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

[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...

 

[sTAPler27]

The mission statement I've viewed Civ as a franchise has been "Historical in the sense it represents a natural progression of history not in replicating OUR history".

Egypt never became Mongolia so in a Paradox style game this would seem wild to happen out of the blue but Civs world is ours thrown through a Random Number Generator from the start leading to an alternate path that follows the flow of history.

 

[Siptah]

Egypt never became Mongolia so in a Paradox style game this would seem wild to happen out of the blue but Civs world is ours thrown through a Random Number Generator from the start leading to an alternate path that follows the flow of history.

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.

 

[sTAPler27]

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.

 

[vorlon_mi]

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.

If a leader near me *can* turn into Mongoilia in the Exploration Age, that may factor into my planning and combat in Antiquity. It might be better to conquer a chunk of their empire now, to reduce their ability to threaten me later. Likewise a leader can turn into an economic powerhouse, that may impede my pursuit of that legacy path or might give me an incentive to invade them in the next age.

 

[sTAPler27]

Indeed, knowing that the AI leaders will change also is part of the challenge... the higher-level strategy, eventually.

If a leader near me *can* turn into Mongoilia in the Exploration Age, that may factor into my planning and combat in Antiquity. It might be better to conquer a chunk of their empire now, to reduce their ability to threaten me later. Likewise a leader can turn into an economic powerhouse, that may impede my pursuit of that legacy path or might give me an incentive to invade them in the next age.

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.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

After all, at a certain point victors and losers are clear;

Having seen the previews i certainly can’t tell w go will win.