What's your opinion on civ switching?

[socratic]

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).

Then we have different definitions of fun, and that’s okay. For me, playing to the unique aspects of my civ was fun and kept each game interesting. And I did plenty of adapting to my surroundings and neighbors in Civ 6. No two games ever felt the same, where as in Civ 7 every game past Antiquity feels the same for me. The point is that civ switching is not just cosmetic.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

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.

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

Come on man, there's not even a page between these

 

[socratic]

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

I don’t see it that way. What separates Carthage from the other civs is it’s one city limitation. When I switch to Normans, I’m free to build as much cities as I please. What made Carthage unique is gone. I’m now playing Generic Distant Lands Expansionist Civ #6 with Cothons lying around.

 

[Siptah]

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"

I think we are discussing different things then, and that’s part of the confusion. I specified that I think games were you select your static bonuses (and thus playstyle) at the beginning of the game have not much to offer to me anymore due to the games released in the past 10+ years that handled these things more dynamically. Obviously, AoW4 is one of them, even when it‘s only about accumulating bonuses and the only downside is that getting X means not getting Y, instead of losing some powers (as some other games do). I even said that it‘s not necessary to switch your civ for this. That said, if you conceive your AoW4 culture as the same at the beginning and the end of a game, we are barely playing the same game ;-)

 

[moondog385]

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)

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.

Agree with both of these. I think there’s room for the ideas expressed here to be explored further, though I think we’d have to wait until Civ 8 for anything like this. The primary issue with civ-switching to me is that it’s tied to the ages. Make it more dynamic and choice-based and it becomes not just more palatable to players that are put off by it, but more interesting in terms of gameplay.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The primary issue with civ-switching to me is that it’s tied to the ages. Make it more dynamic and choice-based and it becomes not just more palatable to players that are put off by it, but more interesting in terms of gameplay.

This speaks to the Brontosaurus stomping on the Game Design: Ages.

Whether they call them Eras or Ages or Artificial Nooses to Strangle Game Play they've been with us for several renditions of Civ, and have been picked up by other 4x historicalish games like Millenia and Humankind so that they appear to be a Basic Requirement to such games.

Which they aren't. They started as an historiographical 'shorthand' to keep track of changes that defined certain periods in certain areas of the globe but, critically, no one has ever agreed on which ones apply for which times to which areas and no one has ever seriously suggested that they apply to all areas of the globe simultaneously unless you so load them down with caveats and exceptions that they become (to mis-quote the old physics joke) like Spherical Civs in a Vacuum - worthless for any real purpose.

Full Disclosure: I've never liked them, no matter how convenient they may appear to the designers to grind the game forward defining what you are supposed to be doing at each stage.

Civ VII has not improved the design one whit over previous attempts, except to reduce them in number - which is counterbalanced by making them absolutely definitive in what you are allowed to do and still almost entirely Eurocentric in their definitions and effects.

So, while we are all discussing 'Civ Switching' or 'Legacy Paths' let's not forget that both are tied, twisted and entangled in the Age system that really defines the game and every mechanic in it: remove Civ Switching and you are still throttled by an artificial construct that severely and arbitrarily limits everything you do.

 

[Crashdummy]

I think we are discussing different things then, and that’s part of the confusion. I specified that I think games were you select your static bonuses (and thus playstyle) at the beginning of the game have not much to offer to me anymore due to the games released in the past 10+ years that handled these things more dynamically. Obviously, AoW4 is one of them, even when it‘s only about accumulating bonuses and the only downside is that getting X means not getting Y, instead of losing some powers (as some other games do). I even said that it‘s not necessary to switch your civ for this. That said, if you conceive your AoW4 culture as the same at the beginning and the end of a game, we are barely playing the same game ;-)

I consider AoW4 RACE the same when you start and when you end. The "culture" might change, but that equals what we already had in previous Civs.

The difference is clear, as you progress in AoW4, you only ADD things to your race (which equals to adding civics/goverments/traditions/etc to your Civ in previous titles) but what you chose at the start remains static during the whole game, it never changes. Nothing you pick in the race selection at the start of AoW4 is ever lost

Adding things in Civ was never a problem, when civics were added, it wasnt a problem. The problem in Civ 7 is that the Civ you pick at the start is removed from your game and you are forced to change into a new one, and you lose stuff in the process (bonuses, ability to produce units, etc)

An equivalent in AoW4 would be if you are forced to change your race, losing its bonuses and units, and such a change would be a failure if it happens in the game too

Civilization needs to go back to being able to pick any Civ you want since the start and being able to finish with the same Civ you started

 

[Evie]

Boris, as (almost) always, has a strong point.

A more fluid civ-changing system that reflect evolving game conditions, rather than a strict straitjacket age system, would likely be a good idea.

