What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Skojardu]

I think the issue is not in the switching but its implementation, marrying it to the era change.

Contrast civ switching when leaving an era with civ switching based on your Civ's actions such as "if you lost a certain % of your territory," or, "if you went a certain amount of time without a celebration", or "if a non-capital city grows larger than your capital" You could also enact a coup for some sort of fee (unhappiness, money, rebellion, colonial secession)

 

[Skojardu]

I think you're supposed to just pick the last option as it would still apply to you.

Maybe. But definitions matter. "Civ Switching in Civ 7" is different than Civ Switching. In the late game of Fall from Heaven 2, if I invite the demons (Infernals) or the angels (Mercurians) into the world, I am not 100% opposed to switching to them.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

I'm going to die on this hill, but I'm strongly advocate real data analysis in contrast to baseless speculations. And from real data analysis standpoint we have nothing to conclude whether Civ7 is a flop or success.

We have plenty of “real data” though and it all points to an underwhelming launch, mediocre sales and awful player retention. At this point the “baseless speculation” would still be holding out on the unfounded belief that there is a secret mass of console gamers that all bought and play the game that we don’t know about

And I for one won't buy any future historical 4x "one static civ the whole game" game. The model was already ridiculous and stretched to its limits with VI, and it needs to just die already. It's a relic.

Instead of“relics”, we move to model that’s still just as historically ridiculous with “one static leader the whole game that leads a laughable amalgamation of civs like Greeks to abassids to buganda”

The idea that "anti" voices must be satisfied because they aren't buying the game but "pro" voices don't matter because they'd still buy it with or without the features they like is a flabbergasting pile of stinking bad faith (and really just a long way of saying "my preference shoudl be more important than yours".

There is no "remove civ switch and everyone is happy again because then the antis become happy and the pros will stay happy anyway" scenario. There's a zero sum game where some are happy and some are not, and you can only switch which side is happy or which side is not (or try to find a compromise that leave some on each side unhappy).

It’s like some of us need to be constantly reminded that the game sold less than VI and currently has less players than V and even among those who bought the game half are leaving negative reviews….

 

[stealth_nsk]

We have plenty of “real data” though and it all points to an underwhelming launch, mediocre sales and awful player retention. At this point the “baseless speculation” would still be holding out on the unfounded belief that there is a secret mass of console gamers that all bought and play the game that we don’t know about

Unlike doomsayers who built all their argumentation on pretty useless metric of simultaneous turns, there are around 10 real pieces of data which point that console sales are roughly the same as on Steam. And yes, it still doesn't say anything about success or failure of the game as a whole, because we don't know what success is in Firaxis terms.

It's always fascinates me how people ignore huge amount of relevant data and clutch to something which in their view could support their position. Like I've seen some people who were active on this thread, seen the poll results, and still claim that for majority of players civ switching is the deal breaker.

 

[Siptah]

I think that the future games shouldn't go back to static bonuses that you choose at the beginning of the game. Whether Humankind, Millennia, Civ 7, Stellaris, EU4, CK3, or Age of Wonders 4 – their approach is so much more interesting to me compared to previous titles. If this requires civ switching is another question, as e.g., Age of Wonders and Millennia don't have that. Instead, you choose your abilities during the game and thus transform your civ/culture/species, but you keep your general identity.

I think for civ specifically, the way forward in 8 is to keep civ switching, but make it more visible and gradual. Give cities, units, and pops a cultural identity that affects gameplay in a small way. That way, larger empires will always be multicultural and have many influences after some time, while small empires can stay more monolithic – migration aside (which is so overdue). Then give the player agency to steer towards where your empire/culture should develop. Started as Romans, then settled in the desert, and conquered a lot of Han cities? What options does this give me going forward to the next age? Do I want to keep it as a mix of different strengths? Do I want to be purist Rome and assimilate all others, focusing on infantry, culture, and administration? Or switch to a desert or east asian civ for the future? That way, civ switching would be more integrated into your actual game.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Unlike doomsayers who built all their argumentation on pretty useless metric of simultaneous turns, there are around 10 real pieces of data which point that console sales are roughly the same as on Steam.

No there are not but let’s not do this song and dance again as this isn’t the topic for it. I’m going to casually remind you again that you are the only one who still holds onto this fantasy that PlayStation, Switch and Xbox have as many players as steam without any basis and even if you doubled the peak on steam with baseless console estimate the sales are still less than VI

 

[Wrenched]

I'm fine with Civ moving on, though, and I'm playing other games now.

This is a good way of putting it; simple and succinct. There a so many great strategy games, both new and old, to spend time with.

I think the issue is not in the switching but its implementation, marrying it to the era change.

I agree with this. There are several better implementations of "civ switching", e.g. Paradox games which offer more natural progressions with better signposting and scaffolding.

 

[Leucarum]

I think for civ specifically, the way forward in 8 is to keep civ switching, but make it more visible and gradual.

I'd add optional to the list, but otherwise agree.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think that the future games shouldn't go back to static bonuses that you choose at the beginning of the game. Whether Humankind, Millennia, Civ 7, or Age of Wonders 4 – their approach is so much more interesting to me compared to previous titles. If this requires civ switching is another question, as e.g., Age of Wonders and Millennia don't have that. Instead, you choose your abilities during the game and thus transform your civ/culture/species.

