What's your opinion on civ switching?

[SupremacyKing2]

Sure but this is arguably worse because now you are forced to have your civ taken over by another random civ that you now control.

Like I said, it is a rationalization for "civ-switching". But is it really worse than saying that your civ is somehow forced to change into another civ when Ages change?

 

[EpicWestern]

I wouldn't call this a "3 for 1 bargain" especially considering how obvious this model is primed for paid DLC. You were paying $5 for a civ and leader you could play a whole game as but now you can pay $10 for a civ you can play for 1/3 of the game. Hardly a bargain.

I was meaning in a more general richness per game way, but if you want to actually do a pure dollar value per civ comparison then Civ7 crushes. Looks like civ6 was 18 civs at release for $60 while civ7 was about 30ish for just $10 more. Yes you could argue the civ7 civs aren't as developed (again, I badly want dedicated leader art and animation here), but its pretty close and civ7 has things civ6 doesn't (tech trees, narrative events, cutscenes).

 

[Gorbles]

I think that being a commercial success is a big part of having a successful game.

That's the potential agreement I mentioned. Sorry for not phrasing it well enough.

I'd also say having a high concurrent player count is another metric one could factor in when determining whether the game was a "success."

True enough for games with a sizeable MP scene in my opinion. I'm still taken aback (in a good way) at how VI's numbers are doing.

Like, the way things are going, I'm not at all sure VII will get there. I just want it to justify itself, is all.

I agree that not every launch has been successful and that Civ V and VI required significant investment before they became "good" games (I'd argue that Civ VI wasn't even that great until post New Frontier, which added a lot of much needed variety, etc...).

I think VI had solid engagement from the start. The concurrent numbers took some time to climb I think (and we saw similar topics to this one, on CFC at the time), but I think that's a factor and not the factor.

I also think the NFP was very divisive. I liked it. I like devs trying new things. I think even when experiments go wrong, if developers don't experiment, genres will stagnate and die. I don't think that folks who say "well mods will fix that" understand that mods cater to choices, whilst the game itself has to cater to a sustainable community. It seems to me (and this has nothing to do with CFC or any posters here) that strategy gamers simultaneously want the same thing they grew up with and for it not to substantially change, but when they get that, it doesn't change enough. Personal (hot) take

The problem I see for VII is that (while the total player count is unknown), I think it can be reasonably estimated that community engagement is way down and that the PC player count is borderline nonexistent.

That may be! I don't have anything to say here, I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring anything.

 

[Crashdummy]

I think one way to rationalize civ-switching in civ7 is to think of it not as the civ itself switching per se but more the cities and towns changing control. In other words, the cities and towns are shifting from being controlled by one civ in one Age to now being controlled by another civ in the next Age. For example, the Antiquity Age ends, your Roman cities and towns have fallen due to the crisis and Age ending and now hundreds of years later, the Exploration Age has started, and those previously Roman cities and towns are now under Spanish control. So the player is not switching civs, rather they are selecting which civ will control their cities and towns in the next Age. This view of "civ-switching" would fit history probably a bit better, although still very abstract. Of course, the game does not really explain this. So it is all head canon to try to rationalize what is happening. I do think that the time jump during the Age transition is a big flaw because the player has to assume that "stuff happens" and now they pick the next civ to control their cities and towns. But what happened? Why is this new civ controlling their settlements? The game does not say. The game is making the player skip part of the story. I think it is always a mistake when players are forced to imagine what happened and skip parts of a game.

So your way to retionalize Civ switching is that no matter how well you play, you will always get invaded and beaten by another Civ which will control your cities in the next Age..... I dont see people feeling happy about that

Some players, I mean you can just scroll up to the poll to see that it's about 50/50. Probably more people would be in favor than not if the game had a more polished rollout.

In a fan forum, with most of the players that already moved on (which can be clearly seen in player numbers, which started low on 86k+ on steam and now can barely scratch 10k). There is a reason why Firaxis is trying to change these concepts with each patch, and that reason is that players are rejecting them

 

[Crashdummy]

What defines a success? Is commercial success the only indicator? Or can we have a commercial success that will also be decided?

I always played every single Civ, from 1 to 6, without a single mod.