I've been toying with an idea of replacing ages with revolutionary technologies (/research, could also include some civis in there).

1. They are tech chokepoint gating access to a lot of technology behind them. Past a certain point, you cannot progress (at least in certain directions) without researching them.
2. They cause a lot of prior civic, wonders, buildings, etc to become obsolete - a classic mechanic -, thereby (temporarily) greatly reducing the advantages of empires that are ahead in the game.
3. Once any civ has researched them, their research cost is drastically reduced, and their prerequisites are waived, making it much easier for other civs to jump ahead in the tech tree and catch up

Discovering a revolutionary technology could tie in to civ switching by causing some of your civ bonuses to become obsolete and opening the option of changing civilizations (but not forcing you to do so, I suppose). Some civ could even have multiple bonuses that are obsoleted at different revolutionary technologies.

This would also mean that different civ could be unlocked or have their bonuses obsoleted at different times without needing fifty two billion ages.

 

[Krikkit1]

Boris, as (almost) always, has a strong point.

A more fluid civ-changing system that reflect evolving game conditions, rather than a strict straitjacket age system, would likely be a good idea.

I've been toying with an idea of replacing ages with revolutionary technologies (/research, could also include some civis in there).

1. They are tech chokepoint gating access to a lot of technology behind them. Past a certain point, you cannot progress (at least in certain directions) without researching them.
2. They cause a lot of prior civic, wonders, buildings, etc to become obsolete, thereby (temporarily) greatly reducing the advantages of empires that are ahead in the game.
3. Once any civ has researched them, their research cost is drastically reduced, and their prerequisites are waived, making it much easier for other civs to jump ahead in the tech tree and catch up.

Discovering a revolutionary technology could tie in to civ switching by causing some of your civ bonuses to become obsolete and opening the option of changing civilizations (but not forcing you to do so). Some civ could even have multiple bonuses that are obsoleted at different revolutionary technologies.

This would also mean that different civ could be unlocked or have their bonuses obsoleted at different times without needing fifty two billion ages.

I think the problem with Civ 7 Ages is they aren’t leaned into hard enough.

The gameplay isn’t significantly different in the different ages (there are differences but not much)

The biggest one is religion.

But if other game mechanics were truly different in different ages, then it would make sense to change bonuses more significantly.

 

[Leucarum]

Ages are a great idea in theory, but you need them all to be engaging if you split them as firmly as 7 does... And in 7 antiquity got all the good mechanics

 

[CivKirk64]

Boris, as (almost) always, has a strong point.

A more fluid civ-changing system that reflect evolving game conditions, rather than a strict straitjacket age system, would likely be a good idea.

I've been toying with an idea of replacing ages with revolutionary technologies (/research, could also include some civis in there).

1. They are tech chokepoint gating access to a lot of technology behind them. Past a certain point, you cannot progress (at least in certain directions) without researching them.
2. They cause a lot of prior civic, wonders, buildings, etc to become obsolete - a classic mechanic -, thereby (temporarily) greatly reducing the advantages of empires that are ahead in the game.
3. Once any civ has researched them, their research cost is drastically reduced, and their prerequisites are waived, making it much easier for other civs to jump ahead in the tech tree and catch up

Discovering a revolutionary technology could tie in to civ switching by causing some of your civ bonuses to become obsolete and opening the option of changing civilizations (but not forcing you to do so, I suppose). Some civ could even have multiple bonuses that are obsoleted at different revolutionary technologies.

This would also mean that different civ could be unlocked or have their bonuses obsoleted at different times without needing fifty two billion ages.

I like this idea. I'm in the Pro Civ Switch camp I more or less look forward to age transitions, but they certainly can evolve or work better .

Gating the techs in each era or age, will allow for some catch-up, you could pair this with the crises to show that it is a pain to get past these chokepoints, then bunch up a bunch of the toolsets for civ switching right after that point.

2 or 3 extremely high cost techs and civics that must be researched before moving on, who's cost dramatically reduces once it's first is discovered.

What might make a bunch of people happy could be staying with your civ flavor (Names, architecture, unit styles) but adopting the traits of a current age or current tech civ.

"You can now adopt the Norman toolset.. it will be usable once you research Castles"

Upon reaching Castles, You are prompted do you want to:
A) Skip Normans wait for another toolset

B) Take Normans and switch to their theme set
C) Take Normans and keep your current theme(Names/Art) matching that era.


This would allow toolsets to unlock at ANY point within the half dozen or so traditional eras, you can switch once per age, or however often you want to allow for it.

If you started the game as the Normans than you get a "classical roman" art set when you start the game, but are prompted for a starting ancient toolset.
Every toolset has an obsolesce point where you can no longer build them, but like the unique quarters, continue to provide a bonus.

