to become Tipe; if I'm Abbasids and somehow become Qing, Baghdad should become Bāgédá; etc. Again, this is a level of nuance I don't necessarily expect from the devs, but I do look forward to modders providing it. (I'm also very okay with some speculation from modders--e.g., I don't know the Nahuatl name for Athens, but I'm okay with something like Atenatl or Atellān.)

There are, I think, two ways this could be handled.

The easy way is by Function: If Athens was your capital, and now you are playing Aztecs, then your capital becomes Tenochtlan. Other Cities might change randomly or by size/importance to new names. This method would require relatively little in the way of translation/transliteration of city names.

The second way would be to translate the old name into the form used by the new Civ and its language, as you posted. This would provide more continuity, but would be devilishly hard: not only do you have to find equivalents for every potential capital, but also equivalents for the equivalents for the next Age: every capital in Antiquity would have to have, based on what we know now, at least 3 equivalents for the Exploration Age and potentially 9+ for the Modern Age - and the totals are probably greater since they seem to throw in an 'alternate' Civ choice in each Age based on variable situations.

It would be fascinating to do even just as an exercise, but not something anybody's going to whip out on a weekend . . .

 

[Krikkit1]

There are, I think, two ways this could be handled.

The easy way is by Function: If Athens was your capital, and now you are playing Aztecs, then your capital becomes Tenochtlan. Other Cities might change randomly or by size/importance to new names. This method would require relatively little in the way of translation/transliteration of city names.

The second way would be to translate the old name into the form used by the new Civ and its language, as you posted. This would provide more continuity, but would be devilishly hard: not only do you have to find equivalents for every potential capital, but also equivalents for the equivalents for the next Age: every capital in Antiquity would have to have, based on what we know now, at least 3 equivalents for the Exploration Age and potentially 9+ for the Modern Age - and the totals are probably greater since they seem to throw in an 'alternate' Civ choice in each Age based on variable situations.

It would be fascinating to do even just as an exercise, but not something anybody's going to whip out on a weekend . . .

I would far rather have them give you the option
just like you have “move capital” as an option, you have
“Rename Cities” as an option
or
“Retain civ name(s)*”

includes city name list