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

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Because we know that the "natural historical progressions" that the devs are putting forward for the most part resulted from foreign takeovers. You're draping your game with the aesthetics of historical phenomenon and then presenting them as something completely different from their public perception. This results in massive whiplash.

I'm not sure we know this. We have seen next-to-nothing about how the crisis system and transition from one civ to another works. Who says they aren't presented in the game as a foreign takeover played out during the crisis period?

 

[Arent11]

Why Imperial family fleeing? Why even think of it as a hostile external take over rather than an internal change of identity / culture (albeit one that arose from crisis-related pressures)? I don't think one needs to all that clever to say:

"Ever since your people settled down eons ago, some of them recognised the value of horses: for trade, for war, and as a way of life. [Inspired by the deeds of the barbarians that roamed our borders recently], an offshoot of Egyptians came to centre itself more and more around these majestic creatures. This faction took the name 'Mongolian' and progressively seized the reigns of power while chaos ruled the land. Now that order has been restored, they have lent their name to the next chapter of our history; who knows what pastures they will lead us to next?"

You can replace what's inside [...] with any flavour-text that matches the crisis. And, no, I will not apologise for my double horse puns.

Sorry, but the rise and fall of civs we are talking about historically came about with razed cities, enslaved people & genocide. Or maybe bloody independence wars. Which is fine - razed cities have always been part of civ.

There's a difference in changing from French monarchy to French republic and changing from Rome to Normans.

That's why I said it requires good writers. Your example is already nicely written, but it changes violent historical events to something that's apparently always peaceful. This might lead to people believe that history was a happy place, where a "rise and fall of civs" was like stealing a toy soldier from your brother.

 

[Arent11]

Except the exploration and the wars were limited by the gameplay.

Wars that you lost usually ended you. Wars that you won meant you were now the major power through all of world history.

Well of course. That was the story. You lost and failed to build an empire to stand the test of time. You won and your civ could live on - for now.

 

[Xandinho]

Well, the snowball effect is something that always discouraged me from finishing a game. In Civ6, if you have a good start, everything else just becomes a chain reaction of growth. On the other hand, if you have a poor start, nothing you do can keep up with the larger empires.

From what we've seen so far, Civ7's method seems to 'reset' the game at the start of each new age. Realistically, this makes a lot of sense historically, as history has many 'reset points' - like the Industrial Revolution, which changed the world's paradigms, or the Discovery of the New World, which propelled some kingdoms ahead of others.

In short, by including these 'reset points', Civ7 could remain engaging throughout the entire game and avoid the predictability that bothers me in Civ6 and other versions.

 

[Krikkit1]

I'm not sure we know this. We have seen next-to-nothing about how the crisis system and transition from one civ to another works. Who says they aren't presented in the game as a foreign takeover played out during the crisis period?

I think the game should be made in a way allow whichever headcanon the player has about how their civ changed.

Did the Mongols invade me for my Horses, or did my people learn to use horses and title the cavalry warlord generals that rose to power as Mongols (like Inca essentially just means ruler)

The game should be 100% agnostic on this and make sure that either interpretation is equally supported for ANY transition by the player. (whether historical or not,
whether it is like
Rome->Normans (IRL partial conquest by outsiders),
Rome->Byzantium (IRL new culture because of internal response to problems)
or
Rome->Mongols (didn't happen IRL)

All should allow the player to put any interpretation on it they choose.

The game should provide things like
..."[Crisis] led to vast changes in [Civ] society"
..."Power shifted in [Civ] civilization"
etc.

so whether or not the "state" is continuous , is entirely up to the player.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

Well, the snowball effect is something that always discouraged me from finishing a game. In Civ6, if you have a good start, everything else just becomes a chain reaction of growth. On the other hand, if you have a poor start, nothing you do can keep up with the larger empires.

fwiw, this always does feel very satisfying though when it does go well.

 

[Arent11]

There's a difference between a change of civilizations and a change of regimes. One can be done quickly by the sword. The other - except in rare cases of near total genocide, extermination and replacement - happens slowly with a mixing of population and ideas, and results in something more than the sum of its parts. The problem with Civilization is that has always mixed civilizations and states. Now that it's very slightly disentangling them, it's creating a lot of discomfort for people whose internal idea of which part of Civilization was about states and which about civilizations doesn't match up with the devs notions. As I see it, the options are to try and shift perspective so it matches the devs' vision (as unclear as it is) and have the possibility of enjoying Civ7, or not to do so and be doomed to hate it.

The point is - are we taking about the "rise and fall of civilizations" or just a "rebranding"? The former might work as interesting game/narrative mechanic, the latter is in danger of just being boring.

I your nice writeup, you basically say that there's a branch of Egyptians that suddenly break off, are inspired by horseback riding barbarians & call themselves Mongols. There are several problems with that:

(1) The demise of your original civ is not addressed. Were they wiped out by the barbarians? Did they just decline for no reason?
(2) The real world Mongols are an ethnic group, just like the Egyptians. They might not be happy to suddenly have their history rewritten & be reduced to an "offshoot of Egyptians"?
(3) The entire scenario does not sound like a thrilling & violent "fall of a civilization" at all, but rather like a group of settlers that just decide to move somewhere else starting their own cities.