This might allow for more diversity of civs added, as you can put their bonuses really early or late in an age.

One more feature I miss and correct me if this was a mod, but late stage CIV 4 had population migration and each city showed a breakdown of your population by civ, similar to how religion was in 5 and 6. This fed into happiness system I believe.


I'd take that a step further and allow uniques to be built or traditions used, if you met a certain percentage thresholds.

 

[Crashdummy]

I like this idea. I'm in the Pro Civ Switch camp I more or less look forward to age transitions, but they certainly can evolve or work better .

Gating the techs in each era or age, will allow for some catch-up, you could pair this with the crises to show that it is a pain to get past these chokepoints, then bunch up a bunch of the toolsets for civ switching right after that point.

2 or 3 extremely high cost techs and civics that must be researched before moving on, who's cost dramatically reduces once it's first is discovered.

What might make a bunch of people happy could be staying with your civ flavor (Names, architecture, unit styles) but adopting the traits of a current age or current tech civ.

"You can now adopt the Norman toolset.. it will be usable once you research Castles"

Upon reaching Castles, You are prompted do you want to:
A) Skip Normans wait for another toolset

B) Take Normans and switch to their theme set
C) Take Normans and keep your current theme(Names/Art) matching that era.


This would allow toolsets to unlock at ANY point within the half dozen or so traditional eras, you can switch once per age, or however often you want to allow for it.

If you started the game as the Normans than you get a "classical roman" art set when you start the game, but are prompted for a starting ancient toolset.
Every toolset has an obsolesce point where you can no longer build them, but like the unique quarters, continue to provide a bonus.

This might allow for more diversity of civs added, as you can put their bonuses really early or late in an age.

One more feature I miss and correct me if this was a mod, but late stage CIV 4 had population migration and each city showed a breakdown of your population by civ, similar to how religion was in 5 and 6. This fed into happiness system I believe.


I'd take that a step further and allow uniques to be built or traditions used, if you met a certain percentage thresholds.

Going back to unlockable Civs would be a terrible idea, i would hate all those changes. I would be fine if everything in there is optional, but i thik it would be a waste of resources. Also, i think part of the problems with Age transition is the game stopping your gameplay to promt the change to you, breaking immersion. I think we need LESS prompting, not even more. I wanrt a smooth and fluid experience, so the less interruptions the better

I think the evolution to Civilization is not in the direction of neither civ switching nor age transitions, in any way, those failed and Firaxis needs to look somewhere else for improvements

 

[moondog385]

This speaks to the Brontosaurus stomping on the Game Design: Ages.

Whether they call them Eras or Ages or Artificial Nooses to Strangle Game Play they've been with us for several renditions of Civ, and have been picked up by other 4x historicalish games like Millenia and Humankind so that they appear to be a Basic Requirement to such games.

Which they aren't. They started as an historiographical 'shorthand' to keep track of changes that defined certain periods in certain areas of the globe but, critically, no one has ever agreed on which ones apply for which times to which areas and no one has ever seriously suggested that they apply to all areas of the globe simultaneously unless you so load them down with caveats and exceptions that they become (to mis-quote the old physics joke) like Spherical Civs in a Vacuum - worthless for any real purpose.

Full Disclosure: I've never liked them, no matter how convenient they may appear to the designers to grind the game forward defining what you are supposed to be doing at each stage.

Civ VII has not improved the design one whit over previous attempts, except to reduce them in number - which is counterbalanced by making them absolutely definitive in what you are allowed to do and still almost entirely Eurocentric in their definitions and effects.

So, while we are all discussing 'Civ Switching' or 'Legacy Paths' let's not forget that both are tied, twisted and entangled in the Age system that really defines the game and every mechanic in it: remove Civ Switching and you are still throttled by an artificial construct that severely and arbitrarily limits everything you do.

Yeah, I agree with you. I don’t mind having Ages as markers in the game or even the idea of getting a set number of points in an age to perhaps bolster you in the next (though the Legacy Paths themselves are quite messy outside of Antiquity). But the Ages as rigid boundaries is distractingly Eurocentric as currently implemented.

@Evie Those three points you mentioned are great and would be much better than the current system.

 

[Fripou]

I heavily dislike it, like many I believe the point of a civ game is for your civilization to stand the test of time, I hate being forced to change my civ, and no, making a "historical" path does not fix anything, if I choose to play as Gaul it is because I want to play Gaul all the way through, not to be forced in the middle of my game to go for France or whatever other civ they might add that could fill the part

 

[McSpank01]

Ages seem ok in theory. In reality they just lead to lots of bad gameplay incentives. I just played through antiquity as Greece and by the time crises rolled around I realised there was nothing really worth building or doing any more. So I basically end turned until the age ended.

