What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Krikkit1]

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

You aren’t the only one not playing the game, or not enjoying it as much.

Some people liked the addition of the Continuity option and removing the unit teleport and that was enough for them (although they probably still think it could be improved)

Completely removing ages is a new game, not a new mode, one that some people would not like.

Completely removing civ switches could possibly be done…but that would require redoing a large number of civs, so it can’t really be anything more than a scenario/unique game mode.

However, they can make both Ages and Civ switches better,
1. Improvements in general
2. Choices in game
3. Setup options

That will not satisfy some people (just like some aren’t satisfied by armies/Commanders as dealing with the 1UPT problems and won’t play any civ where they can’t play stacks of doom)
But enough people were satisfied that Stacks of Doom are probably never coming back to civ.

Whether ages and civ switching can be improved to the point that enough players like them is still an open question. But each individual player (or non player) has their own preferences of what would be good (or good enough)

 

[socratic]

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???

Civ switching is a bit more than just a name change. You lose your ability, cant build anymore of your uniques, gain new uniques, new traditions, a new ability, etc. If someone wanted to play Aztecs or any other pre-columbian civ the whole game, they can’t. The Aztecs did not just wake up, stop building teocalli, and start building Cathedrals. The civ switch doesn’t just imply a change, it beats you over the head saying “YOU GOT COLONIZED”

 

[GeneralZift]

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???

You have a point*, only in that Civ should be *making them look like Modern Day Aztecs instead*

 

[Leucarum]

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.

1 and 2 are not that different, a coat of paint which probably won't solve the issues a large number of players have identifying with their civ. But maybe some dissatisfied players would be ok with 2.

Beyond that though, I don't really think the remaining numbers selected cover the options very well. There'a a bunch of permutations you can combine in different ways and with different levels of plausibility. Definitely more than 2 possuble solutions...

Personally I'd rather opt for something realistically do-able in a short timescale. Enduring Empires is a mod that allows civ continuity (but not playing later civs in earlier periods) and I think it's the best template we have at the moment. It adds generic traditions for civs being played out of era, and fleshing these out would be the bulk of the work, along with scaling bonuses to still be useful in later eras. Going only forward also solves the UU out of era issue since you can just transfer UU abilities onto the closest available unit class in the next era. The only unit that obsoletes is the missionary, so it reduces the problem to a handful of edge cases.

100% any solution should come with a game mode which sets how often the AI uses it. This shouldn't be forced on the players (who seem like a close minority from the poll here) who enjoy civ switching.

But I mostly like this solution because this can be done easily even within the current state of the game. I wouldn't pretend that it solves the problem completely. Especially for players who want later civs played in earlier eras. Going forward is much easier than goimg back, and I think it's the biggest permutation in any solution.

 

[Gorbles]

You were wondering why Cramatic Ages wasnt a big deal with people and why Age Transitions are in Civ VII, i replied to that

Sorry for the late reply, but I wasn't wondering that at all. The discussion has moved on but just wanted to clear that up. Cheers!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You have a point only in that Civ should instead making them look like Modern Day Aztecs

It would be nice if Civ 7 could get the Aztecs first.

 

[aieeegrunt]

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

Or realize there is no way to refute them, so they bust out the red herrings

Civ switching is a bit more than just a name change. You lose your ability, cant build anymore of your uniques, gain new uniques, new traditions, a new ability, etc. If someone wanted to play Aztecs or any other pre-columbian civ the whole game, they can’t. The Aztecs did not just wake up, stop building teocalli, and start building Cathedrals. The civ switch doesn’t just imply a change, it beats you over the head saying “YOU GOT COLONIZED”

It is telling how this needs to be repeated over, and over, and over.

Civ switching is not just a label change, and won’t be fixed with one.