 

[Gorbles]

I always played every single Civ, from 1 to 6, without a single mod.

Ditto. Same goes for VII for me.

I know from your posts that your issues aren't things that mods often address. And if they do, it's not necessarily a credit to the game!

But this isn't an answer to my question.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

So your way to retionalize Civ switching is that no matter how well you play, you will always get invaded and beaten by another Civ which will control your cities in the next Age..... I dont see people feeling happy about that.

Well, the other way to rationalize it is that your civ collapsed because of the Crisis and you are forced to become another civ during the Age transition. I don't see that as being a better rationalization either. It is basically baked into the Crisis and Age mechanic in civ7 that your civ always falls no matter what you do, which is terrible gameplay imo. No matter how you rationalize it, I don't think civ switching will ever "work" for players. I think most players won't like civ switching no matter how you rationalize it because the bottom line is that they don't want to change civs period. And to be clear, I don't like civ-switching. But since it is here, I figure I might as well try to rationalize it some way in my head. My rationalization does try to fit with the historical idea of areas being controlled by different civs during different ages.

 

[Crashdummy]

Ditto. Same goes for VII for me.

I know from your posts that your issues aren't things that mods often address. And if they do, it's not necessarily a credit to the game!

But this isn't an answer to my question.

Thats because i quoted the wrong part, i meant to quote the mod part

About being a success, the definition varies with the observer. A success to an investor would be how much they earn from it. A success for a player wouuld be how much fun they have with it. A succcess for a Developer i guess it would be how many players play the game and for how long

 

[EpicWestern]

In a fan forum, with most of the players that already moved on (which can be clearly seen in player numbers, which started low on 86k+ on steam and now can barely scratch 10k). There is a reason why Firaxis is trying to change these concepts with each patch, and that reason is that players are rejecting them

Ok, but that's the only data we actually have that targets that particular part of the game (there are other problems with Civ7). There have been no patches that address civ-switching in any way.

 

[Crashdummy]

Well, the other way to rationalize it is that your civ collapsed because of the Crisis and you are forced to become another civ during the Age transition. I don't see that as being a better rationalization either. It is basically baked into the Crisis and Age mechanic in civ7 that your civ always falls no matter what you do, which is terrible gameplay imo. No matter how you rationalize it, I don't think civ switching will ever "work" for players. I think most players won't like civ switching no matter how you rationalize it because the bottom line is that they don't want to change civs period. And to be clear, I don't like civ-switching. But since it is here, I figure I might as well try to rationalize it some way in my head. My rationalization does try to fit with the historical idea of areas being controlled by different civs during different ages.

My rationalization of civ switching is that 2k wanted cheaper civs that they can sell for more, and selling Great Britain twice (or three times if they add more ages) was good for them. Same with any popular Civilization

They wanted to move Civs into a kind of microtransaction model

 

[King Flevance]

Ok, but that's the only data we actually have that targets that particular part of the game (there are other problems with Civ7). There have been no patches that address civ-switching in any way.

I did see in a youtube video of two guys discussing that there is supposed to be some big reveal in October. I have not been able to find this official tease, but they seemed to have pulled it from somewhere and they seemed legit. They were speculating a classic mode, which I doubt personally. (They even went so far as to regretfully suggested that they suspect it might be the first paid DLC for a classic mode.) But I could see them addressing civ switching by the end of the year if sales, reception, and player count do not improve.

 

[WillK96]

My rationalization of civ switching is that 2k wanted cheaper civs that they can sell for more, and selling Great Britain twice (or three times if they add more ages) was good for them. Same with any popular Civilization

They wanted to move Civs into a kind of microtransaction model

I think this is also clearly a factor regarding the decision to move to civ switching and decoupled leaders. If it was not a factor, I think we would've seen Civ VII launch with approximately 60-75 civs.

 

[McSpank01]

he only thing to remind you of who you once were are the city names and the unique buildings in your cities (note that you can only build them in your cities, so it is entirely possible to play a game where there is no hint that you played as Rome in the antiquity age outside of 1-2 unique quarters across your 30 settlements). That is not what CIV has been for the last 30 years and is a major gameplay change.