That for me is far more problematic than Civ Switching.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Boris, as (almost) always, has a strong point.

A more fluid civ-changing system that reflect evolving game conditions, rather than a strict straitjacket age system, would likely be a good idea.

I've been toying with an idea of replacing ages with revolutionary technologies (/research, could also include some civis in there).

1. They are tech chokepoint gating access to a lot of technology behind them. Past a certain point, you cannot progress (at least in certain directions) without researching them.
2. They cause a lot of prior civic, wonders, buildings, etc to become obsolete - a classic mechanic -, thereby (temporarily) greatly reducing the advantages of empires that are ahead in the game.
3. Once any civ has researched them, their research cost is drastically reduced, and their prerequisites are waived, making it much easier for other civs to jump ahead in the tech tree and catch up

Discovering a revolutionary technology could tie in to civ switching by causing some of your civ bonuses to become obsolete and opening the option of changing civilizations (but not forcing you to do so, I suppose). Some civ could even have multiple bonuses that are obsoleted at different revolutionary technologies.

This would also mean that different civ could be unlocked or have their bonuses obsoleted at different times without needing fifty two billion ages.

Thanks for the 'almost' - it's things like that that keep me humble.

Some time ago I fiddled around with a set of tech system ideas that included Basic, Seminal, and Applied Technologies. Basic were like what the tree gives us now: basic ideas and concepts from which a number of different specific structures, units, and in-game mechanics flow. Applied were the 'sub-techs' that actually released the specifics: as an example, under Agriculture might be Flood Irrigation which allowed you to get food out of desert tiles near rivers or lakes and under Bronze Working might be Bronze Weapons that got you Spearmen and Heroic Warriors.

Seminal Techs were ones that changed a host of things, like Writing, Iron Working, Mathematics, Printing, etc. Each of these could be a trigger for the decision to decisively change your Civ's Civics, government, or cultural norms to match a changed situation.

Add to these triggers External and Civic (non-Technological) events, like a change in philosophy, religion, or civil structure (cue Feudalism, Divine Right Monarchy, etc), foreign invasion, climate/biome change (cue a major river changing its banks and droning several hundred thousand people, as triggered regime/dynasty change in China more than once) and I think we could come up with enough different events and triggers to satisfy the most demanding Chnage Player.

-While still making each trigger cue a Decision rather than a Mandate. If you think you can guide Rome through revolting armies and their leaders (a mechanic sorely lacking currently in Civ VII's Crisis Periods), depopulated cities from Plague, breakaway provinces, then you should be permitted to go for it. If you wind up playing Ostrogothic Spain by 800 CE that's on you . . .

 

[moondog385]

Ages seem ok in theory. In reality they just lead to lots of bad gameplay incentives. I just played through antiquity as Greece and by the time crises rolled around I realised there was nothing really worth building or doing any more. So I basically end turned until the age ended.

That for me is far more problematic than Civ Switching.

Boggles the mind that this wasn't caught or if it was, why didn't they care about it? Ages should have been soft transitions, not hard cuts.

 

[socratic]

Boggles the mind that this wasn't caught or if it was, why didn't they care about it? Ages should have been soft transitions, not hard cuts.

It was intentional. The original idea around Ages was to keep the player from snowballing. That necessitates putting a cap on what you can accomplish on an Age. They’re (thankfully) walking that back though.

 

[King Flevance]

Civ switching and the Age mechanic are at a disadvantage in a property like Civilization as they are bound to history even if loosely. The idea here is good but the game it is attached to is wrong, IMO. Having an Age system that evolves your empire is a great idea for a strategy title. But the problem is that it needs to be fictional empires so you can design for flavor and balance without needing to cater to history or various interpretations of it in an abstract form. The historical basis, while abstract and more caricature than realistic, are too confining or restricting to properly utilize a concept like this. It makes it jarring trying to force it like 2 puzzle pieces that don't quite go together.

 

[Crashdummy]

Civ switching and the Age mechanic are at a disadvantage in a property like Civilization as they are bound to history even if loosely. The idea here is good but the game it is attached to is wrong, IMO. Having an Age system that evolves your empire is a great idea for a strategy title. But the problem is that it needs to be fictional empires so you can design for flavor and balance without needing to cater to history or various interpretations of it in an abstract form. The historical basis, while abstract and more caricature than realistic, are too confining or restricting to properly utilize a concept like this. It makes it jarring trying to force it like 2 puzzle pieces that don't quite go together.

The idea failed in Humankind too, and that was fictional, with no historical attachment

The idea just doesnt work on 4x games, doesnt matter on which game you attach it too. People dont like to having stuff removed in games, and specially not in a strategy game, where you spent effort into gaining advantages only to be arnitrarily removed because the Devs are incapable of writing a proper IA