To stand the test of time - or a little argumentative essay on why civ7 should allow retention of the old civs in the new eras

[Krajzen]

When civ7 first announced that it's going to feature civs changing with eras, I wept in terror, for I disliked the system as it was handled in Humankind (as in: in the extremely emotionally alienating way). Alas, you know what, civ devs managed to largely convince me to their version of that idea. I am positively curious of this experiment and I think it offers a lot of creative opportunities for the series. I also admit I'm not *that* fond of the age old idea that we begin in the neolithic year 4000 BC with the modern nationalities of say Poles, Scots, or Brazilians. I do think that beginning from Slavs or Celts and only then unlocking more modern civ may be more immersive (and more fun).

However, I am still not very keen on one aspect of the new systems: that civilizations *have to* die at the junctions between eras, that there is no way for Assyria to exist in the modern era. In fact, in this very real world we do have Assyrian people and culture surviving till this very day! So, for sake of Assyrians, let me present arguments from history, game design and the spirit of civ franchise, why civ7 should give Assyrians the ability to go from ancient to modern era without transforming into Arabs, and how could it look without threating devs vision.

It's going to be a goddamn long post, hence spoilers to make it more readable.

History, or how some stood after all

Spoiler :

Orthodox supporters of civ era switching tryumphantly bring a certain argument: that in real history cultures always change, dying sooner or later, and no civilisation can be feasibly said to have existed from the ancient era till the modern day. Hence civ7 is going to finally please Ozymandias and topple the silly essentialism stating that 2000 years ago Polish speaking people were traversing Vistula river basin proudly in their socks and sandals.

Correction: cultures *often* change, transform and die out - but quite a few do indeed qualify to survive from civ7 "ancient era" till "modern era". Japan has unbroken dynastic continuity of 1500 years, and even longer cultural one. Koreans and Vietnamese don't have the worst claims of two millenia of history. Ethiopian, Armenian and Coptic churches exist in the direct unbroken line since the 4th century. It's hard to deny ancient continuity of Jewish culture; modern Greeks can somewhat understand language of their ancient ancestors from Homeric age; and Assyrians are still around. And while China, India and Iran are controversial cases and one can argue these are not continuous (and they definitely deserve being displayed as many separate civs), the notion of them as "civilizations" is not entirely gone at all. But even without going for the ancient examples, nearly every modern Eurasian ethnicity can easily claim being in two eras.

The rise and fall of the essential counterargument

Spoiler :

There is one great counterargument to be made regarding my claim above: namely that, you see Krajzen, as wise and handsome as you are, all the cultures you have just mentioned are not, in fact, essential monoliths unchanging across space in time. We shouldn't talk about "Armenians" but rather three separate civs of "Arsacid Armenia", "Armenian Cilicia" and "Republic of Armenia", for these were quite different cultures, differing in every regard, even geporaphic space they have occupied. Hence, one cannot really talk about "Armenian civ" standing the test of time and persisting across eras.

That's an intriguing argument, which would require me to enter very difficult historiosophic debate regarding cultural continuity and discontinuity across time.
Fortunately I don't have to do so, because Firaxis devs themselves immediately shoot down themselves in the foot by the decision to include a civilization they call "Maya". Not "specific period Y Maya" or "specific ethnolinguistic group X of many Mayan peoples and languages", nor "specific political entity Maya", no - they take the broadest possible notion of "Maya" and essentialise it for sake of better gameplay, while restricting them to the ancient era.

In which case it is entirely fair for me to point out, that "Maya" defined in such most general way is a civilization which not just survived till the very end of the 16th century in the independent state form, so till the very end of era II as well - but also that Mayan people are alive and well today, numbering over 9 million, of whose 6 million still speak (many) Mayan languages! Hence we can see how civ which IRL actually is present in all "three eras" in game is forced to perish at the end of the first. Which brings us to the awkward point of...

I'm sorry native Americans - modernity is not for you, or awkward implications of Civ VII design

Spoiler :

...the fact that a 100% Mayan (or Nahua) guy who plays civ7 cannot play alternate history with his people building modern era civilization, avoiding ten thousand mizeries and genocidies brought upon them by the scourge of colonialism. Civ7 tells him that his people and inherently "ancient" (or well "exploration era") culture which is predetermined to die out, they are inherently incapable of being "modern", and to add insult and a pinch of salt to the injury, their only way to carry on their legacy is via the colonial states that were born from their conquest. I mean, I do have Nahua friend who is simultaneously a Mexican patriot, but I'm pretty sure he too would appreciate the Aztec alternate history.