I'll keep arguing the point, but that is really not very different to what would happen in Civ 6. For the most part, once you have built your UU, moved into another age you are just generic civ with almost no distinctive features. Once you get past a certain point in Civ 6 all you have to remind you of which civ you are, are the city names and some buildings you placed down. Ok sure, maybe your palace is unique-ish for a bit, but the rest of it is shared, and it gets more generic as time goes on. That is why the constant outrage that you can't play as a certain civ in another time period makes so little sense, because you just were not really doing it in any previous civ before either. I don't know how many other ways there are to establish that fact.

You did not engage in my critique. I have also played numerous Carthage > Spain games. I agree that they are fun. That is not my point. If I transition to Spain or the Abbasids or anyone else in the Exploration age, I can no longer continue to make my civilization feel like Carthage. No Punic Ports, no double merchants, no double colonists. In other words - nothing really Carthaginian. Again compare with every civ game since unique infrastructure was introduced in Civ IV, over 20 years ago. That is a material loss and you are unable to play around that by cosplaying Spain as Carthage by not building any Plazas or Conquistadors. Likewise, and even more frustratingly, I cannot play as the Inca or the Abbasids from antiquity, which makes them feel like a shell of themselves in the exploration era, given that the civs of the anitquity age do not share the same terrain or geographical starting biases.

Ok but your perspective of what it means for a faction to 'feel like Carthage' is this artificial construct. It's pretty personal to you, and it doesn't actually reflect reality and there is no inherent truth to it. The way Carthage is depicted in Civ games, the way all Civs are depicted are essentially caricatures. You just have this concept in your head of what Carthage looks like in the exploration age, and for some reason its like this direct continuation of Carthage from antiquity. So my first argument is that, that isn't how history actually works, and that it's really not a stretch to say that give Carthage a few hundred years and they would just look like Spain anyway. For some reason you imagine Carthage would be building Punic ports for thousands of years.


For me I am totally able to get on board with the 'history built in layers' concept, because I think it is far closer to reality and how civilisations grow and change over time. Did the Roman Empire go away, did it become the Byzantines, or the HRE? Is the American Empire basically built off the bones of the British Empire.. there are loads of ways to think about how history works.

More broadly, you seem to think that previous Civs just slapped a label on an incongruous ahistorical ethnic blob and called it a "Civ," so you can't comprehend why people are annoyed that you are now forced to change those labels

No, its because I think those ethnic blobs are not actual real things. The civs in Civ games are nothing more than cartoons of what an idea of an empire was. History was far more complex and fluid than Civ games ever depicted it. Its silly to claim you want to do historical role playing as a Civ that is just a caricature of a civilisation that might never have even been defined in the way the game defines it. To get worked up about that seems rather silly to me,

Civilizations do not just randomly morph into other distinguishable groups if people and the Romans and Normans are as distinct of a people - ethnically, culturally, geographically, and Romans and the Kushites

But they actually do. The late Western Roman Empire was mostly made up of non italians, in fact probably a lot of it would be people who looked a lot like the Normans. How much of the Empire even looked like the Rome you have in your head. The Normans themselves are thought of as French, but they are Northmen, descended from Vikings.

The English culture is partly Norman.. and before that it was Anglo Saxon and before that it was Celtic. England is another example of a Civ that is just a total caricature based on stuff it did in the Victorian age. It's depicted as this amazing naval power, or specialising in industrialisation. But England was never like that for most of its history. It was Roman and then later ruled by the Normans. The idea people have of what England should play like is totally manufactured. But if I played Civ 7 and I went Rome > Normans > Britain that might be considered far more historic than any other Civ game.

 

[Skojardu]

I'll keep arguing the point, but that is really not very different to what would happen in Civ 6. For the most part, once you have built your UU, moved into another age you are just generic civ with almost no distinctive features. Once you get past a certain point in Civ 6 all you have to remind you of which civ you are, are the city names and some buildings you placed down.

McSpank, you have a persisting ability tied to your Civ or Leader. Civs are deeper than their Unique Unit; Gorgo continues to harvest culture for Greece, Ludwig still gets German culture for wonders, Incans can still tunnel through mountains, etc

Civs (with Leaders) in 6 are not as shallow as you depict them.

