What's your opinion on civ switching?

[stealth_nsk]

Note: civ switching is separate from age transition. Here, let's calculate where we stand on civ switching in particular

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I don't like it but it does not stop me from playing the game. The main reason I don't like it is because there are not enough civs to make the switch feel historical. So I often have to pick a civ in the Exploration or Modern Age that does not feel historical or does not make sense to my head canon. In addition, the civ switch happens at an Age transition with no apparent in-game reason for WHY my civ is switching. So the civ switching does not feel organic but rather some arbitrary forced choice because the game says it must happen at an Age transition. So it often breaks immersion for me. If the game added more civs so that more civs could pick a historical progression and also added the option of keeping the same civ (ex: Exploration Rome or Modern Spain) then I would be much happier with civ switching.

 

[Nikolai II]

I like the flexibility and improved playability it gives each age. I hated how chosing a civ with an early or late ability handicapped it in the other ages in old games.

 

[moondog385]

I like the idea in theory but I don’t feel it’s natural as currently implemented. If I’m going from Rome into Hawai’i, it feels more like a bomb was just dropped on Rome and Hawai’i replaced it. There’s not a whole lot of cultural continuity going on. There’s also a lack of player agency in that every civ switches at the same time which obviously has to happen because of the ages — but if you survived the crisis with no negative consequences, what’s the narrative reason for switching?

There are aspects of the “building in layers” concept that could still be here without the switching, like buildings becoming obsolete after a certain period of time. I respect Firaxis for the boldness, but I think the civ switching may be a swing and a miss, at least that’s my feeling as of now.

 

[evonannoredars]

I think considering it separately from age transitions is a good idea, as while civ switching is baked into the game, there's much more room for altering how age transitions are handled. Fortunately, I really like civ switching, it's great to have uniques you can play with the entire game - my only gripe is losing access to some of them after their age, I wish it was possible to continue to build Uwaybil K'uhs in Exploration or Ming Great Walls in Modern. I do also think it would have been recieved better if civs were designed in specific pathways like how there's a China and India civ in each age (though ofc those will always be affected by modern conceptions of cultural continuity), e.g. Rome/Venice/Italy, so there are clearer 'pre-determined' pathways to go down.

If Civ 8 returns to all civs in one age I'd be ok w that (although I would love for leader/civ decoupling to stay, it's very fun finding good synergies), but I think it was a worthwhile thing to try and respect the devs for making bold changes rather than the same game as before but with slightly different mechanics.

 

[Gedemon]

I like the idea, I don't like how it's currently implemented.

 

[moondog385]

If Civ 8 returns to all civs in one age I'd be ok w that (although I would love for leader/civ decoupling to stay, it's very fun finding good synergies), but I think it was a worthwhile thing to try and respect the devs for making bold changes rather than the same game as before but with slightly different mechanics.

I definitely think there’s room to explore evolution of a civilization over time without hard civ-switching as implemented. I agree with you on keeping leader/civ decoupling not only for the reason you mentioned but also because it allows civs with no written records to make it in.

 

[Leucarum]

I dislike it. Firaxis really improved over Humankind's model, but it's still confusing to keep track of, has icky connotations, makes each age feel less diverse (with knock-on effects on replayability).

More subjectively, it is a feels-bad moment for me every time I have to switch. Part of it is that I gravitate towards antiquity era civs. I like all but 2 of the antiquity civs, but only 5 of the exploration civs, and the only Civ I look forward to in modern is Nepal (at launch the era was just a void for me). Civ switching really hits my desire to complete games.

 

[j51]

Like a lot of people here I like it in theory but the execution needs work. There need to be more civs for better historical paths and the narrative reasons for each transition need to be clearer/front and center to the player.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I like the idea. I like taking a moment, in the intervening screens, to choose legacies and make a conscious, thoughtful decision about what I want to do in the next era/age. Did my military conquests go well, or did I struggle? DId I fall behind in science? Did I suze all of the IPs that I wanted to? What did my neighbors do -- are some of them seriously weakend?

Especially for the Antiquity to Exploration transition, what do I know about Distant Lands? What tools will I need to have?

Civ7 gives me this new set of questions to ask that previous titles did not. I find it refreshing and challenging.

AND I still go back and play Civ3 and Civ6 and BERT, because each of those games have their own set of questions and challenges.
It's a new game, with lots of rough edges to be fixed. Civ switching is a core principle, just as districts were designed into Civ6, city states and social policies were designed into Civ5, great people and civics were designed into Civ4, and the beginnings of cultural boundaries, armies, and new victory conditions were designed into Civ3.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

I think it'd be possible to create a system where civs could switch from one to another that most fans could enjoy and respect but alongside the design travesty that are ages, Firaxis went for the worst implementation of the mechanic imaginable

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think it'd be possible to create a system where civs could switch from one to another that most fans could enjoy and respect but alongside the design travesty that are ages, Firaxis went for the worst implementation of the mechanic imaginable

There are only 2 implementations of such mechanics so far and it's general consensus that Civ7 implementation is the best of the two (HK one is really awful).

So, it's clearly not the worst possible.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

There are only 2 implementations of such mechanics so far and it's general consensus that Civ7 implementation is the best of the two (HK one is really awful).

So, it's clearly not the worst possible.

They're both terrible but sure I'll give you that Civ VII's implementation is slightly less so

Though I may give HK some extra credit for atleast allowing you the choice to keep your old civ and for not comig attached at the hip to unavoidable crises and an unnessecary black loading screen and a time skip between ages.

 

[Oldbus]

I like civ switching. I'm not a strong player and one reason is that I tend to go "How about I try this" rather than being highly focussed on a strategy. I enjoy the change of emphasis at the end end of an age and the opportunity to move to something different for the following age

 

[kaspergm]

I'm somewhere between "Neutral" and "Dislike". I can see some positives to it, but I think the negatives outweigh the positives, certainly with how it was implemented here. I think @moondog385 summed up many of the points I could name as problematic. I haven't bought the game, partially but not mainly because of the Civ switching - well not so much the switching itself, although I'm not a huge fan, but specifically have leaders and civ have become decoupled as a consequence of this feature - but I guess I could say that it's not the civ switcing itself, that has turned me away from the game, so I think the "Dislike" option is one that's closest to true for me.