I think for civ specifically, the way forward in 8 is to keep civ switching, but make it more visible and gradual. Give cities, units, and pops a cultural identity that affects gameplay in a small way. That way, larger empires will always be multicultural and have many influences after some time, while small empires can stay more monolithic – migration aside (which is so overdue). Then give the player agency to steer towards where your empire/culture should develop. Started as Romans, then settled in the desert, and conquered a lot of Han cities? What options does this give me going forward to the next age? To I want to keep it as a mix of different strengths? Do I want to be purist Rome and assimilate all others, focusing on infantry, culture, and administration? Or switch to a desert or east asian civ for the future? That way, civ switching would be more integrated into your actual game.

I agree with general concept of bonuses changing as time goes. But I believe the solution for Civ8 will depend on how many years will pass and how much resistance civ switching will have by this time. If people who dislike civ switching by that time will be like those who oppose 1UpT now, we'll just see new iteration of this idea. If people who dislike civ switching will continue to be numerous, Civ8 could implement some smoother approach with some core identity being unchanged and some additional age-specific traits gained in process.

 

[Siptah]

I'd add optional to the list, but otherwise agree.

Yeah, optional. But at a price, of course. Keeping to your old ways, and continuing cultural traits that lost their meaning centuries ago should have price beyond not getting a new unique.

The question is whether it should be possible to start with Sweden, India, or England - or any other entity that only came about in the past 1000 years.

 

[aieeegrunt]

There's another thread for analyzing those, but in short:
1. There's no info that the sales are bad. We could guesstimate number of units sold (2-2.5M by now), but we have no idea that target Firaxis had.
2. Player count is a pretty horsehockey metric, especially for SP games. There's almost zero information you could get from it.
3. Finally, even if the sales are bad, attributing them to this hypothetical loss of core identity has no ground.

EDIT: Forgot to add to the last point. We had analysis of Steam reviews some time ago and civ switching wasn't mentioned as one of the top concerns.

Ignoring the number won’t make them go away.

Civ5 and Civ6 also had controversal mechanics changes (1 UPT and Districts), the usual quality issues, terrible UI etc

Civ7’s numbers are uniquely awful, and it was standing on the shoulders of 6.

What else is unique?

that's a bit off topic here, civ switching IS cosmetic, the issue you have is age transition.

I have issues with both. If you think things like cosmetics don’t matter, just recall all the sturm und drang surrounding Civ6’s art atyle

 

[Leucarum]

Yeah, optional. But at a price, of course. Keeping to your old ways, and continuing cultural traits that lost their meaning centuries ago should have price beyond not getting a new unique.

The question is whether it should be possible to start with Sweden, India, or England - or any other entity that only came about in the past 1000 years.

A tradeoff is always a good call. Something gained, something lost...

I am ok with not having modern civs available upfront... But then I am an antiquity-phile.

 

[stealth_nsk]

No there are not but let’s not do this song and dance again as this isn’t the topic for it. I’m going to casually remind you again that you are the only one who still holds onto this fantasy that PlayStation, Switch and Xbox have as many players as steam without any basis and even if you doubled the peak on steam with baseless console estimate the sales are still less than VI

There are some points here:

1. I don't claim other platforms have the same number of sales as steam, I see hints of this. They are still indirect and very imprecise, but they are much more accurate than wild speculations based on Steam sales number alone.
2. Claiming that I'm the only one here with such point of view is another example of claims not backed by data
3. I know what I'm in the minority, but that's normal I don't think many people here have experience in analyzing marketing data using statistical methods and things like competitor analysis

Ignoring the number won’t make them go away.

Like... that's exactly what you do?

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

There are some points here:

1. I don't claim other platforms have the same number of sales as steam, I see hints of this. They are still indirect and very imprecise, but they are much more accurate than wild speculations based on Steam sales number alone.
2. Claiming that I'm the only one here with such point of view is another example of claims not backed by data
3. I know what I'm in the minority, but that's normal I don't think many people here have experience in analyzing marketing data using statistical methods and things like competitor analysis

Like... that's exactly what you do?

1. So you don’t have concrete data of this success on consoles, just baseless speculation and assumption that you tried chastising myself and others for…. ? I’ll remind you that your “hints” for console success which included looking player counts on steam and going “well they’re going down so they must all be playing on consoles” fell flat for almost every one you shared the logic with in the other topic. Funny how the people using steam stats are atleast basing their assumptions on actual numbers and data and not feels.

2. You are literally one of the only people here I see here regularly still doing mental gymnastics to argue that the game did not flop. Most others, even those who like the game's direction, have accepted the negative implications of all the relevant data we have. The game is not doing well and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to come to that conclusion

 

[Crashdummy]

I think that the future games shouldn't go back to static bonuses that you choose at the beginning of the game. Whether Humankind, Millennia, Civ 7, Stellaris, EU4, CK3, or Age of Wonders 4 – their approach is so much more interesting to me compared to previous titles. If this requires civ switching is another question, as e.g., Age of Wonders and Millennia don't have that. Instead, you choose your abilities during the game and thus transform your civ/culture/species, but you keep your general identity.

