For what it's worth, the Rosetta mod for Civ6 already does this--including taking into account conquering/loyalty swapping any city as (nearly) any civ. Again, though, this is the kind of thing I'd expect a mod to do, not the base game. FXS has more resources but also more expectation to be authentic.
This is essentially what I've done on my own for Civ VI
A Tlatoanate of Greece would be interesting. By the way talking about capitals and Aztecs, the Mexica is an example of another option for transition, instead of rename a capital what about start in a completely new capital like Tenochtitlan was.
Both Huitzilopochtli and Ares were definitely fond of death...
It's indeed not so easy to become Mongolia from any starting point in a Paradox style game, but it is very easy to become Egypt regardless who you started as in EU4. It's also not at all wild, it's what players do all the time (well, not Egypt specifically, because it isn't that useful). The difference to civ is that here the AI is doing it as well, while the AI in most PDX games (excluding CK here which is much more random) usually develops more historically.
I think the AI doing it is ultimately good. It would feel odd if these players were all thrown into some bizzaro version of earth and everything came out normal. The cultures in my opinion should change to match the challenges of the new challenges brought their way.
Indeed, knowing that the AI leaders will change also is part of the challenge... the higher-level strategy, eventually.
I think the important part is relearning to separate the leaders from the Civs. Like in 6 you knew to be scared it Montezuma settled next to you not necesarily the Aztecs. Leaders are likely to pick Civs that match their playstyles, probably won't have to worry about Ben Franklin picking the Mongols and becoming evil all of the sudden.
Having seen the previews i certainly can’t tell w go will win.
, and so on, not casual players who will play it a few times and then move on to the next broad-appeal game. They're also trapped in a situation where if the existing player base isn't enthusiastic about it, the reviews are going to be mixed or poor and that's going to drive away that new audience during the narrow window they've got to attract them.
The thing is they have done this but you can totally ignore the "gamification" (can you gamify a game lol), play a good game of Civ and still be rewarded. Epic with extended ages feels a good rhythm for me.
Could you give some insights about how it feels about lack of continuity when you would try to play the old way? For me in all previous games when I'm not at war it's just temporary. I have always military short tern goal in my head and either preparing for it or executing it at the moment. And my cities are well oiled machine to support this. And now I hear that in civ7 all of this gets interrupted, war is ended, armies teleported, cities downgraded and you have to start your engine again.
I really wasn't looking forward to that aspect but it was much smoother than I expected, as you get towards the end of the age you need to take that into account. You have to plan to have your war ended before the age ends but as your Commanders and their units survive you can place them near the border of an AI ready to launch a new one as the age turns.
In Civ7, you have a mixture of cities and towns. Cities can build things; both cities and towns can buy things with gold. The buildup of the well-oiled machine proceeds a little differently. Although I have the option to convert towns to cities, I may not, if they have few resources or are surrounded by mountains or have a long coastal border.
There's definitely a few "blips" at the transition where things take a turn or two to settle down.