 

[Zaarin]

(2) The real world Mongols are an ethnic group, just like the Egyptians. They might not be happy to suddenly have their history rewritten & be reduced to an "offshoot of Egyptians"?

This is kind of Civ's thing, though. They might not like the alternate history where they got wiped out in a Joint War by the Maori and Aztecs in 3000 BC, either.

 

[TreVor_ish]

Well, the snowball effect is something that always discouraged me from finishing a game. In Civ6, if you have a good start, everything else just becomes a chain reaction of growth. On the other hand, if you have a poor start, nothing you do can keep up with the larger empires.

Most starts I had in CIV VI were rather mediocre, when I mostly played the civs abilities.
The snowball starts, specially when it happens to look like I won from turn1, are just pure joy of being able to do whatever I want. It doesn't happen often.
The bad starts, are when I was either massacred in first 50 turns or won on slim margin.
Neither had rubber banding me with tech skip to keep me alive - if circumstances are not favorable, I will lose.

EDIT:
With cores of CIV VII we will probably also not see any unique gameplay like Kupe had.

 

[Thenewwwguy]

This is kind of Civ's thing, though. They might not like the alternate history where they got wiped out in a Joint War by the Maori and Aztecs in 3000 BC, either.

plus i promise the real-wrold mongolians don't care how Robert Bobert from Ye Olde Towne, Pennsylvania plays the game. they probably wouldn't like it if the game made it sound like they were savage barbarians who have no purpose in life beyond killing though, which is exaclty what civ has tried to move away from in years, and continues to do so even in this game.

Like I've said many times, I think civ players tend to overestimate how much people who don't play this game care about it, and its cultural impacts. They also overestimate how soft other cultures are, unless you're harmfully stereotyping them, they are not going to care.

 

[Zaarin]

With cores of CIV VII we will probably also not see any unique gameplay like Kupe had.

Yes, this makes me sad as I love the weird asymmetric civs like Maori and Mali.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

With cores of CIV VII we will probably also not see any unique gameplay like Kupe had.

It looks like there is less with the civ and leader abilities, which is understandable after some had paragraphs, but more in the various unique units and unique infrastructure. It might not be totally the same. but I wouldn't put it past them to give a Polynesian civ a unique settler that can move across open ocean in Antiquity before others can do it.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Why Imperial family fleeing? Why even think of it as a hostile external take over rather than an internal change of identity / culture (albeit one that arose from crisis-related pressures)? I don't think one needs to all that clever to say:

"Ever since your people settled down eons ago, some of them recognised the value of horses: for trade, for war, and as a way of life. [Inspired by the deeds of the barbarians that roamed our borders recently], an offshoot of Egyptians came to centre itself more and more around these majestic creatures. This faction took the name 'Mongolian' and progressively seized the reigns of power while chaos ruled the land. Now that order has been restored, they have lent their name to the next chapter of our history; who knows what pastures they will lead us to next?"

You can replace what's inside [...] with any flavour-text that matches the crisis. And, no, I will not apologise for my double horse puns.

1.- The Independent People and Crises systems could use a CIV6's like GPpoints+Agendas to justify a more immersive selection of factions.
2.- From history we know that replacement of identity and architecture is not the case for a "lesser impact" change of elites. Nubian and Greek rule on Egypt included legitimation into the Egyptian customs, same with the persianification and sinicization of Mongols and Turks dynasties.
A Khanate of Egypt keeping most of the visuals of Egypt apart from the new Mongol uniques would be a better narrative representation without lost any of the gameplay elements.

 

[Krikkit1]

The point is - are we taking about the "rise and fall of civilizations" or just a "rebranding"? The former might work as interesting game/narrative mechanic, the latter is in danger of just being boring.

I your nice writeup, you basically say that there's a branch of Egyptians that suddenly break off, are inspired by horseback riding barbarians & call themselves Mongols. There are several problems with that:

(1) The demise of your original civ is not addressed. Were they wiped out by the barbarians? Did they just decline for no reason?
(2) The real world Mongols are an ethnic group, just like the Egyptians. They might not be happy to suddenly have their history rewritten & be reduced to an "offshoot of Egyptians"?
(3) The entire scenario does not sound like a thrilling & violent "fall of a civilization" at all, but rather like a group of settlers that just decide to move somewhere else starting their own cities.

We do know In Game
Before the "Civ change" your empire will go through a Crisis where you will experience some gameplay managed setbacks, Plague, Famine, Barbarian Invasion, Civil War, Revolution.

After The crisis your empire will go through a transition: no gameplay just instant effects like
(we know) certain buildings going obsolete or being lost, certain cities becoming towns, units upgraded to base of next age
(maybe?) ?population drop? ?treasury raided? ?get missing non-mastery techs/civics from previous age? ?diplomatic agreements canceled? ?troops returned to cities?