Game design and player psychology, or don't take away my identity

Spoiler :

I can't think of any RPG like this, nor about any FPS game which lets you upgrafe tour guns and get attached to them and then forces you to replace them with very different guns. And I think that's for a damn good reason:
1) Challenge in games is fun
2) Change in games is fun
3) Limited choices and difficult decisions are fun
4) But *forcibly* taking away player's old toys and cosmetics and replacing them against his will is not fun
5) Specially if said toys are actually character's and by extension player's *identity*, because while the player can accept drastically changing game rules, one has to have control who she/he is (unless the game is conceptualized as linear storytelling to begin with)

I'm all for radical experimentation with Civ franchise and I love the idea of eras, of crises player must face to survive, and the ability to transform your civ across eras plenty of games enforce such challenge and narrative structure to grest benefit. But forcing player to change civs mid game against his/her will seems to go against some psychological fundaments of video games for me - developers force the player to leave ingame identity he/she is perhaps comfortable with. Give me the option to switch cultures, yes; make AI opponents transform for more exciting world; but I wan alsot the option to somehow retain my old culture because sometimes I'm attached to it and by enforcing me to change you are messing with my own narrative regarding who I am in the game. Especially as - here we return to the previous points - historical Mayans or Poles had no problem very much surviving from one era to the next one, so why can't I, in a historical themed video game?

Civ7 grand design, and how the optional civ retention doesn't threaten it

Spoiler :

It is at this point that I can hear the great cry of sorrow crossing the Atlantic, having come all the way from America. It is civ7 devs who weep: "We have such fun design philosophy dear players, why do you reject it; to allow civ retention is to bring it all to ruin, to admit defeat"

Is it, though? The revolutionary fundament of civ7 is not civ switching in itself but the idea to reflect dynamic and nonlinear nature of history by the division of gsme structure into three very different eras, with dramatic crisis transitions between them, with the ideal outcome of said design being the resolution of the age old 4X endgame problem. Devs themselves said it, and changing civs at the junctions came later. And it's a great idea, as the fact that cultures change across history makes the game closer to reality - but not forcing them all to exist only in the narrow artificial intervals. Is it really historical and immersive that Spain always has to die by the 18th century?

Many cultures change, morph and disappear... but some do persist. The third way would be the closest to the truth, while retaining shakeups between eras, dynamic and changing game world, and the exciting possibility of switching civs (but not the brute necessity). It would be also way easier for both players and devs to add new civs, scenarios and TSL maps, without the necessity to always struggle with the "missing links".

Okay, but how do you exactly envision it? What about the balance?

Spoiler :

The option to retain civ when entering new era should be limited only to the players, both human and AI, who have dealt with the Crisis *very* well. Ideally I'd say between zero and at most 20% of AI civs should be able to both unlock and choose retention per era transition. It makes sense in-universe (continuous cultures are those who survived inbthe best shape), IRL, and doesn't depart too part from civ devs' idea that history forces the players to adapt one way or another. It also precludes most of the AIs from civ retention, while making the remaining ones compete for less next era civs, thereby making the remaining transitions more historical.

As for balance, leader ability transcends chosen civ, whereas many civ unique abilities can handle future eras as well. So the retention civ has no fresh unique unit, UI, and IIRC policy cards (not sure here). The easiest way to counterbalance that would be to provide some generic "Legacy" bonuses/policy cards to the retention civs, depending on their past specializations - so as retained Rome you get bonus to heavy infantry and X district type because of your ancient traditions, while you unlock policy cards providing bonuses to your museums and diplomacy etc.

