What if civilization changing was not just a passive choice?

[kaspergm]

So like everybody else, I've been trying to wrap my head around the idea of civilization changing with new eras and try to make it fit into my idea of what a Civ game should be, without completely succeeding. I can see some pros to the idea, but the forced switching really goes against the idea of "make your civilization stand the test of time", and even if an option to retain your civilization is added, it seems strange and arbitrary to just have the option to randomly change your civlization. This was what brought me to this idea.

The idea is that at the end of first and second era, your civilization is faced with a crisis, as seems to be the framework of Civ7. There could be different types of crises, and you would not know which one would hit you (but it need not be completely random). Some ideas for crisis could be:

• Foreign invasion (external military crisis): Maybe you leave barbs or a minor culture at bad relations at your borders for too long. You are faced with a big horde of hostile forces (think Mongolian or Hun raids over Europe).
• Revolution (internal military crisis): Maybe you've left your population unhappy or unfed too long, and the people rise against you. You are faced with a big horde of hostile forces from your own population (think French or Russian revolution).
• Independence claim (internal happiness/loyalty crisis): Some cities have been unhappy or managed poorly for too long. The want to break free and form a separate nation (think US independence, colonies breaking from colonial powers).
• Stock market crash (economic crisis): Maybe you're economy is bad or based too much on a single product. Your economy collapses and you need to sell units and/or disable buildings to not go bankrupt (think US and Europe Stock Market crash 1920s).
• Foreign crusade (external religious crisis): You have neglected religious relationship with a neighbor and a huge religious invasion happens (think crusades in middle east).
• Religious revolution (internal religious crisis): You've neglected your state religion, and the priesthood wants to install a theocracy (think Islamic revolution in Iran).
• Some sort of scientific crisis ... not sure exactly how that would work.
• Some sort of cultural crisis ... maybe something like culture pressure from neighbors.
• Etc.

New the main idea here is that when you are faced with the crisis, you are given two choices as to how to respond to the crisis:

1. Accept the change: You accept that change is necessary. You civilization chooses a new rule (aka. "new civilization"), but relative stability is ensued. You loose your old civ benefits but gain new ones. Think "normal age" in civ 6.
2. Fight the change: If you fight the change, you have a limited number of turns which the crisis last, where you have to overcome the crisis by meeting certain criteria (defeat the invaders, create happiness, save economy, etc.). Depending on how well you manage to do that you will either:
   1. Overcome the challenge: You manage to overcome the crisis, and you will keep your civilization and get a major boost and new bonuses on top of your old bonuses. Think "golden age" in civ6.
   2. Succumb to the challenge: You fail to overcome the crisis, and a new rule is forcefully inserted (aka. "new civilization"). You lose your old bonuses, and a period of chaos and instability follows. Think "dark age" in civ 6.

The advantages of the system I have sketched out here as I see it is:

1. It plays into the "make your civilization stand the test of time" idea. Obviously the ultimate challenge is to overcome the crisis and keep your civilization for the entire game.
2. It makes civ changing less arbitrary, because it gives a narrative as to why a new power/culture takes over.
3. It shakes up gameplay and punishes you for neglecting a certain area of the game and focus solely on one aspect.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

Sort of like in Civ V when your civilization becomes unhappy with your ideology and at some point you feel the pressure to switch to a new one. But instead your people become unhappy with the current regime and you basically decide to pick a new civilization. The upside is you get new uniques to play with. There would have to be some motivation to stick with your original civ though. Score is all I can think of at the moment.

I've been trying to wrap my brain around this too. I think the best way to look at this new mechanic they've introduced as a chapter system. Each chapter is a mini game. We need to stop thinking in terms of there being continuity from one age to the next. Instead the next chapter is influenced by what you did in the one before. "Stand the test of time" is not an element of Civ VII. We either accept it or we don't.

 

[kaspergm]

Sort of like in Civ V when your civilization becomes unhappy with your ideology and at some point you feel the pressure to switch to a new one. But instead your people become unhappy with the current regime and you basically decide to pick a new civilization. The upside is you get new uniques to play with. There would have to be some motivation to stick with your original civ though. Score is all I can think of at the moment.

One way of motivating you to keep your original civ would be to have each civ have bonuses in several (three) tiers. So by default, you get the tier 1 bonus. If you keep your old civ, you would unlock the tier 2 bonus, which could be a more powerful version of the original bonus or add something new to it. If you instead end up changing to a new civ (by free will or force), you will start with the tier 1 bonus of that civ.

 

[playshogi]

One way of motivating you to keep your original civ would be to have each civ have bonuses in several (three) tiers. So by default, you get the tier 1 bonus. If you keep your old civ, you would unlock the tier 2 bonus, which could be a more powerful version of the original bonus or add something new to it. If you instead end up changing to a new civ (by free will or force), you will start with the tier 1 bonus of that civ.

I'm going to keep "my" civ regardless of what the game calls me. If I start off as Egypt and qualify and prefer to play with "Mongolian" bonuses in the next age that's fine. The game can call my civ Mongolia if it wants to, but in my mind I will keep Egypt. I don't need the game to continue to call me Egypt. The reason Firaxis is doing this is to sell DLC. No one is going to pay $9.99 for a new set of bonuses to play with. In order to sell the new bonuses they have to attach a "civilization" to it and a "leader". They are selling artwork, because anyone can mod a bunch of bonuses to play with.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I'm sure your legacy civilizations will be displayed in some way. You'll be Mongolia (Egyptian Origin) or Spain (Carthaginian Legacy) or whatever.

 

[BuchiTaton]

I cheer this kind of suggestions that add to find options so everybody could be free to choose the change they want for a new age.
This suggestion in particular has many of the general elements I would like to have. Hope more people could add ideas for a system that enable both historical based shifts and also alt-history transitions, the later include options that allows you to keep your core cultural identity plus others non historical shifts.

What I am sure is that there are neither historical or gameplay reasons to impide players to change history in our own way.

 

[kaspergm]

I'm going to keep "my" civ regardless of what the game calls me. If I start off as Egypt and qualify and prefer to play with "Mongolian" bonuses in the next age that's fine. The game can call my civ Mongolia if it wants to, but in my mind I will keep Egypt. I don't need the game to continue to call me Egypt. The reason Firaxis is doing this is to sell DLC. No one is going to pay $9.99 for a new set of bonuses to play with. In order to sell the new bonuses they have to attach a "civilization" to it and a "leader". They are selling artwork, because anyone can mod a bunch of bonuses to play with.

You may or you may not be right about their motivation, but what you argue here is still based on a passive choice: You choose to keep your civilisation, or you choose to change. And I’m all for choice, but such a system doesn’t add a lot to gameplay.

So my point is, instead of having this “crisis” be just a narrative plot to warrant a civilisation shift (free or forced), make it an actual crisis and challenge, and make you have to earn the right to keep your civilisation, to prove that you can indeed stand the test of time. This will both add to gameplay - preventing stale late game like in Civ6 - and be realistic.