 

[WillK96]

I'll keep arguing the point, but that is really not very different to what would happen in Civ 6. For the most part, once you have built your UU, moved into another age you are just generic civ with almost no distinctive features. Once you get past a certain point in Civ 6 all you have to remind you of which civ you are, are the city names and some buildings you placed down. Ok sure, maybe your palace is unique-ish for a bit, but the rest of it is shared, and it gets more generic as time goes on. That is why the constant outrage that you can't play as a certain civ in another time period makes so little sense, because you just were not really doing it in any previous civ before either. I don't know how many other ways there are to establish that fact.

Once again, it is extremely different. If I play as Rome in Civ VI, I can put a Bath in every city from Turn 1 to Turn 500. In Civ VI, I can put a Forum in the amount of cities I have in antiquity and that is the last vestige of the Roman civilization upon the age change. I also really do not appreciate that you continue to act like civilization's unique abilities were not applicable for the entire game in IV, V, and VI. In Civ VI, America, which according to you would be a generic civ with no distinctive feature, gets a wildcard slot instead of a diplo slot in the government system from Turn 1. That is a major feature. Rome gets roads and trading posts until Turn 500. THhat is a major feature. Gran Colmobia's units were ALWAYS faster. That is a major feature. Mali get a production malus and gold and faith bonus, from Turn 1. That is a major feature. These are not insignificant, they are not "almost generic." It is utterly disingenous to suggest that civilizations in Civ VI or previously were "generic civs with almost no distinctive features."

The text I bolded in your reply shows just how entirely ridiculous you are being. It is a fact that Civilization abilities persisted throughout the game in V and VI. This is not up for dispute. If you did not think they were strong enough or thought that they were too repetitive, that is a *you* problem.

Ok but your perspective of what it means for a faction to 'feel like Carthage' is this artificial construct. It's pretty personal to you, and it doesn't actually reflect reality and there is no inherent truth to it. The way Carthage is depicted in Civ games, the way all Civs are depicted are essentially caricatures. You just have this concept in your head of what Carthage looks like in the exploration age, and for some reason its like this direct continuation of Carthage from antiquity. So my first argument is that, that isn't how history actually works, and that it's really not a stretch to say that give Carthage a few hundred years and they would just look like Spain anyway. For some reason you imagine Carthage would be building Punic ports for thousands of years.

Ok let me explain. In the past two iterations of Civ, covering 15 years. Civilizations have had enduring abilities and era specific power spikes related to uniques. For the Civ to "feel" like Carthage, I would expect the enduring ability to be there. In Civ VII that would be the double merchants, double colonists, and one city function. Guess what I lose when I transition to Spain? The "feeling" that I'm playing as Carthage. Civ is not and has never functioned "how history actually works" that is the whole point of this thread and this argument. Sure, Carthage may have looked like Spain anyway. We'll never know. The beauty of Civ is that I get the power to take Carthage's abilities and apply them across the span of history. Not take Carthage's abilities and then take Spain's abilities but in my mind I'm supposed to cosplaying that its Carthage in a Spain skin.

For me I am totally able to get on board with the 'history built in layers' concept, because I think it is far closer to reality and how civilisations grow and change over time. Did the Roman Empire go away, did it become the Byzantines, or the HRE? Is the American Empire basically built off the bones of the British Empire.. there are loads of ways to think about how history works.

I can tell you the Roman Empire did not become the Mongolians and I can tell you the point of the historical role play of CIV I - VI was not "what if the Romans became the Byzantines," it was instead "What if Rome didn't collapse." This is like the Rhys and Fall mod for CIV IV. It was a great mod, some people still only play it to this day. But imagine if instead of historical victories, the Rhye's mod said, ok you did really well as Rome, but IRL they were sacked by the Vandals and fell into decline so we're going to blackscreen 800 years of history and start you off in a new game as the Normans. Have fun! No one would have ever played it. And there is also a reason that Rhys and Fall was a mod ( a game mode) and not the real game.