TL;DR or Jesus Christ that post is too long

I am a fan of unlocking the ability to retain past era civ when entering an era - under the condition of handling the crisis mechanic very well; usually the vast majority of AIs shouldn't do that. This
1) Makes sense in-universe and inside the game's narrative
2) Makes grest amount of historical sense, due to the sheer amount of real life cultures and states who survived "era transitions" IRL
3) Doesn't stray too away from the devs vision and the game's philosophy, respecting it while also helping for many upset players to adapt; the vasy majority of players and sessions would probably involve at least one civ switch anyway
4) While not frustrating the players with the inherently alienating design of "the game forces you to replace the identity of your 'character'" (or your class in the RPG, your weapons in Doom Eternal etc)
5) ...and allowing the players to satisfy the age old purpose of those games: to make their ancestors win against historical defeats, to make Precolombian Indians empires survive to the modern day, and to Stand the Test of Time.

 

[Zaarin]

and Assyrians are still around

Have to correct this one. This was a misunderstanding by a Catholic priest in the mid-20th century who misinterpreted "Syrian" as "Assyrian." While Syriac Christians are no doubt genetically descended from the Assyrians (and Babylonians and Sumerians and whoever the Ubaid peoples were and so forth), so are Muslim Iraqis and Syrians and many Turks, Kurds, Iranians, and Jordanians. Culturally, they do not represent a continuation of the Ancient Assyrians. They do represent a cultural continuity from the broader blended Hellenized Aramaic/Arabic-speaking society in West Asia from the Classical Period, which, among other things, was built off the ruins of the various Mesopotamian empires (including Babylon and Assyria but also their successors the Seleucids). Assyrian nationalism has absolutely latched onto the idea of being "Assyrian," not unlike Saddam Hussein latched onto the idea of being Babylonian (and may or may not have thought he was the literal reincarnation of Sargon of Akkad), but that's standard nationalist mythmaking, not historical reality. Similarly, there's no evidence that a Phoenician identity survived in the east past the first millennium AD and that the Phoenicians, too, were assimilated into the broader Hellenized Aramaic culture of Roman Asia. (Sad Phoenicophile Zaarin noises--but Canaanite identity lived on in North Africa for another 500 years or so.) tl;dr: There is no academic support for the idea that modern Assyrians are Ancient Assyrians; it was a linguistic misunderstanding.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

...the fact that a 100% Mayan (or Nahua) guy who plays civ7 cannot play alternate history with his people building modern era civilization, avoiding ten thousand mizeries and genocidies brought upon them by the scourge of colonialism. Civ7 tells him that his people and inherently "ancient" (or well "exploration era") culture which is predetermined to die out, they are inherently incapable of being "modern", and to add insult and a pinch of salt to the injury, their only way to carry on their legacy is via the colonial states that were born from their conquest. I mean, I do have Nahua friend who is simultaneously a Mexican patriot, but I'm pretty sure he too would appreciate the Aztec alternate history.

well he did avoid the ten thousand miseries and genocides in the Antiquity Era...

you take the pessimistic view of the civ-switching mechanic: of peoples being doomed to fail and being overrun by Others, but for me it is simply a people adapting their culture and system for a new age. it is not only the Mayans who will have to adapt, but everyone else from the Greeks to the Romans to the Maurya. in civ7 no culture lives for forever

and the 'only way to carry on their legacy is via the colonial states that were born from their conquest' is not necessarily true, the Mayans could easily become the Mongols or even the Shawnee. besides, one of the more welcome things I've seen about the Modern Age is that so far we've not seen any post-colonial (read Western colonialism) states: the Mughals instead of the Indian Republic, Buganda instead of Nigeria or Botswana, the Shawnee in North America... I expect the devs will scrape the barrel for a similar non-post-colonial entity (the Mapuche?) for the Central and South American regions

edit: and I do not like the mechanic either, I wish they had reserved it for a spin-off series or left it to Humankind, but I do take issue with the rather gloomy colours it tends to be painted in

 

[AriochIV]

The problem is that the civilizations and all of the mechanics are designed to be Age-specific. In order to allow the player to keep the same civilization for every Age means adding units, abilities and civics for every Age, which means effectively tripling the amount of civilizations in the game from 30 to 90. Even modding this would be a colossal amount of work.

 

[Potworny]

I have an idea for retaining civs as an optional mode - always be forced to pick up a new culture in a new era, to get its abilities, city style and what not, but only change the name and the emblem when you change capital.

I'm not sure that's a perfect solution, but when some dev said that picking a new civ means adopting its characteristics, I thought it could maybe be a fun way for it to work that feels connected to the gameplay.

