What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Evie]

Shocking. The person who want classic mode or nothing still want classic mode or nothing, and protests whenever anyone else discuss any option that isn't that.

 

[Lebo44]

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.

Have you experimented with using Abbreviated Age length? It might help by shortening the window for completing legacies, which could make each decision feel more significant as you approach the end of an era. Then again, it might also raise the difficulty of fulfilling legacy paths...

I haven’t tested it out myself yet but definitely will.

 

[aieeegrunt]

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.

1 UPT was certainly contentious, bur it didn’t make Civ5 flop like 7 did

Yeah, basically a big issue with it is the lack of civs for many paths, and the only way to "fix it" is to keep buying DLC that adds them.

I feel like this was a big factor for sure

The more I think about it, the more I think they should have started with a smaller geographic roster, even if it means cutting out some staples on release (which they already ended up doing anyways). Start with civilizations that compliment the mechanic, maybe sprinkle in some outliers like America or Carthage, then later expand the roster to represent more groups. The current selection of civs has the worst of both worlds imo, because almost no one is properly represented. People who want to play long-lasting civilizations like Greece are out of luck, while people who want to play Songhai are forced to watch their West African civ turn into a almost completely unrelated culture on the other side of the continent.

I almost wished they did that just to see the hilarious uproar if the game launched with only European or Asian civs

I've read all the data you plugged in before , no I'm not going to take chatGPT prompt you wrote using data like "Civ VII at only one point during its launch briefly topped physical release chart in the UK only" to extropolate baseless estimations and speculation.




The game sold significantly less than its predessecors, even using actually somewhat credible estimations algorhythms like gameayltics



Stop talking down to us. We are using all the same data you plugged into ChatGPT prompt you wrote to justify your own baseless position. All the data together all points to a flop, you're are the only person still doing mental gymnastics and trying to pull million+ secret console players out of thin air to avoid facing this reality

I definitly feel like “Appeal to AI” needs to be added to the list of Logical Fallacies

 

[ehecatzin]

The only ones that think more paths would fix anything are the ones that already like civ switching. The problem is the immersion breaking, the player feeling like its losing what they chose to start the game with, the player feeling stuff they worked for is being taken away, the fact that you cant build an empire to stand the test of time (and Firaxis knows that which is why they changed the slogan) which was the SOUL of the franchise

I commented a bit about something like this in the other thread but:

Let's suppose they add the option to mantain your civ during each era change, maybe with some unique events, traditions and challenges for doing so. wouldn't that actually enhance the "build a civilization that stands the test of time" feeling? because you actually managed it while other civs where switching.

In past civs, really all civs standed the test of time unless you wiped them out early.

 

[Crashdummy]

I commented a bit about something like this in the other thread but:

Let's suppose they add the option to mantain your civ during each era change, maybe with some unique events, traditions and challenges for doing so. wouldn't that actually enhance the "build a civilization that stands the test of time" feeling? because you actually managed it while other civs where switching.

In past civs, really all civs standed the test of time unless you wiped them out early.

If you have the option to keep the same Civ from start to finish then yes, the concept of building a civilization to stand the test of time comes back

I hope when they do this (because i think its inevitable) you are able to choose any Civilization to start with too.

 

[Calcifer]

Here’s my opinion:
Civ switching is mostly positive, I like having different bonuses that stay relevant through the different ages and losing the bonuses from the previous age doesn’t bother me. I'm also not bothered by choosing three different civs that are not historically related. For some reason the system just makes sense to me if I consider it within the game context, I don't know how to put it. Side note: my very first civ game was Civilization Revolution, where your civ had gained a new bonus every time you entered a new age. I always loved that aspect of the game.
The problems I have lie in the ages system. I agree with the intention of making late game decisions more important and having some soft resets to limit snowballing. However, something seems off with the execution. It's hard for me to pinpoint exactly what's the core problem, but here's some things I don't like:

• Buildings unlocked late in the tech tree are almost worthless because they are becoming obsolete with the next age transition. You should be excited to unlock advanced techs and higher tier buildings, in reality it has very little impact on your gameplay, and that feels wrong from a player perspective. This is probably correlated to the next point:
• The pacing of the ages seems off somehow, again I cannot tell what exactly is the problem but I'm not convinced about the interaction/balance between the legacy paths and the age duration. I always have the impression of gaming the system to end the age early which makes me miss a section of gameplay that should be there in the last part of the age. This impression is stronger for later ages:
  • Ancient age seems mostly fine, I usually can complete a couple of legacy paths and the age lasts 110-130 turns
  • Exploration age feels too fast, legacy paths are so easy that you can complete all of them and end the age in 60-80 turns
  • Modern age is even worse because you can just focus on your chosen win condition and end the game in 30-60 turns. This is especially bad because it makes basically the entire content of the modern age (wonders, civ abilities/uniques) feel way less important.

The positive thing is that it seems they're actively trying to work on incremental fixes on age transitions and legacy paths, so I'm still hopeful they can find the right balance to make the game more enjoyable for me. I didn't play a game on 1.2.3 yet so I can't say what's the impact of the continuity setting and the change to obsolete building yields.

 

[King Flevance]

Not to invalidate anyone's view but I don't understand how civ switching "in any form" can be immersion breaking. America was once part of England's empire which was once part of Rome's. How mechanics are implemented matters - and can (and does) destroy immersion. Everyone's taste in games is different and some will be drawn to things other won't like. (Ex: I still like Humankind for the most part) However, George Washington leading archers in Bronze Age America, I consider equally as "immersion breaking" as civ switching is in Civ 7.

I think trying to figure out how to make these Age transitions feel fun is worth the time and frustration investment. There are so many ways to implement these ages that it is virtually infinite. To rule out an infinite amount of possibilities is the definition of short sighted. What if in the exploration age Commanders radius increased by 1 tile. Then in the Modern Age, Commanders could be assigned to a Military Academy (or Port) to give a permanent boost to unit strength, even allowing you to upgrade all older units to the new unit strength version. What if on age transition, every player can spend a legacy point to grant 5 free units of their choice for every city of theirs they had captured by an opponent. Plus, have other legacy point options that are there to help those who are struggling instead of those who are winning. There are many ways you could do this and many other ways you can inject flavor and change the entire tone and pacing of the game. To rule everything out with a broad brush - just because the release of the game was so shallow and bland does not mean you have to scrap the whole project. As others have said, this feels like an early access game - sadly. There are many examples that show that early access games can go from very basic and shallow foundations to really enjoyable games. It is all about how the development team moves forward. Throwing your game's model in the trash and making Civ 7 a shoddy variation or Civ 6.5 will just doom it to forever be just a crappy imitation of Civ 6. Civ 7 needs to be what it was designed to be, but it is a very basic idea currently and it makes it hard to tell if the team had/has a clear vision of what all this game was supposed to be originally or if their plan was simply to release it and just slap duct tape in places based on consumer appeal. We can't know for sure, but we are all speculating in both directions pretty heavy as a community right now.

 

[Crashdummy]

Not to invalidate anyone's view but I don't understand how civ switching "in any form" can be immersion breaking. America was once part of England's empire which was once part of Rome's. How mechanics are implemented matters - and can (and does) destroy immersion. Everyone's taste in games is different and some will be drawn to things other won't like. (Ex: I still like Humankind for the most part) However, George Washington leading archers in Bronze Age America, I consider equally as "immersion breaking" as civ switching is in Civ 7.

