What's your opinion on civ switching?

[King Flevance]

I think punishing people from playing well in the early game by giving handouts to your enemies goes against what a game should do, but well, to each their own

Actually, Civ 7 gives handouts to the leading civ as is. The biggest complaint against continuous playstyle is that it gives even MORE handouts to the leader. Civ 7 actually encourages snowballing, they just use age transitions to "put everyone's snowball on a new starting position" but they either leave everyone's snowball the same size as it already was, or help the largest snowballs get larger.

There are many people who would like to see this addressed. I would prefer a system of diminishing returns vs handouts. For example, as is, buying your first settler on epic costs 300 gold. The second, 420. The second is 420 even if you build your first instead of buy. This is not punishing you for making settlers, it is making each one more costly.

In the same way, you can implement ways that legacy points (age currency) can even things out more.

However, this does not address civ switching. I think this would also be a way to let you keep you civ and spend legacy points to do so. In this way, you would forfeit your unique military units and the ability to gain new traditions. However, you would keep your ability to build your UBs and your UA and your unique civilian units.

Although, you could even add a bonus civic tree for new traditions here.

 

[socratic]

Another thing civ switching takes away imho is the strategy discussion and people having their "main" civs. People can discuss Civ 6 and how they love to play a Poland run or how they like Maori playstyle but now that is gone

thisssss. Most of the civs I love playing are in Antiquity, while there are only a handful in the other two ages. I think even if the developers somehow fixed the thematic problems with civ-switching, the game will still be missing the connection players feel with the gameplay of certain civs

 

[Leucarum]

Most of the civs I love playing are in Antiquity, while there are only a handful in the other two ages.

I am very much in the same boat. So far I like all but 2 antiquity Civs, a little under half of the exploration civs, and one modern civ if I'm feeling generous.

Even if you have distinctive mechanics it is tough to get excited to play a Civ whose general "vibe" doesn't spark joy.

 

[reddishrecue]

Just about everything you wrote here is unappealing to me. This probably means Civ's sandbox qualities are high up on my list, but not yours. Now that I think of it, this must be it. In Civ6, I don't think I've played more than one game with dramatic ages. Since it forces me to focus so much on era score, it ruins the game for me (on deity I'd lose a ton of cities if I enter a dark age). Abrupt age transitions and forced civ switching in Civ7 are similar to Civ6's dramatic ages. This is why I think it was a mistake to have them baked into the core of the game and not offered like an optional game mode. I get that many like Civ7's core mechanics and I'm happy for every single one of you. But they're not for me though. Last weekend I went back to a Pharaoh + Cleopatra campaign. Yep, that's how much I love sandbox games.

I've been playing Pharoah and Cleopatra campaigns myself.

So Age transitions are great because they cut your game in three and forces you to always play short games (since Ages will always be shorter than a full game in previous Civs). We were talking about Civ switching but well....

The problem is, many of us liked to play long games, and we never had a probelm with snowballing

I think punishing people from playing well in the early game by giving handouts to your enemies goes against what a game should do, but well, to each their own

The game is not doing well, that is quite clear

I see that the game lost many statistics, but its focus seems to be on the AI more rather than multiplayer which is fun but then there are the other series available for multiplayer like civ 6. I see people still play that online through discord which I guess made the developers think that they focused more on AI which is what's going on nowadays for jobs and stuff anyway.

 

[Maiq]

thisssss. Most of the civs I love playing are in Antiquity, while there are only a handful in the other two ages. I think even if the developers somehow fixed the thematic problems with civ-switching, the game will still be missing the connection players feel with the gameplay of certain civs

Now imagine that the civ you love most is modern age. Congrats on getting to wait till the last 1/3 of the game to play it! Oh, what's that? You don't like the gameplay of the modern age either?

Maddening.

 

[The Economy]

I never understood the arguments against snowballing. I love snowballing! Both as the snowballer and the snowballee, I think it's an integral part of the series.