 

[kaspergm]

The problem is that the civilizations and all of the mechanics are designed to be Age-specific. In order to allow the player to keep the same civilization for every Age means adding units, abilities and civics for every Age, which means effectively tripling the amount of civilizations in the game from 30 to 90. Even modding this would be a colossal amount of work.

I agree, unless you make the abilities common across the civs, i.e. you pick an ability from a pool when entering a new age, a bit like beliefs for religion or age dedications. But while such a design might have been better for immersion, it would almost certainly have been horrible for replayability. Civ6 religions and age dedications are a horrible proof of this (just look at how every single game in Civ6 ends up with Work Ethic and Monumentality dedication, if possible three times in a row).

 

[Zaarin]

I have an idea for retaining civs as an optional mode - always be forced to pick up a new culture in a new era, to get its abilities, city style and what not, but only change the name and the emblem when you change capital.

I'm not sure that's a perfect solution, but when some dev said that picking a new civ means adopting its characteristics, I thought it could maybe be a fun way for it to work that feels connected to the gameplay.

I doubt this will ever be supported officially, but I could see it being integrated by modding.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I have an idea for retaining civs as an optional mode - always be forced to pick up a new culture in a new era, to get its abilities, city style and what not, but only change the name and the emblem when you change capital.

I'm not sure that's a perfect solution, but when some dev said that picking a new civ means adopting its characteristics, I thought it could maybe be a fun way for it to work that feels connected to the gameplay.

This is close to my personal solution, which is simply to allow me to name my own Civ in every Age and name/rename my own cities. Regardless of what the game developers call it, My Civ will be an Exploration Age Greece with Shawnee characteristics, and I'm Fine With That as long as those characteristics are most appropriate for the in-game situation that prevails. The fact that my Exploration Age Greeks seem to have forgotten how to work with stone is something I can squint and ignore, as long as I still have my capital in Athens (or Corinth, or Thebes, or Syracusa).

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I agree, unless you make the abilities common across the civs, i.e. you pick an ability from a pool when entering a new age, a bit like beliefs for religion or age dedications. But while such a design might have been better for immersion, it would almost certainly have been horrible for replayability. Civ6 religions and age dedications are a horrible proof of this (just look at how every single game in Civ6 ends up with Work Ethic and Monumentality dedication, if possible three times in a row).

I'd argue the problem with Work Ethic and Monumentality is that they're overpowered, while the rest are underpowered. It's not the fault of the mechanic, its the fault of implementation. However. I do agree with the rest of your comment.

 

[moondog385]

I really don’t see this as possible with the way the game is designed currently. I expect there will be some clumsily designed mods built around it within the first half-year but it’ll take a long time for anything cohesive to actually be created.

I think that keeping some aspect of the prior age’s culture is a novel idea and I don’t see it as a replacement of identity at all.

 

[Krikkit1]

I have an idea for retaining civs as an optional mode - always be forced to pick up a new culture in a new era, to get its abilities, city style and what not, but only change the name and the emblem when you change capital.

I'm not sure that's a perfect solution, but when some dev said that picking a new civ means adopting its characteristics, I thought it could maybe be a fun way for it to work that feels connected to the gameplay.

I think it actually Would be a perfect solution, particularly if they tied it into the Narrative Events
Every Era/Civ change there is a Narrative event where

1. It lets you know that your culture is changing in response to the change in times (in game terms you will be getting new Uniques from the civ you chose)
2. It gives you the choice of whether to Adopt the new civ identity or keep your old one (in game terms, the name, flag and city list)

Adopting a New Identity give you a lump sum culture bonus for the new Unique Civics
Keeping the Old identity give you a lump sum happiness bonus toward your next Celebration

(and then let the player actually customize their actual civ name)

You could have this same Narrative choice for changing Towns to Cities (Keep the old name or get a new name out of your city list)
This could apply to both Cities you founded in previous eras that became Towns AND Cities you conquered that be came Towns
Once you turn them back to cities.... will they ALL get named Alexandria supporting your new culture, or will they get to keep their old name providing happiness for policy slots to hold onto Traditions.