I think trying to figure out how to make these Age transitions feel fun is worth the time and frustration investment. There are so many ways to implement these ages that it is virtually infinite. To rule out an infinite amount of possibilities is the definition of short sighted. What if in the exploration age Commanders radius increased by 1 tile. Then in the Modern Age, Commanders could be assigned to a Military Academy (or Port) to give a permanent boost to unit strength, even allowing you to upgrade all older units to the new unit strength version. What if on age transition, every player can spend a legacy point to grant 5 free units of their choice for every city of theirs they had captured by an opponent. Plus, have other legacy point options that are there to help those who are struggling instead of those who are winning. There are many ways you could do this and many other ways you can inject flavor and change the entire tone and pacing of the game. To rule everything out with a broad brush - just because the release of the game was so shallow and bland does not mean you have to scrap the whole project. As others have said, this feels like an early access game - sadly. There are many examples that show that early access games can go from very basic and shallow foundations to really enjoyable games. It is all about how the development team moves forward. Throwing your game's model in the trash and making Civ 7 a shoddy variation or Civ 6.5 will just doom it to forever be just a crappy imitation of Civ 6. Civ 7 needs to be what it was designed to be, but it is a very basic idea currently and it makes it hard to tell if the team had/has a clear vision of what all this game was supposed to be originally or if their plan was simply to release it and just slap duct tape in places based on consumer appeal. We can't know for sure, but we are all speculating in both directions pretty heavy as a community right now.

If it was aimed to me, when i said it was immersion breaking i meant the action that takes you away from the game to a new selection screen to select the new Civ. I cant think of anything more immersion breaking than that

About the different ages, i really dont like that we keep talking about them in an Eurocentric way. The "Exploration Age" is not real, the World never really had such an Age, its a completely Eurocentric way to look at history. Expanding on it by giving Commanders +1 radius would be adding more to the insult to the rest of the World

About spending points to units, again, its immersion breaking since you will need to do it in a screen outside the game. I dont like abrupt interruptions, i want my Civ game to be a smooth and fluid sandbox experience, with the least amount of interruptions possible

About points helping those that are behind, why? Why reward the players that are not playing well? Games should reward players that play well, not those that play bad. If you made an effort to gain an advantage, you shouldnt be arbitrarily punished for it

Maybe there is a good implementation of Age transitions and Civ switching, my point is that the attempt to find it already destroyed two games, one i didnt care much about, but when such attempt destroyed a game of one of my favourite franchises, then i wish Firaxis stops trying to find the unicorn and risk ruining even more games, and not saving the current one

Finally, its false that the only way for Civ 7 to be different than Civ 6 is with Age transitions and Civ switching, that is a fallacy. Those features were bad, the playerbase CLEARLY rejected them, trying to double down on things that were rejected by your players is IMO, a bad decision

 

[aieeegrunt]

The thing that makes civ switching so incredibly immersion *murdering* is that civs didn’t just transmogrify on a dime like the way the game will inevitably make it feel like.

It’s not like in AD 475 everyone in Rome was in togas declaiming in Latin, and suddenly HEY GUYS IT’S AD 476 TIME FOR CIV SWITCH DITCH THE TOGAS WE’RE GERMANIC NOW.

This is how it feels in game though. It’s even worse because the supposed reason for this, some crises or other, happens entirely off screen and via developer fiat regardless of the actual state of your civ.

So whether Honorious is feeding chickens, or Stilicho has been crowned Emperor and is leading the new Roman legions to victory along the Rhine HEY IT’’S AD 476 GUYS bippity boppity freaking doo.

You want to have Civs evolve? Then develop your mechanics so it freaking evolves.

 

[Niallism]

I think it's interesting that the positive votes are at about 50%, on this most grognardy of Civ sites. I have seen a lot of angry people saying that 'nobody likes the changes', and it's clearly not as simple as that.

It's clear that this is not an 'objective mistake'. Controversial, absolutely, but not a hated or unwanted addition to the game.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

I think it's interesting that the positive votes are at about 50%, on this most grognardy of Civ sites. I have seen a lot of angry people saying that 'nobody likes the changes', and it's clearly not as simple as that.

It's clear that this is not an 'objective mistake'. Controversial, absolutely, but not a hated or unwanted addition to the game.

