What's your opinion on civ switching?
- Thread starter stealth_nsk
- Start date
McSpank01
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2016
- Messages
- 252
I don’t mind the attribute system, I guess it is fine, even though it feels like it turns the game into more of an RPG. Theoretically I like the idea that your civ levelling up at certain areas of the game simply by doing more of them, which is sort of what the attribute system is. Maybe it is too powerful however, and again, feels like a blunt and simplistic system.
Momentos are the absolute worst though! Awful.
Momentos are the absolute worst though! Awful.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 2,765
I thought I would dislike momentos... But I'm kind of ok with them.
The two strikes I'd say against them rte that some of them almost more impactful than the leaders. The power level went down with their last balance pass but I think it could stand to go down further. And also, changing them on age transition is probably a bad move. It would make for a bigger tradeoff if you took momentos that gave you an early boost but couldn't swap them out later...
The two strikes I'd say against them rte that some of them almost more impactful than the leaders. The power level went down with their last balance pass but I think it could stand to go down further. And also, changing them on age transition is probably a bad move. It would make for a bigger tradeoff if you took momentos that gave you an early boost but couldn't swap them out later...
Last edited:
That isn't how video game development budget works. Assuming your guess is even accurate, which nobody, not least you,
There's a word for this. It's called unfalsifiable.
Last edited:
King Flevance
Deity
I really like the idea of leaders only gaining the 2 attribute trees associated with their attributes. Additional trees could be unlocked through legacy paths that correspond to the attribute. This could help them restructure age transitions too. Some of the current legacy path rewards could be an issue with the heavy remodeling of age transitions. For example, with economic legacy letting you keep all your cities as cities in the next age - if they decide the game is better just letting that be carried over you need to replace the reward. Most Ancient rewards are "Age transition doesn't set you back here". Where it could be "Here, have access to this tree" or if you already have access to that tree, "Here have an attribute point of that type and a wildcard attribute point." Something like that would make legacy paths about customizing your leader.
One of my first posts on the forum and on a controversial subject - please bear with me 
Upon hearing the news that there would be civ-switching in Civ 7, my first reaction was that of shock and horror. Being a massive Civ fan (since Civ1) I did end up buying the game, though.
I think there are (at least) two kinds of Civ players: 1) those approaching it as any other game and being interested in min-maxing and such, and 2) those looking for historical roleplay. I don't think the designers who have made this design choice fully appreciated how much cognitive dissonance ahistorical transitions would cause for the latter group. Some of my favorite childhood memories were of desperately defending the Romans from invasions (I must have been a pretty weak player, so these did happen) and succeeding. This design takes that away from me.
The real issue too might be that the game is basically the same since Civ 5 and this is essentially the third time the same paradigm is used. We still have the same hexagon-tiled cylindrical map, cultural and religious gameplay etc. that we had all the way back to Civ5, and there's only so much innovation you can get through tweaking the ruleset alone, which might have prompted such a drastic change. I've recently completed a playthrough of Civ 5 and 6 each, *after* buying Civ 7. I was amazed at how much even the graphics still felt fresh and in case of Civ 6, even possibly better than 7 in some ways.
So, I dislike Civ transitions, but it is what it is. I actually don't want them to do a Classic mode, now - I don't think that would result in a good game. I'd rather Firaxis focus on giving us more Civs for historical transitions - I can only really play that way, and right now there's a limited number of viable paths. Even doing some sort of a Civ 6 remaster (like Test of Time for Civ 2) would IMHO be better than a classic mode, for supporters and detractors of civ switching alike.
As for Civ 7, I think the best way to proceed now is to give it a reasonable, but shortened, lifespan - like what happened with Windows 8 or the Wii U. After that, we could have a proper, non-rushed, Civ 8 for the late 2020s and beyond, with a different paradigm than the "Panzer General" one of 5, 6 and 7. I have some thoughts on what that could look like, I hope to put it in a post one of these days.
Upon hearing the news that there would be civ-switching in Civ 7, my first reaction was that of shock and horror. Being a massive Civ fan (since Civ1) I did end up buying the game, though.
I think there are (at least) two kinds of Civ players: 1) those approaching it as any other game and being interested in min-maxing and such, and 2) those looking for historical roleplay. I don't think the designers who have made this design choice fully appreciated how much cognitive dissonance ahistorical transitions would cause for the latter group. Some of my favorite childhood memories were of desperately defending the Romans from invasions (I must have been a pretty weak player, so these did happen) and succeeding. This design takes that away from me.