 

[uppi]

I'd argue the problem with Work Ethic and Monumentality is that they're overpowered, while the rest are underpowered. It's not the fault of the mechanic, its the fault of implementation. However. I do agree with the rest of your comment.

Yes, they could have been balanced much better. But the problem is that coming up with game-altering effects which are perfectly balanced is hard. It is all to easy to either have one obvious choice or the choice not matter at all (because all effects are equally useless). The best you can realistically hope for is that each choice is best for a matching build and then you can count the replayability by the number of viable builds.

 

[kaspergm]

I'd argue the problem with Work Ethic and Monumentality is that they're overpowered, while the rest are underpowered. It's not the fault of the mechanic, its the fault of implementation. However. I do agree with the rest of your comment.

There are two sides to this. On one hand: Yes, Work Ethics and Monumentality are so obviously overpowered - particularly the latter - that it's mind-blowing they haven't been changed. But the other side is: Even if they were changed, something else would probably become the obvious best pick. I mean, we could nerf Work Ethics into the ground, and then Jesuit Education would be king, and it would be sort of status quo.

Sure, sometimes it's possible to find a balance where it's situational which choice is the best - the Pantheons of Civ6 to a certain degree succeed in this - but it's really hard, and even if things are on paper balanced, what one often ends up with is that for the individual player, one choice appeals more to their specific play style, and they end up picking that choice each time, even if it's not per say stronger than the others.

 

[notNamed]

History, or how some stood after all

Spoiler :

Orthodox supporters of civ era switching tryumphantly bring a certain argument: that in real history cultures always change, dying sooner or later, and no civilisation can be feasibly said to have existed from the ancient era till the modern day. Hence civ7 is going to finally please Ozymandias and topple the silly essentialism stating that 2000 years ago Polish speaking people were traversing Vistula river basin proudly in their socks and sandals.

Correction: cultures *often* change, transform and die out - but quite a few do indeed qualify to survive from civ7 "ancient era" till "modern era". Japan has unbroken dynastic continuity of 1500 years, and even longer cultural one. Koreans and Vietnamese don't have the worst claims of two millenia of history. Ethiopian, Armenian and Coptic churches exist in the direct unbroken line since the 4th century. It's hard to deny ancient continuity of Jewish culture; modern Greeks can somewhat understand language of their ancient ancestors from Homeric age; and Assyrians are still around. And while China, India and Iran are controversial cases and one can argue these are not continuous (and they definitely deserve being displayed as many separate civs), the notion of them as "civilizations" is not entirely gone at all. But even without going for the ancient examples, nearly every modern Eurasian ethnicity can easily claim being in two eras.

The continuity of all these is but a fabrication believed by people who do not really understand the intricacies of human culture and civilisation.
Japanese culture today is European. Heck even a late Edo period Kantou-ite would feel more out of place during mid-Muromachi period than a Japanese exchange student does in India. Ad absurdum if Japan, Vietnam, Korea, China, Greece, Assyrians, Shawnee, etc. any of these served as a viable model for what a "unbroken continuity" constitutes then all nations in the world satisfy an unbroken continuity all the way back to the first culture-like behaviors in Homo Sapiens. Which they do, in a way but there's the catch that it has no bearing on them.

Humans have an unbroken continuity with superbly ancient kinds of fish. It does genuinely leave a mark on us but we're not fish. We never interbred with aliens, or got genetically modified by some crazy scientist and yet the unbroken line to aquatic wildlife has nothing reasonable to say about our present condition.


Getting the history (and anthrpology) lesson you missed out on in school out of the way and coming back to the video game world, Civ 7 development team is not blind to Humankind.
If they dropped the feature from that game then they had a reason for it. In HK's case, 3% of the players unlocked an achievement for keeping the same culture for 4 eras (i.e. the equivalent length of time to Civ 7's 2 eras, a single non-transition).
The feature was more of a niche thing but apparently some people did opt for it at least once.