That provides plenty of situation for..
The barbarians were invading, and they delivered the killing blow in the Transition... taking your empire over and becoming the new civ
The barbarians were invading, and decades of warfare and social collapse was solved by a variety of changes your empire made in the Transition...preserving your empire and becoming the new civ

Basically, Rome->Normans or Rome->Byzantines.... the player should be able to apply either "story" to what happened to their civ/empire/etc.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It looks like there is less with the civ and leader abilities, which is understandable after some had paragraphs, but more in the various unique units and unique infrastructure. It might not be totally the same. but I wouldn't put it past them to give a Polynesian civ a unique settler that can move across open ocean in Antiquity before others can do it.

The problem is, in Civ VII early Ocean Navigation would potentially mess up the game's obviously-planned limitation on exploration and exploitation of The Rest Of The World only in the Exploration Age and later.

I do not think the idea of an Age progression that only applies to Some Civs and not All is what they had in mind.

On the other hand, I could see a Partial Model. That is, Polynesians or some other group could get an early Exploration boost, but be unable to exploit it to the fullest: a Settler who can cross the Ocean, but no Units or Merchants that can so you cannot tie your Civ together with trade routes and any City/Settlement placed Over The Ocean is likely to become Independent very quickly.

This principle could also be applied to other Civs that, for example, can place Merchants across deserts to extend their Trade Routes, but cannot get Settlers or Armies to cross the deserts. So they can trade, but not expand or conquer until the Next Age. Thus, we could have the Silk Road from one side of a Pangaea-equivalent Continent to the other, but not any conquering horde of horse archers or diplomats . . .

 

[Krikkit1]

From history we know that replacement of identity and architecture is not the case for a "lesser impact" change of elites. Nubian and Greek rule on Egypt included legitimation into the Egyptian customs, same with the persianification and sinicization of Mongols and Turks dynasties.
A Khanate of Egypt keeping most of the visuals of Egypt apart from the new Mongol uniques would be a better narrative representation without lost any of the gameplay elements.

Which is why a "keep my empire's civ name/city list and flag" option would be useful, the Byzantines did call themselves Romans after all.



Side note for Polynesian Civs,
if Age 2, they might be able to cross the ocean as soon as they start (no techs needed)
if Age 1, they might have a bonus to settling islands (bonus to first settlement on a land mass if it is coastal, or something like that), or maybe early sailing, or bonus to movement of settlers, or ignore palace distance)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Which is why a "keep my empire's civ name/city list and flag" option would be useful, the Byzantines did call themselves Romans after all.

I shall also be Immensely Unhappy if I am not allowed to rename any City, Town or Settlement. The Game may think I'm playing the Mongols, but I might like to assume I am playing the Kushans with a capital at Begram, thankyouverymuch . . .

 

[Zaarin]

I shall also be Immensely Unhappy if I am not allowed to rename any City, Town or Settlement. The Game may think I'm playing the Mongols, but I might like to assume I am playing the Kushans with a capital at Begram, thankyouverymuch . . .

I definitely haven't played as Persia and renamed all my cities with Assyrian names in Civ6.

 

[Krikkit1]

I shall also be Immensely Unhappy if I am not allowed to rename any City, Town or Settlement. The Game may think I'm playing the Mongols, but I might like to assume I am playing the Kushans with a capital at Begram, thankyouverymuch . . .

If renaming cities was out, that would be pretty bad.

However, I'm talking about choosing the name for your civ, and what city list it will default use (and have that choice at the point of choosing the new civ... and probably just have the two options being new civ name, and whichever name you are currently using)

 

[BuchiTaton]

Which is why a "keep my empire's civ name/city list and flag" option would be useful, the Byzantines did call themselves Romans after all.

Little changes like this would improve it.
The emphasis here is very important because the problem for many is NOT the chance to change civs but the implementation that could be improved.

From what we know and how @Krikkit1 described in the other post, there is at least one crisis>transition narrative that naturaly would make us think on a "not so nice" fate for our previous civ. And no, "use your imagination" is not the solution when the visuals imply something different, The devil are on the details. Like said before our knowledge of history tell us that a change like Persia to just "Mongols" is not the same that the Ilkhanate.

People are saying "how clever to keep a leader and have less changes to do not have the chaos of Humankind", so would not be more clever to have your civ named "Khanate of Egypt" with the same regional architecture style?
If the land controled by your empire was at least in part the same, the horses likely were there before the crisis this "horse epiphany" is lame when is so easy to have a system where you can interact with a list of Independent peoples that appear at the crisis period from the map borders (impassable sea, deserts, tundra, jungles) between these peoples you have the Xioungu, the Rouran, etc. And you can send emissaries to hire them as mercenaries, grant them lands to make them a buffer versus others barbarians, build royal ties with some princess, send missionaries, etc.
There are many more interesting possible options that make the official system a disappointment. So close to greatness .....