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

[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

 

[Zaarin]

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.

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.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

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

This is essentially what I've done on my own for Civ VI

I have about 17 different City Lists for alternate Civs (Kushan, Sikh, Khazar, Welsh etc) and in-game Civs (Gallic, Mayan, Mongolian, etc) that I prefer and upon founding or capturing a city I frequently change the given name to something I consider more suitable.

 

[BuchiTaton]

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.)

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.

Of course we still dont know all the details behind age transition, but options like A) use the previous capital with the same name, B) use the same capital with a new name, C) use another of your previous cities as the new capital and D) found a completely new capital could be the result of a narrative event.
Something that one more time I think could be posible but would need something more interesting that "three horses now I am Mongol".

 

[Voidwalkin]

Zeus has morphed into Huitzilopochtli.

Well. OK.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Zeus has morphed into Huitzilopochtli.

Well. OK.

Yeah, I can see it: neither one of them has what you'd call a reputation for being Even-Tempered and Reasonable . . .

 

[BuchiTaton]

Well both Huitzlopochtli and Zeus were not wanted to be born by a direct familar but on his role was closer to Ares.

 

[Zaarin]

Well both Huitzlopochtli and Zeus were not wanted to be born by a direct familar but on his role was closer to Ares.

Both Huitzilopochtli and Ares were definitely fond of death...