What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Pfeffersack]

I'm not sure I agree. Humankind did it and it was a commercial failure (happy to be corrected but appears support has ended and while reviews were mixed, the general consensus is it was fun for a bit but not great). (...)

On support having ended I'm not entirely sure. I'm not aware of an official message about that (though I concede that not every dev/publisher is always crystal clear about such "bad news") and the last patch was released in May. My perception is that development/support stopped at some point, when Amplitude was attached to SEGA...but after they split again, activity for HK resumed. As said, not sure if there is still more to expect, but wouldn't completely rule it out either.

 

[Civinator]

Players seem to be rejecting that "evolution". We cant say something is an evolution when we still dont have a single succcessful implementation of it

There is a successful implementation of civ evolution since many years with the CCM mods (actual CCM 3) of Civ 3. Crashdummy, it is your personal problem to shorten your horizon, if you never play any mods. The CCM mods are very well accepted for mods of a more than two decades old game and there was never any negative post about the evolution of the civs in those mods. Besides that, there is a massive logical problem in your argumentation: If you say that there is not a single successful implementation of it, how can "players" reject such an - in your eyes - not existing game?

 

[Crashdummy]

There is a successful implementation of civ evolution since many years with the CCM mods (actual CCM 3) of Civ 3. Crashdummy, it is your personal problem to shorten your horizon, if you never play any mods. The CCM mods are very well accepted for mods of a more than two decades old game and there was never any negative post about the evolution of the civs in those mods. Besides that, there is a massive logical problem in your argumentation: If you say that there is not a single successful implementation of it, how can "players" reject such an - in your eyes - not existing game?

We cant meassure how successful a mod is when the vast majority of people play without them. I'm sure it was a good mod, but i am not talking about mods, i am talking about games. The fact that it is a mod means the player had a choice to play with or without it in the first place

About the second question, the implementation is unsuccessful BECAUSE players rejected it. No logical problem

 

[Maiq]

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

And Canada having buffed tundra all game or Australia getting district yield bonuses from appeal. 6 really kind of knocked it out of the park with good bonuses that were good all game.

 

[Kev1916]

And Canada having buffed tundra all game or Australia getting district yield bonuses from appeal. 6 really kind of knocked it out of the park with good bonuses that were good all game.

Aye , as before loads more examples

"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, "
Perhaps an apology is due ???