However, from a roleplaying perspective it just does not work. Most of Civfanatics has a thing or two to say about how they dislike Humankind's era change system and you hear the complaint about how "you change your culture too often, making it impossible to form a connection/feel like you're actually playing the one you've selected" come up time and time again. What these people never say is "and that's why I used the functionality to remain Egypt, Iroquous, Maya for longer", which shows that while it's technically there and has all sorts of extra bells and whistles to make it feel as natural as humanly possible without making Warcraft, even the invested, roleplaying-focused audience does not really make use of it.
Anything short of having "Modern Shawnee" or "Modern Assyrians" with new bonuses, soundtrack, unique unit visuals, etc. seems to not be able to cut it even for the hardcore folks.
And what's left of the millions of casual players? Mere wasted effort and another button on the interface they will never click on.

 

[dagriggstar]

The odds of balancing being able to keep your old culture vs go to a new one are pretty low.

Best case scenario I could see some sort of like, if you keep your culture then achieving a specific (probably cultural ? Maybe a new victory type?) victory is available earlier BUT you aren’t getting any new bonuses so become more of a target.

 

[Krikkit1]

The continuity of all these is but a fabrication believed by people who do not really understand the intricacies of human culture and civilisation.
Japanese culture today is European. Heck even a late Edo period Kantou-ite would feel more out of place during mid-Muromachi period than a Japanese exchange student does in India. Ad absurdum if Japan, Vietnam, Korea, China, Greece, Assyrians, Shawnee, etc. any of these served as a viable model for what a "unbroken continuity" constitutes then all nations in the world satisfy an unbroken continuity all the way back to the first culture-like behaviors in Homo Sapiens. Which they do, in a way but there's the catch that it has no bearing on them.

Humans have an unbroken continuity with superbly ancient kinds of fish. It does genuinely leave a mark on us but we're not fish. We never interbred with aliens, or got genetically modified by some crazy scientist and yet the unbroken line to aquatic wildlife has nothing reasonable to say about our present condition.


Getting the history (and anthrpology) lesson you missed out on in school out of the way and coming back to the video game world, Civ 7 development team is not blind to Humankind.
If they dropped the feature from that game then they had a reason for it. In HK's case, 3% of the players unlocked an achievement for keeping the same culture for 4 eras (i.e. the equivalent length of time to Civ 7's 2 eras, a single non-transition).
The feature was more of a niche thing but apparently some people did opt for it at least once.

However, from a roleplaying perspective it just does not work. Most of Civfanatics has a thing or two to say about how they dislike Humankind's era change system and you hear the complaint about how "you change your culture too often, making it impossible to form a connection/feel like you're actually playing the one you've selected" come up time and time again. What these people never say is "and that's why I used the functionality to remain Egypt, Iroquous, Maya for longer", which shows that while it's technically there and has all sorts of extra bells and whistles to make it feel as natural as humanly possible without making Warcraft, even the invested, roleplaying-focused audience does not really make use of it.
Anything short of having "Modern Shawnee" or "Modern Assyrians" with new bonuses, soundtrack, unique unit visuals, etc. seems to not be able to cut it even for the hardcore folks.
And what's left of the millions of casual players? Mere wasted effort and another button on the interface they will never click on.

Well if the "Modern Shawnee" require no extra assets, ie they use the Meijii or Mughal or American uniques depending on what you selected, and they are only a UI change..... but that UI change is a Narrative event that helps draw the player into that layering and fosters continuity.....ie do you want your Modern civ to be called Americans/Mughal/Meijii or Shawnee (or Mississippians/Mayans/Romans if you kept the name from Antiquity). it won't actually have the same gameplay like the Exploration Age Shawnee. (just like Modern dinosaurs are very different from Jurassic dinosaurs what with the feathers and the flight...whether we call them birds or avian dinosaurs doesn't change the differences).. ... but you can keep the name ..or not.

 

[gdr_willter]

Unless if you want to say that Ming people conquered and replaced Han people, I think this is quite obvious that the Civilization in Civ 7 does not represent the people/nation/identity, it just represents specific system and form of life in the piece of time.

Why are you denying all other possible metaphors and symbolism that can work for the civ-changing? Even the most homogeneously continued nations in the world also changed their name and system several times. Every single group of human race have been standing their test of time, not by persistence but by adaption.

 

[Krikkit1]

Unless if you want to say that Ming people conquered and replaced Han people, I think this is quite obvious that the Civilization in Civ 7 does not represent the people/nation/identity, it just represents specific system and form of life in the piece of time.