 

[Gorbles]

I think punishing people from playing well in the early game by giving handouts to your enemies goes against what a game should do, but well, to each their own

Fun fact: this is how most strategy games simulate difficulty levels.

 

[GeneralZift]

I never understood the arguments against snowballing. I love snowballing! Both as the snowballer and the snowballee, I think it's an integral part of the series.

I agree, but it makes the game too easy most of the time, that's what most people have an issue with.

Either the snowballing of Civ makes the difficulty trivial or, more likely in my opinion, the AI's lack of critical thought that makes the game trivial. (I mean, besides the bonuses that make the game linear and unfair)

Either way, they should look at designing anti-snowballs into the actual mechanics of the game. That would simulate the strife and difficulties of real empires that would make the gameplay more dramatic and the story more realistic.

No empire simply lives forever, for yours to do so, it should have to fight a lot of factors, everywhere from corruption to outside influence, to plague, to war, to bankruptcy and everything in between.

That would make the game compelling. Simply settling on hills and building 5 mines and a ton of warriors on Deity to snowball into a guaranteed win by the Renaissance is not compelling.

I wrote in one of my design chapters about 'Society Yields' which is 3 mechanics (Corruption, Health and Education) - they are essentially 3 stats you need to keep on top of or otherwise your cities will feel the consequences. They're designed to impact snowballing players more in the way that they work.

That's my suggestion for the developers if they're ever looking at this issue from another perspective.

 

[user343744]

I never understood the arguments against snowballing. I love snowballing! Both as the snowballer and the snowballee, I think it's an integral part of the series.

Same. When that snowball effect kicks in, it’s pure dopamine straight to the brain.

 

[Crashdummy]

Fun fact: this is how most strategy games simulate difficulty levels.

Only because its cheaper tthan creating a competitive IA, not because its better. But that is also OPTIONAL, you can opt to play in lower difficulties

 

[Siptah]

Only because its cheaper tthan creating a competitive IA, not because its better

While the first might be true, I'm not sure about the second. Afaik, many people don't like to play against competitive AI or an AI that plays to win. I think for most designers, that's also not the job of an AI player. The AI is there to be an obstacle to be overcome, a game mechanic, not another player.* What's important is that it looks like AI knows what its doing, e.g., moving units in a non-dumb way and creating cities that aren't completely worthless. And actually, while I like a challenge every now and then (but also depending on the game), playing against an AI that does its late game 150 actions per turn in an optimal way would be a nightmare to play against.

* This is actually again something that can be experienced on a different level if you ever play a game where you as the player perform the actions of the bot, and see the whole mechanics and their reasoning laid out to you.

 

[Civinator]

Fun fact: this is how most strategy games simulate difficulty levels.

What other Civ game steps up the difficulty level during the same game ?

 

[Leucarum]

What other Civ game steps up the difficulty level during the same game ?

I believe Stellaris has dynamic difficulty scaling.

 

[Nikolai II]

I believe Stellaris has dynamic difficulty scaling.

It does, but while it's loosely a 4X game, Civinator asked about Civ games?

 

[Crashdummy]

While the first might be true, I'm not sure about the second. Afaik, many people don't like to play against competitive AI or an AI that plays to win. I think for most designers, that's also not the job of an AI player. The AI is there to be an obstacle to be overcome, a game mechanic, not another player.* What's important is that it looks like AI knows what its doing, e.g., moving units in a non-dumb way and creating cities that aren't completely worthless. And actually, while I like a challenge every now and then (but also depending on the game), playing against an AI that does its late game 150 actions per turn in an optimal way would be a nightmare to play against.

* This is actually again something that can be experienced on a different level if you ever play a game where you as the player perform the actions of the bot, and see the whole mechanics and their reasoning laid out to you.

Thats the beauty of difficulty settings. If we had a proper AI, and you dont want to face an IA that does 150 optimal actions per turn, you can turn down the difficulty

But i disgresss, we will never have that because it way more expensive

 

[Leucarum]

It does, but while it's loosely a 4X game, Civinator asked about Civ games?