It's not that interesting when you realize the game currently has less players that Civ V. Even ignoring that the changes are rather polarizing among the people who actually bought the game here, the game's player retention is objectively terrible, it's PC peak/sales (the primary platform for the series) is a fraction of its predessecors, and no one can seem to find the secret hidden mass of console players that would be required for this game to have not been a pretty big flop.

A poll like this cannot account for the fans who just wholesale wrote the game off

 

[King Flevance]

If it was aimed to me, when i said it was immersion breaking i meant the action that takes you away from the game to a new selection screen to select the new Civ. I cant think of anything more immersion breaking than that

About the different ages, i really dont like that we keep talking about them in an Eurocentric way. The "Exploration Age" is not real, the World never really had such an Age, its a completely Eurocentric way to look at history. Expanding on it by giving Commanders +1 radius would be adding more to the insult to the rest of the World

About spending points to units, again, its immersion breaking since you will need to do it in a screen outside the game. I dont like abrupt interruptions, i want my Civ game to be a smooth and fluid sandbox experience, with the least amount of interruptions possible

It was more a general statement as I have seen it come up a few time, but I did use your comment to springboard onto the topic.

As for ages, this is a game mechanic more than any accurate portrayal of history. They flavor the mechanic as "Exploration Age" but really, they have taken the format and tried using a "3 act structure" to the design. Beginning, middle, and end. To view it as a portrayal of history I feel is a big misinterpretation. Civ is not serious, it pokes fun at history as often as it portrays it. It is not trying to be a "good lens" but rather taking a light hearted approach to a history kaleidiscope - and if I am wrong about that, they are doing a terrible job at accurately portraying history.

I understand the screen tear away complaint as there is a whole "end of game" feel to it. You go through the legacy screens, the civ selection screen, then at the new age there are like 8 big decisions on turn 1. It is a lot of having to change a bunch of gears. I actually shut down the game here every time pretty much. The ideas I offered like Commanders or points were generic examples of the various ways the game could be redesign around the age mechanics. Currently it is just the same cycle of gameplay mechanics 3 times with different legacy paths each cycle. I was pointing out how you could make each Age play and feel different. This could make the age transition be more exciting for a lot of people.

About points helping those that are behind, why? Why reward the players that are not playing well? Games should reward players that play well, not those that play bad. If you made an effort to gain an advantage, you shouldnt be arbitrarily punished for it

Maybe there is a good implementation of Age transitions and Civ switching, my point is that the attempt to find it already destroyed two games, one i didnt care much about, but when such attempt destroyed a game of one of my favourite franchises, then i wish Firaxis stops trying to find the unicorn and risk ruining even more games, and not saving the current one

Finally, its false that the only way for Civ 7 to be different than Civ 6 is with Age transitions and Civ switching, that is a fallacy. Those features were bad, the playerbase CLEARLY rejected them, trying to double down on things that were rejected by your players is IMO, a bad decision

Why help the player who is behind? Because the devs kept saying that the age system was made specifically to fight snowballing victories. The whole point is to help the guy who fell behind in Act 1 not be a guaranteed loss. The reward for the player doing well is the part where you win the game. It wouldn't make sense to give football players sticky gloves because they scored more points in the 1st quarter. Then give them a free 1st down if they are leading at the end of the first half. All you are doing is ensuring they stay in the lead.
If it doesn't make sense to help to losing side, it certainly shouldn't make sense to help the winning side. Winning is the reward.
Helping the losing side doesn't punish the leader, it creates an obstacle to overcome toward that victory. Even with free units, the lower has a HUGE obstacle to overcome.

I never stated the fallacy you claim I did. I stated that Civ 7 needs to be developed for what it was designed to be. The complaint is primarily to abandon 7's design and design it to be more like 5 and 6. But since they were originally designed for that gameplay format, 7 could only be a pale imitation. It would take years to make 7 just a bland crappy version of the old classic civ model with some quirky city expansion mechanics. No thanks, and I dont think the haters would embrace it any way. Give me Civ 7 pushing in and trying to do it's own thing. Give the haters a classic mode they will probably scoff at and get bored with within a year. But I hope they lean in to the age mechanics and try to make the ages exciting. Civ switching is what it is, it's whatever. The gold in the design I want them to refine is the age mechanics. I want the 3 ages to feel very different and unique. I can tell that they were wanting this too but they have a very long way to go to achieve it. Each Age is just a reflection of the others with different 3d models.

