What's your opinion on civ switching?

[McSpank01]

I mean that’s kind of the point. Civ 7 lost the original roleplaying aspect that many came for. That’s a perfectly valid reason for not liking the new direction

Hey I liked it in Civ 6 when I played modern day Aztecs and they looked like Generic Mexican faction, but I hate it when you put the literal word Mexico on screen in Civ 7! How can I possibly role play that???

 

[Niallism]

View attachment 741220

That is perhaps the most absurd use of that meme 'Literally 1984' that I have ever seen.

 

[McSpank01]

I love civ switching, and have from the moment they announced it.

The transitions are fun to, if i were to complain a little I wish the ages were a bit longer, maybe require more of the civs to make it down the tech tree and progression before it switches.

Yeah, I like Civ Switching, transitioning your civ from one version to another is maybe the most fun part of the game actually. I think it could be improved by having more fluid transitions, based more heavily on in game events and gameplay, and also it would be better with many more civ options, but mostly I think it’s one of the games main strengths.

What I don’t like is ages, the 3 mini game structure. I feel like almost all of my issues with the game come from that basic decision.

It is hard age structure that causes players to have to choose a civ at each point, reset their games, change everything around. It’s Ages that mean you spend much of the game doing nothing while you wait for an age to end. It’s ages that make many buildings redundant. It’s ages that give the player a sense of playing on the clock and makes the game feel less sandboxy. It’s also ages that mean I can never send a tank to fight a spearman.

I honestly wish they had never gone for the 3 mini game structure, but here we are and it isn’t going away.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That's a subjective opinion, and depends on the person. I know a lot of people that like to play "what if scenarios" like what if the Maya were never conquered by the Spanish and could launch a rocket and colonize mars after studying outer space for years with their observatories. You can't do that in this game.

Yep, but Civ7 offers totally different set of "what if" scenarios exactly because of civilization switching if you view them as culture switching.

The point is that some random unpaid modders in their spare time have already taken it this far

Nothing modders did is close to the "classic mode" which most of the people here want. And Firaxis clearly can't release something with the quality the mods have.

 

[GeneralZift]

That is perhaps the most absurd use of that meme 'Literally 1984' that I have ever seen.

Big Civ is telling you that you cannot critique them. Please switch and enjoy. You WILL switch.

 

[GeneralZift]

Yeah, I like Civ Switching, transitioning your civ from one version to another is maybe the most fun part of the game actually. I think it could be improved by having more fluid transitions, based more heavily on in game events and gameplay, and also it would be better with many more civ options, but mostly I think it’s one of the games main strengths.

What I don’t like is ages, the 3 mini game structure. I feel like almost all of my issues with the game come from that basic decision.

It is hard age structure that causes players to have to choose a civ at each point, reset their games, change everything around. It’s Ages that mean you spend much of the game doing nothing while you wait for an age to end. It’s ages that make many buildings redundant. It’s ages that give the player a sense of playing on the clock and makes the game feel less sandboxy. It’s also ages that mean I can never send a tank to fight a spearman.

I honestly wish they had never gone for the 3 mini game structure, but here we are and it isn’t going away.

See Firaxis would make both player types happy if they added Civ switching but didn't make it mandatory and instead based it on set circumstances.
They would then remove the 3 age structures and bam.

Everyone is happy. Switchers can look to switch. You no longer have to switch. You don't switch at set times. The game feels more fluid.

Which was the entire issue people had in the first place.

 

[McSpank01]

See Firaxis would make both player types happy if they added Civ switching but didn't make it mandatory and instead based it on set circumstances.
They would then remove the 3 age structures and bam.

Everyone is happy. Switchers can look to switch. You no longer have to switch. You don't switch at set times. The game feels more fluid.

Which was the entire issue people had in the first place.

My point is that I think civ switching is such a minor issue compared to ages, because almost all of the problems the game has stems from ages. Even civ switching could be smoother and more organic or even ignored if you didn’t have ages

 

[GeneralZift]

My point is that I think civ switching is such a minor issue compared to ages, because almost all of the problems the game has stems from ages. Even civ switching could be smoother and more organic or even ignored if you didn’t have ages

Well I agree with your point brother I don't know if you read what I wrote

It's a point of contention because when the age elapses, you HAVE to switch.

Now if there was no ages, and there was say, less emphasis on the switch, then players can switch or not switch it they want under certain circumstances, whenever it makes sense in the game. For example, on particular conditions like dissent, or more Civ7 style unlock conditions like building a dozen stables and capturing a couple cities.

Then it fits the narrative, and allows all types of players to play how they want.

 

[Krikkit1]

As I said elsewhere, at no point in any of the games are you really ever recreating those scenarios. You just have a faction with a label on it that says Greece or Egypt, it has little relationship to reality or history and you are not really ever coming close to making some alternative history, you are playing a game with a bunch of factions fighting each other.

Which is why the whole “civ switching on age change” could probably be much more* accepted if people had more control over the “label”…. so Rome can into space and American spearmen can protect their Hanging Gardens.


*not completely acceptable to everyone, the game mechanics of civ switching also put some off.


Ages look like they are improving quite a bit with different options.

I would say the whole last part of the age (other than Crisis that needs to be improved) should be building stuff up to “Cash in” for the new age.

Every culture building you have that goes obsolete** should give you a lump sum of culture to start the new age (say 15-35% of build cost depending on balance and “tier” of building) same with science production food gold happiness. Buildings in the process of being built could be cashed out for a lower rate.