Why are you denying all other possible metaphors and symbolism that can work for the civ-changing? Even the most homogeneously continued nations in the world also changed their name and system several times. Every single group of human race have been standing their test of time, not by persistence but by adaption.

And I think the Narrative Events would allow that interpretation to happen
-explicitly tell the player that the changing age and the crisis has changed the system their people are in
-let the player explicitly decide if their "name" should change or not

 

[BackseatTyrant]

4) While not frustrating the players with the inherently alienating design of "the game forces you to replace the identity of your 'character'" (or your class in the RPG, your weapons in Doom Eternal etc)

Okay, there might be a slight problem with this argument, and it's that most civ players don't see themselves playing as the civilization, but as its leader. You never played as America; you played as Lincoln. You never played as India; you played as Gandhi. You never played as France; you played as Napoleon. Or at the very least, that is how FXS have assumed how the player identifies themselves in the game; FXS wants you the player to consider who you're playing as, rather than what you're playing as.

Now, does this lend itself to a very individualistic lens of human history? I would say, very much so, hence why I wouldn't implement this mechanic if I were to make a similar game. Though I would refrain from calling this a fundamentally flawed idea, as I have for over a decade believed that in game design, there is no such thing as a fundamentally flawed idea. All ideas are equally worthless, and rely entirely on the execution to matter, and the execution of a game mechanic is not something one can evaluate until one has actually played the game, thus receiving the resulting game feel.

I guess that's my take away from it: I'll wait and see until I actually play the game. I do however think the indigenous American & indigenous Pacific civilizations ought to persist through all three ages, to better mirror how they differ from the old world in terms of defining where & when one civilization ends and another begins

 

[BuchiTaton]

Have to correct this one. This was a misunderstanding by a Catholic priest in the mid-20th century who misinterpreted "Syrian" as "Assyrian." While Syriac Christians are no doubt genetically descended from the Assyrians (and Babylonians and Sumerians and whoever the Ubaid peoples were and so forth), so are Muslim Iraqis and Syrians and many Turks, Kurds, Iranians, and Jordanians. Culturally, they do not represent a continuation of the Ancient Assyrians. They do represent a cultural continuity from the broader blended Hellenized Aramaic/Arabic-speaking society in West Asia from the Classical Period, which, among other things, was built off the ruins of the various Mesopotamian empires (including Babylon and Assyria but also their successors the Seleucids). Assyrian nationalism has absolutely latched onto the idea of being "Assyrian," not unlike Saddam Hussein latched onto the idea of being Babylonian (and may or may not have thought he was the literal reincarnation of Sargon of Akkad), but that's standard nationalist mythmaking, not historical reality. Similarly, there's no evidence that a Phoenician identity survived in the east past the first millennium AD and that the Phoenicians, too, were assimilated into the broader Hellenized Aramaic culture of Roman Asia. (Sad Phoenicophile Zaarin noises--but Canaanite identity lived on in North Africa for another 500 years or so.) tl;dr: There is no academic support for the idea that modern Assyrians are Ancient Assyrians; it was a linguistic misunderstanding.

Now lets think what this could be under CIV7's mechanics:
* Despite the many changes from the bronze age to iron Assyrians, the Arameans, Persians and Greeks elements these transitions can not be represented under the fixed CIV7 system, since the "Ancient Age" is Ancient+Classical leading to a narrative of "dark age" global crisis (the Medieval one). We can suppose the logical step is to focus in the medieval Islamic/Arabic representative, but have a Syriac civ as an option after Assryans could have been an interesting transition option.
* CIV7 have a limited system of 3 ages, that from the 30 civs at release seems to be a lot more civs that before, but we must remember that there are only 10 for each era (likely linked to a lesser number of players and smaller map than before). So the sad reality is that Firaxis would use the Caliphate to cover medieval Middle East regarless local unique identities.
* More than even before each civ in CIV7 have extra unique elements in their design. But in reality most of these are just flavored redundant fragments of a couple of thematic bonuses. These amount of uniques and flavor could be used in a "traditional" CIV design for a broader distributed uniques/bonuses in others eras/ages, so an Assyrian civ could have used references to their Syriac and of course also Muslim regional descendants.

Again I dont think the idea of chaging civ is bad, but the implementation in CIV7 still feel as a wasted opportunity.