No, its because I think those ethnic blobs are not actual real things. The civs in Civ games are nothing more than cartoons of what an idea of an empire was. History was far more complex and fluid than Civ games ever depicted it. Its silly to claim you want to do historical role playing as a Civ that is just a caricature of a civilisation that might never have even been defined in the way the game defines it. To get worked up about that seems rather silly to me,

The Roman Empire was not a real thing? 4,000 years of Han Chinese dynasties weren't a real thing? Mali was not a real thing? Gaul was not a real thing? Sure history is more complex and fluid than a Civ game could ever portray, I'll give you that. That's why the cartoonish version of the Civs worked! You cannot go deeper than that without getting too granular, too divisive, and paradoxically too ahistorical. A Greece (which is a cartoon in and of itself) from 4000 BC to 2050 AD is gimmicky but a necessary fiction or the game to work. A Greece that is extremely detailed but then that transitions into their mortal enemies the Turkic and Slavic Bulgarians, which in turn transitions into the Eastern Slavic Russia is just ridiculous. By trying to be too historically accurate, Firaxis has simultaneously destroyed the necessary fiction of eternal civilizations while forcing you to play with just the most ahistorical nonsense I've ever seen. Songhai into the Bugandans? What? I'm not even sure that is more historical than an eternal Malian civilization.

But they actually do. The late Western Roman Empire was mostly made up of non italians, in fact probably a lot of it would be people who looked a lot like the Normans. How much of the Empire even looked like the Rome you have in your head. The Normans themselves are thought of as French, but they are Northmen, descended from Vikings.

The English culture is partly Norman.. and before that it was Anglo Saxon and before that it was Celtic. England is another example of a Civ that is just a total caricature based on stuff it did in the Victorian age. It's depicted as this amazing naval power, or specialising in industrialisation. But England was never like that for most of its history. It was Roman and then later ruled by the Normans. The idea people have of what England should play like is totally manufactured. But if I played Civ 7 and I went Rome > Normans > Britain that might be considered far more historic than any other Civ game.

No Civilizations do not morph into unrelated people randomly. You do not need to think about it on the granular level of "60%" of the Western Roman Empire was non-Italian in 450 AD. Rome was the seat of imperial power, Rome was the progenitor of its Empire and the people represented by the Rome of Civ VI were the people of Rome not the absorbed Numidian kingdoms or the semitic Palmyrenes.

Sure, the English culture is partly Norman. I'm not saying the Normans should never be in a civ game (I think they are fun addition). But the beauty of the former system was that if you wanted a more Celtic British experience, you could play as Boudicca leading the Celts in Civ V, complete with a Celtic capital! A Victorian England? Play as Victoria in Civ VI. A Norman England? Play as Eleanor in Civ VI? An Elizabethan England? Play as Elizabeth in literally any of the Civs! Regardless, sure, you can craft a Roman > Norman > Britain playthrough and it may feel like a more accurate historic simulator than any previous civ game. That's not the point, Civ is not a historical simulator. Civ is a 4x, historical what-if game. It has been that for 34 years, and Civ switching destroys that.

Of course the idea people have of what England should play like is totally manufactured. Everything is manufactured. It's a video game. But it has a historical basis (more than you are suggesting by the way, England was a colonizing imperial force for 700 years, mostly be sea, far outside the Victorain age), and it allows for the necessary historical what-if game.

I think what you are finding out is that Civ players, for the most part, do not want a historical simulator. They want a semi historical what if 4x game. The devs misread the room and decided to go in a direction that appeases neither group of players. Real historical simulator players are not playing Civ, they are playing EU4 or even Hearts of Iron. And historical what if 4x players are playing Civ, just not Civ VII (given the extremely underwhelming reception and player counts).

 

[aieeegrunt]

I wouldn't call this a "3 for 1 bargain" especially considering how obvious this model is primed for paid DLC. You were paying $5 for a civ and leader you could play a whole game as but now you can pay $10 for a civ you can play for 1/3 of the game. Hardly a bargain.