Every city you have that turns to a town ** should give you a sum of gold (and add to the amount of carry over)
same with units

Every suzerain or trade route you lose should give you a lump sum of influence (and add to the amount of carry over)


This way you don’t completely “lose” things as much as cash them in to get used in the new age (like Future techs giving a science boost in the next age)

(Would probably need rebalancing of the costs of stuff in the beginning of the new age)

** if you get the golden age, then you get the lump sum AND keep the building/cities, etc.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Which is why the whole “civ switching on age change” could probably be much more* accepted if people had more control over the “label”…. so Rome can into space and American spearmen can protect their Hanging Gardens.


*not completely acceptable to everyone, the game mechanics of civ switching also put some off.

Having your civ deleted and replaced off screen via developer fiat regardless of the situation on the board, twice, is at least as bad.

 

[Krikkit1]

Having your civ deleted and replaced off screen via developer fiat regardless of the situation on the board, twice, is at least as bad.

Exactly… if you got to keep the “label” your civ is not deleted just switched bonuses.

 

[Leucarum]

Exactly… if you got to keep the “label” your civ is not deleted just switched bonuses.

I gueas the issue is that a Rome which builds Great Walls doesn't feel much like Rome... Cosmetic changes would be a step forward but a pretty small one I suspect.

Mods to let earlier era civs transcend to later ages already exist. There are some mechanics needed for that to work which would be good to have Firaxis' official stamp of approval on, but the fact that it can already be done makes me think that should be the mark for "minimum required for passing grade" rather than cosmetic changes.

 

[AD1730]

Exactly… if you got to keep the “label” your civ is not deleted just switched bonuses.

If you think the label is the problem, then you don't understand the issue.

 

[GeneralZift]

If you think the label is the problem, then you don't understand the issue.

Well the label is part of the issue to be fair but it's not the whole issue.

 

[aieeegrunt]

If you think the label is the problem, then you don't understand the issue.

Absolutly. Having my Romans suddenly transmogrify into Mongols because developer fiat is bad enough, but having my units randomly teleport in the middle of a war, towns and cities and infrastructure change or be deleted is enfuriating. Completely butchers amy sense of narrative flow

And this happens twice.

To add insult to injury, given how hilariously awful the Unit Teleport mechanic was implemented in 6, I have every confidence that Fireaxis found the dumbest and most annoying way to implement each of those mechanics in 7.

I see posts about “why is my entire navy now in a random lake” and I’m like, yup, that was my expectation.

If I want to play the Civ I want to play; Prussia, I have to slog through all of that twice with Civs I am only picking because they get me to the Civ I actually want to play

Or I can just play another game that is actually Civ. And it looks like that is what the majority is doing.

 

[Krikkit1]

I gueas the issue is that a Rome which builds Great Walls doesn't feel much like Rome... Cosmetic changes would be a step forward but a pretty small one I suspect.

Mods to let earlier era civs transcend to later ages already exist. There are some mechanics needed for that to work which would be good to have Firaxis' official stamp of approval on, but the fact that it can already be done makes me think that should be the mark for "minimum required for passing grade" rather than cosmetic changes.

Except Rome could build Great walls in Civ 1-5 and a Rome with a space program is equally unlike Rome.

I see 4 levels of “civ continuity” potentially available

1. Current.. you keep Traditions and already built uniques and city names

2. Labels.. can choose keep the name (and graphics and city list) of your civ but get new uniques for the new age (inspired by a separate real world civ)
Narrative: your people have changed how they do things in the new age, should they be called something different now?
Pros: Rome into Space, probably relatively easy to implement, no game mechanics changes needed..could also do American spearmen if you can choose your starting name…Could have leader match civ for whole game
Cons: some think American Legions or Roman Conquistadors sounds off. (would need UI to make it clear what bonuses AI is using if AI can be made to keep same name)

3. Semi-Generic bonuses..when Rome goes to Exploration of America is in Antiquity they get uniques based on their Attributes
Narrative: Rome changes but retains its Roman “Attributes”
Pros: Rome can retain some “Roman ness” in Modern without taking from France or Russia, not a lot of content to be added, Rome has modern age appropriate bonuses
Con: Still lose purely Roman uniques

4. Eternal uniques …Antiquity America builds str 25 Marines Modern Rome builds str 50 Legions, etc.
Pros: fully retain uniques
Cons: some uniques would be bugged or very imbalanced would require a lot of work.

I’d like to see 2 in the main game. and 3 as a mode (maybe in the main game if the Attribute uniques can be balanced) …4 is better as a mod as it doesn’t need to be as bug free or balanced.

 

[Crashdummy]

If you think the label is the problem, then you don't understand the issue.

I cant believe that after 6 months people still dont get that the issue is not just the Civ name

Its like they refuse to read other people's points

 

[Krikkit1]

Unit Teleport was a bad idea…especially with ships.
Fleet Commanders should have the ability to relocate a Fleet. (even if unit Teleport wasn’t in the game, to deal with Lake issues.)

 

[Krikkit1]

I cant believe that after 6 months people still dont get that the issue is not just the Civ name

Its like they refuse to read other people's points

It’s not just the civ name…but the name is a part of it. and letting players control their name is the minimum they can do. (since it can be done without changing the gameplay of fitting your bonuses to the situation)

 

[Crashdummy]

It’s not just the civ name…but the name is a part of it. and letting players control their name is the minimum they can do. (since it can be done without changing the gameplay of fitting your bonuses to the situation)

Name is a minor part of the problem, if you can just keep the name it would change nothing, the real problems would remain

Trust us, we are the ones not playing the game because of age transitions and civ switching, its NOT a naming problem