I think for civ specifically, the way forward in 8 is to keep civ switching, but make it more visible and gradual. Give cities, units, and pops a cultural identity that affects gameplay in a small way. That way, larger empires will always be multicultural and have many influences after some time, while small empires can stay more monolithic – migration aside (which is so overdue). Then give the player agency to steer towards where your empire/culture should develop. Started as Romans, then settled in the desert, and conquered a lot of Han cities? What options does this give me going forward to the next age? Do I want to keep it as a mix of different strengths? Do I want to be purist Rome and assimilate all others, focusing on infantry, culture, and administration? Or switch to a desert or east asian civ for the future? That way, civ switching would be more integrated into your actual game.

Civ had ways to transform your Civilization since a long time ago, with Civis, goverments, etc. Civ switching is far from being necessary and I do think Civ 8 will move away form it, because every game that implemented a Civ switching mechanic in the 4x genre was a complete failure

I understand some people like it, but at some point we have to think about what the playerbase as a whole likes to play

I dont think having to micromanage your culture would do any good to the Civilization franchise, which in my opinion should actually go the other way, with less micromanaging and city building and going back to a more strategic vision

In any way, any change that impacts the sould of the game like the ones instroduced on Civ 7 should ALWAYS BE OPTIONAL, but even then to me it would be a waste of resources on something the community clearly rejects, and not only in Civilization

 

[socratic]

Civ Switching is about adapting your gameplan to the age, that is the point. I think going from Carthage to Spain is a good example of how you can take an expansionist naval power and translate it to a new age. In what way does your gameplan massively change? The Civ switch is about making decisions about how you need to potentially change how your civ evolves depending on circumstance. Maybe you have to become a bit more militaristic, so you go Norman or something.

You also don't really lose total access to your previous abilities, you retain many through traditions and UBs.

Of course all this could be improved, I would like to see more carry over between ages and each civ should feel more flavourful so that any carried over changes are actually noticeable.

That’s the point. Civ switching is not a purely aesthetic change. I’m no longer playing around the limitations of Carthages’ kit, I’m playing to the strengths of Spain. That’s boring imo.

 

[Siptah]

Civ had ways to transform your Civilization since a long time ago, with Civis, goverments, etc. Civ switching is far from being necessary and I do think Civ 8 will move away form it, because every game that implemented a Civ switching mechanic in the 4x genre was a complete failure

I understand some people like it, but at some point we have to think about what the playerbase as a whole likes to play

I dont think having to micromanage your culture would do any good to the Civilization franchise, which in my opinion should actually go the other way, with less micromanaging and city building and going back to a more strategic vision

In any way, any change that impacts the sould of the game like the ones instroduced on Civ 7 should ALWAYS BE OPTIONAL, but even then to me it would be a waste of resources on something the community clearly rejects, and not only in Civilization

I think these generalizations and claiming to know what the player base wants aren‘t helpful. I clearly stated my opinion - no need to try to invalidate that with trying to call on unknown superior knowledge.

As to customization in previous civ games. These are really low key. Yes, governments make a difference, and can allow different strategies. But compare that to EU4, Age of Wonders 4, Stellaris, or Millennia: there, how you evolve opens up not just strategies, but completely different mechanics to interact with.

 

[Evie]

That’s the point. Civ switching is not a purely aesthetic change. I’m no longer playing around the limitations of Carthages’ kit, I’m playing to the strengths of Spain. That’s boring imo.

What's boring is being stuck playing the same kit the whoel game no matter how relevant or irrelevant it may be to how the game develop.

Civilizations should reflect the circumstances, you shouldn't find yourself forced to try and bend the circumstances around to fit your civilization. (ie, you shouldn't have to resort to asinine settling that doesn't fit your position or the civs around you just to try to maximize a civ bonus ; instead you should be able to have your civ evolve in a civ that can better take advantage of your situation).

 

[Crashdummy]

I think these generalizations and claiming to know what the player base wants aren‘t helpful. I clearly stated my opinion - no need to try to invalidate that with trying to call on unknown superior knowledge.

As to customization in previous civ games. These are really low key. Yes, governments make a difference, and can allow different strategies. But compare that to EU4, Age of Wonders 4, Stellaris, or Millennia: there, how you evolve opens up not just strategies, but completely different mechanics to interact with.

Its not about claiming to know, how many more games need to fail before we can say: this idea doesnt work?

AoW4 customization has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing, it only affects spells and some special units, it doesnt change your race identity, what you initially chose to play never change and you never LOSE anything you chose before, you only ADD new things. You cant lose anything in AoW4 doesnt matter what you choose in those "evolutions"

 

[McSpank01]

That’s the point. Civ switching is not a purely aesthetic change. I’m no longer playing around the limitations of Carthages’ kit, I’m playing to the strengths of Spain. That’s boring imo.

No you’re not. You are playing with a Spanish civ that has Carthaginian roots. That is potentially much more interesting actually.