I would propose that events like settling 3 coastal cities or becoming suzerain of 3 city states (things that unlock civs) instead unlock access to at new ability at age transition. Perhaps this new ability grants +1 movement for embarked units and coastal trade routes can't be pillaged. Or you gain a 50% discount on city state endeavors except "Befriend Independant". This would be a single Unique Ability your civ gains each age based on your playstyle from the previous age. (And you can only pick one no matter how many you unlock but I would also make them a little harder to unlock) Plus, if you reworked legacies to be a bit more varied asymmetrically these could compound to make each playthrough adapt to the circumstances of each game. An evolution of your civ based on circumstances you had to overcome.

How the hell this clearly superior in every way mechanic wasn’t used instead of “delete and replace your civ offscreen regardless of how well you are doing via developer fiat. Twice” for “evolving civs” absolutly baffles me

And then I remembered I live in the timeline where some equally incompetent executive found a way to go bankrupt selling Twinkies to Americans

That's the potential agreement I mentioned. Sorry for not phrasing it well enough.

True enough for games with a sizeable MP scene in my opinion. I'm still taken aback (in a good way) at how VI's numbers are doing.

Like, the way things are going, I'm not at all sure VII will get there. I just want it to justify itself, is all.

I think VI had solid engagement from the start. The concurrent numbers took some time to climb I think (and we saw similar topics to this one, on CFC at the time), but I think that's a factor and not the factor.

I also think the NFP was very divisive. I liked it. I like devs trying new things. I think even when experiments go wrong, if developers don't experiment, genres will stagnate and die. I don't think that folks who say "well mods will fix that" understand that mods cater to choices, whilst the game itself has to cater to a sustainable community. It seems to me (and this has nothing to do with CFC or any posters here) that strategy gamers simultaneously want the same thing they grew up with and for it not to substantially change, but when they get that, it doesn't change enough. Personal (hot) take

That may be! I don't have anything to say here, I just didn't want you to think I was ignoring anything.

I hated the mechanics in NFP. Not the concepts, just the typically inept way they were implemented.

Guess what, I don’t have to play Civ6 with them if I so choose.

 

[Haig]

Yeah what Wilk96 and Skojardu wrote: in previous games you can use your civs ability for the whole game, and in many cases it is a significant and powerful thing that defines the civ, like Byzantium, Japan, Russia, Gran Colombia, Venice etc.

Some civs even have their unique units and buildings spread thru eras like Germany, Brazil, Japan...

I also think that having leaders leading unrelated civs in VII also takes away part of the civ identity, but that is unrelated to civ switching.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But they actually do. The late Western Roman Empire was mostly made up of non italians, in fact probably a lot of it would be people who looked a lot like the Normans. How much of the Empire even looked like the Rome you have in your head. The Normans themselves are thought of as French, but they are Northmen, descended from Vikings.

The English culture is partly Norman.. and before that it was Anglo Saxon and before that it was Celtic. England is another example of a Civ that is just a total caricature based on stuff it did in the Victorian age. It's depicted as this amazing naval power, or specialising in industrialisation. But England was never like that for most of its history. It was Roman and then later ruled by the Normans. The idea people have of what England should play like is totally manufactured. But if I played Civ 7 and I went Rome > Normans > Britain that might be considered far more historic than any other Civ game.

I feel like a lot of people like to point out that you can roleplay history as "England" easily in this game, and that gives it some credentials. At the same time the game, at least currently, does not give you a good pathway to play Hawaii or the Inca all the way through how they would have historically.

McSpank, you have a persisting ability tied to your Civ or Leader. Civs are deeper than their Unique Unit; Gorgo continues to harvest culture for Greece, Ludwig still gets German culture for wonders, Incans can still tunnel through mountains, etc

Civs (with Leaders) in 6 are not as shallow as you depict them.

Let's not forget "late game" America with Roosevelt whose units get +5 combat strength on their home continent all game long.

 

[socratic]

I also think that having leaders leading unrelated civs in VII also takes away part of the civ identity, but that is unrelated to civ switching.

It is 100% tied to civ switching. The devs were aware that civ-switching would cause an identity crisis, so leaders were meant to be your and the your opponent’s sense of identity, both symbolically and gameplay wise. I’d even argue some of their abilities were originally designed to be their Civ’s ability (looking at you Augustus and Confucius). This obviously failed, ultimately no one is picking Rome for Trajan they’re choosing it for Rome.

 

[Haig]

Good point.