The real issue too might be that the game is basically the same since Civ 5 and this is essentially the third time the same paradigm is used. We still have the same hexagon-tiled cylindrical map, cultural and religious gameplay etc. that we had all the way back to Civ5, and there's only so much innovation you can get through tweaking the ruleset alone, which might have prompted such a drastic change. I've recently completed a playthrough of Civ 5 and 6 each, *after* buying Civ 7. I was amazed at how much even the graphics still felt fresh and in case of Civ 6, even possibly better than 7 in some ways.
So, I dislike Civ transitions, but it is what it is. I actually don't want them to do a Classic mode, now - I don't think that would result in a good game. I'd rather Firaxis focus on giving us more Civs for historical transitions - I can only really play that way, and right now there's a limited number of viable paths. Even doing some sort of a Civ 6 remaster (like Test of Time for Civ 2) would IMHO be better than a classic mode, for supporters and detractors of civ switching alike.
As for Civ 7, I think the best way to proceed now is to give it a reasonable, but shortened, lifespan - like what happened with Windows 8 or the Wii U. After that, we could have a proper, non-rushed, Civ 8 for the late 2020s and beyond, with a different paradigm than the "Panzer General" one of 5, 6 and 7. I have some thoughts on what that could look like, I hope to put it in a post one of these days.
I think the attribute trees and legacy rewards are probably next on the balance tier list. Really, it should be balanced that in nearly all cases, you should take the reward for the legacy, and you only choose the attribute point if you're really digging down one tree, or you played in a weird way.
The problem now is that more than once, I've left like an econ point on the table, because I would rather get my 2 econ attribute points rather than get 1 point and choose one of the legacy rewards (if I didn't end with that many trade routes). Or maybe they should find more good 1-point rewards (eg 1 point econ scale = 1 free merchant at the start of the next era), and maybe even force you down those paths more by maybe capping the total number of attribute points you can add at an era transition to 2, rather than 2 per bucket.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
For those interested in history, here is a nice video I found about how the Vikings became the Normans.
In very simple terms, the Vikings raided and pillaged what is now northern France. Eventually they settled in that area, became Christian, through intermarriage and politics mixed with the local Frankish population and evolved into what we call "Normans".
This could be abstracted in civ where maybe another civ forward settles near you or conquers one or your coastal cities and the city "flips" civ6 style but instead of flipping back to you, it becomes a new civ.
I know that civ is not a history simulator but I think it could be interesting gameplay if new civs could emerge like this rather than just "switch". It would allow new civs to enter the game and shake things up. If anything, this mechanic would be more organic to gameplay.
And you could give the player a choice:
1) Assimilate. Switch your remaining cities to the new civ and play as the new civ.
2) Reform. The cities that became a new civ would remain that new civ. But your remaining cities would became their own new civ that the player would choose from history.
3) Resist. The cities that became a new civ would remain the new civ. The player keeps their remaining cities and stays as their old civ and tries to play on.
So in-game, it might look like this. You are playing as the Frankish civ. The Viking civ raids your coasts and forward settles near you. That city "flips" and becomes the "Norman" civ. You have a choice. You could choose to flip all your cities to become "Norman" and play as the Norman civ. You could reform and declare your cities the "French" civ. Or you could resist and try to keep playing as the Franks.
I think having civs emerge and giving players a choice would be more interesting than just selecting a civ during an Age transition.
In very simple terms, the Vikings raided and pillaged what is now northern France. Eventually they settled in that area, became Christian, through intermarriage and politics mixed with the local Frankish population and evolved into what we call "Normans".
This could be abstracted in civ where maybe another civ forward settles near you or conquers one or your coastal cities and the city "flips" civ6 style but instead of flipping back to you, it becomes a new civ.
I know that civ is not a history simulator but I think it could be interesting gameplay if new civs could emerge like this rather than just "switch". It would allow new civs to enter the game and shake things up. If anything, this mechanic would be more organic to gameplay.
And you could give the player a choice:
1) Assimilate. Switch your remaining cities to the new civ and play as the new civ.
2) Reform. The cities that became a new civ would remain that new civ. But your remaining cities would became their own new civ that the player would choose from history.
3) Resist. The cities that became a new civ would remain the new civ. The player keeps their remaining cities and stays as their old civ and tries to play on.
So in-game, it might look like this. You are playing as the Frankish civ. The Viking civ raids your coasts and forward settles near you. That city "flips" and becomes the "Norman" civ. You have a choice. You could choose to flip all your cities to become "Norman" and play as the Norman civ. You could reform and declare your cities the "French" civ. Or you could resist and try to keep playing as the Franks.
I think having civs emerge and giving players a choice would be more interesting than just selecting a civ during an Age transition.
Last edited:
Similar threads
- Poll