 

[user343744]

Give the haters a classic mode they will probably scoff at and get bored with within a year.

If it had a Classic Mode, I would at least buy it.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Immersion =/= historically accurate i'd add.

Immersion is about plausibility within a fantasy concept. Civ previously has been about all the significant civilizations in real world history being plucked out of time and faced off against each other, reset back to the end of the stone age in 4000 BC to see who can stand the test of time. In that context, American archers are immersive and plausible. It's not plausible (to me) that the Maya collapses and re-emerges as Songhai. It's also just not fun to me - it takes your agency and choice and tells you "these things have to happen, you've had enough fun with that, now play with this".

 

[Kev1916]

Not to invalidate anyone's view but I don't understand how civ switching "in any form" can be immersion breaking. America was once part of England's empire which was once part of Rome's. se who are struggling instead of those who are winning.

I think part of your misunderstandings, may be in part be due your inaccurate opening paragraph.

 

[UWHabs]

Here’s my opinion:
Civ switching is mostly positive, I like having different bonuses that stay relevant through the different ages and losing the bonuses from the previous age doesn’t bother me. I'm also not bothered by choosing three different civs that are not historically related. For some reason the system just makes sense to me if I consider it within the game context, I don't know how to put it. Side note: my very first civ game was Civilization Revolution, where your civ had gained a new bonus every time you entered a new age. I always loved that aspect of the game.
The problems I have lie in the ages system. I agree with the intention of making late game decisions more important and having some soft resets to limit snowballing. However, something seems off with the execution. It's hard for me to pinpoint exactly what's the core problem, but here's some things I don't like:

• Buildings unlocked late in the tech tree are almost worthless because they are becoming obsolete with the next age transition. You should be excited to unlock advanced techs and higher tier buildings, in reality it has very little impact on your gameplay, and that feels wrong from a player perspective. This is probably correlated to the next point:
• The pacing of the ages seems off somehow, again I cannot tell what exactly is the problem but I'm not convinced about the interaction/balance between the legacy paths and the age duration. I always have the impression of gaming the system to end the age early which makes me miss a section of gameplay that should be there in the last part of the age. This impression is stronger for later ages:
  • Ancient age seems mostly fine, I usually can complete a couple of legacy paths and the age lasts 110-130 turns
  • Exploration age feels too fast, legacy paths are so easy that you can complete all of them and end the age in 60-80 turns
  • Modern age is even worse because you can just focus on your chosen win condition and end the game in 30-60 turns. This is especially bad because it makes basically the entire content of the modern age (wonders, civ abilities/uniques) feel way less important.

The positive thing is that it seems they're actively trying to work on incremental fixes on age transitions and legacy paths, so I'm still hopeful they can find the right balance to make the game more enjoyable for me. I didn't play a game on 1.2.3 yet so I can't say what's the impact of the continuity setting and the change to obsolete building yields.

Yeah, all the issues are related, pacing between the ages definitely needs some more balance. I like the exploration era, but to me, it's the first era where things can really swing out of control fast. Like even if I snowball in the antiquity, maybe I'll get some crazy science numbers to be able to run future tech a couple times, but by the time I've gotten there, the era has gone fairly deep already that it's fine if it runs out a little quicker.

But exploration you can start the snowball very early on, and I definitely find myself with some civs to be spinning out of control before I really get a handle. It's very easy to just suddenly be speedrunning the techs, but you haven't set up your distant lands settlements, and so you struggle on the econ path. Or just you set up your empire in such a way that you're just converting everything to cities, and buying everything in there for super cheap.