I mean... I'd presume the answer was already known if the question was intended to be that narrow.

 

[Nikolai II]

I mean... I'd presume the answer was already known if the question was intended to be that narrow.

Heh, I read it as a rhetorical question.

 

[aieeegrunt]

While the first might be true, I'm not sure about the second. Afaik, many people don't like to play against competitive AI or an AI that plays to win. I think for most designers, that's also not the job of an AI player. The AI is there to be an obstacle to be overcome, a game mechanic, not another player.* What's important is that it looks like AI knows what its doing, e.g., moving units in a non-dumb way and creating cities that aren't completely worthless. And actually, while I like a challenge every now and then (but also depending on the game), playing against an AI that does its late game 150 actions per turn in an optimal way would be a nightmare to play against.

* This is actually again something that can be experienced on a different level if you ever play a game where you as the player perform the actions of the bot, and see the whole mechanics and their reasoning laid out to you.

I am so tired of this excuse for Civ’s AI being so awful the last few games. There is a level between “An AI so awful it doesn’t improve luxury resources in a game mode revolving around them” and CRUSH PUNY HUMON.

I know because I have experienced it in other games, including older Civ titles

Or AI mods for Civ

 

[Lebo44]

I never understood the arguments against snowballing. I love snowballing! Both as the snowballer and the snowballee, I think it's an integral part of the series.

I'm on board with that. The criticism of snowballing doesn't really make sense to me. If someone finds it dull once the Renaissance hits, they could either:

• use the advanced start feature to kick things off in a later era, which makes it more challenging to outpace the AI in goals like a Space victory and still have some fun with exploration
• or begin traditionally in the Ancient Era but introduce an earlier win condition - something Civ 7 tries to address through its Legacy system

People often ask for a sandbox-style game but still expect developers to deliver ideal game settings out of the box. However, with such a wide range of players and preferences (min-maxers, history recreators, casual players, snowballers, scenario solvers, huge-mappers, small-mappers etc.), it's unrealistic to define a single 'perfect' setup. Instead, the game should offer extensive customization options—from map settings and age durations to technology costs, legacy points requirement and the number of starting settlers or units across different eras.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm on board with that. The criticism of snowballing doesn't really make sense to me. If someone finds it dull once the Renaissance hits, they could either:

• use the advanced start feature to kick things off in a later era, which makes it more challenging to outpace the AI in goals like a Space victory and still have some fun with exploration
• or begin traditionally in the Ancient Era but introduce an earlier win condition - something Civ 7 tries to address through its Legacy system

People often ask for a sandbox-style game but still expect developers to deliver ideal game settings out of the box. However, with such a wide range of players and preferences (min-maxers, history recreators, casual players, snowballers, scenario solvers, huge-mappers, small-mappers etc.), it's unrealistic to define a single 'perfect' setup. Instead, the game should offer extensive customization options—from map settings and age durations to technology costs, legacy points requirement and the number of starting settlers or units across different eras.

My criticism is not of 'snowballing', it is of a game system (Civ and Age resets) obviously designed to avoid or curtail snowballing that does not succeed in doing that at all. Given all the criticism of the Civ switching and Age resets, that, IMHO, is the worst of all possible worlds.

On the other hand, I thoroughly agree that the best game design is the one that allows the individual players the maximum number of decisions and options to play the game the way they want to play it - with or without snowballing, continuous Civs, Civ resets, maps with built-in biases, etc, fantasy or strictly historical mechanics and options or anhy combination of them, etc.

Civ VII is a long, long way from most of that. So the specific criticisms of Civ Switching, Age Resets, Snowballing or any other single mechanic is, in my view, a great deal of noise about 'problems' that are only part of the main problem - a game too rigid in its design and mechanics and Victory/Legacy conditions to provide most gamers with a game they want to play and replay.