Which is ok in some ways, but it does give an imbalance in how you can relate to the civs. If I've only barely unlocked the last tradition for the civ I'm playing as and the era is already more or less half over, I'm not getting as engaged with the civ. I do think the guaranteed 10 turn cooldown will help, I haven't played with it yet, give you a little more time in the crisis, and at least make sure you have a section where you're no longer upset that your civ is generating bonkers science.

I do wonder if maybe the legacy paths should also scale with difficulty levels somehow. Like if it was 5 tiles with 40 yields as a base, but at Immortal it was 8 tiles with 45 yields to get the full points, and at Deity it was 10 tiles with 50 yields? Then at least at the higher levels you're not speedrunning the legacy points, and might have a few more games where you get shut out. If you do that, and maybe scale some of the tech costs and yields, it would be nice to stretch the exploration era more into the 80-100 turn range at least, and also make it hard enough that it doesn't feel like a failure if you don't go 4/4 on the legacy paths.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

You can't un-link civ switching with Age switch. You can't.

First, we need to redesign the Age switch to just two big, apocalyptic events like a massive Vulcanic explosion or Metorite impact that plunge the Earth
into either a Snowball, Waterworld, or A ball of fire. With Dynamic weather, and the map that updates with current external inputs.

Two events: Bronze Age collapse, and Little Ice Age. That's it. Maybe add some minor event in the middle but not as catastrophic.
The Snowball Earth means Ice and snow covers 90-95%% of the map. Everyone dies out except 10%-5% of global population.

IN this mechanic, your civ is brought to the brink of extinction, and could be given a choice to "detach" with a migrant... and start a new civ....
your "OLD" civ would NOT DIE... at least not immediately...

Civ "switch" should be allowed throughout the game, at every time, regardless of Age switch, but it's NOT cool to extinguish your old civ or any other civ...

Naturally new civs would unlock with time, and the map would fill naturally as new migrants pop up and found new civs...

NOW... you want to start with USA in 4000BC... that is another question...
should we let all civs available from the start and have their unique bonuses unlock with time as it has always been?
I think so. Thats's the best of both worlds.

I didn't vote. Because Age shift is too important.

PS: Let's hypotize your civ dies out of starvation, and your capital turns back into a settler... because now you are in the middle of a GLACIER, and have
to move away... the game would force you to found a "NEW" civ. But you should always be given the option to refund your old civ. Or choose a new one...

But I want to keep all my buildings...
nonsense.
As nonsense is to force your settler to found your city on the walls of an ancient city that was built there before... aka fixed city positioning.
The Age shift mechanic has been done poorly as the map with dynamic weather and this is the results.
Gamers will keep whining that in the old Civ everything was fine...

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Yeah, all the issues are related, pacing between the ages definitely needs some more balance. I like the exploration era, but to me, it's the first era where things can really swing out of control fast. Like even if I snowball in the antiquity,

I agree 100% here.
Let it Snowball. But also WaterBall and FireBall.

 

[uppi]

I do wonder if maybe the legacy paths should also scale with difficulty levels somehow. Like if it was 5 tiles with 40 yields as a base, but at Immortal it was 8 tiles with 45 yields to get the full points, and at Deity it was 10 tiles with 50 yields? Then at least at the higher levels you're not speedrunning the legacy points, and might have a few more games where you get shut out. If you do that, and maybe scale some of the tech costs and yields, it would be nice to stretch the exploration era more into the 80-100 turn range at least, and also make it hard enough that it doesn't feel like a failure if you don't go 4/4 on the legacy paths.

On Deity, the AI is very capable of finishing the culture and science legacy paths in exploration. Which means it is usually them pushing the counter not you.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

ling instead of those who are winning. There are many ways you could do this and many other ways you can inject flavor and change the entire tone and pacing of the game. To rule everything o

If I had to grade your intervention it would be a "out of context".
Sorry but it seems you are deviating too much from a single pool question.
Winning, tone, pacing...
I didnt vote, because Age switch is too important as a mechanic, but don't brag about other stuff...
concentrate on the mechanic, otherwise it's really easy to go "out of context"...