What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Lazy sweeper]

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.

You're pushing on a dead chariot...
guys, keep it in touch with the context... please...
where you going???
What has Legacy path has anything to do with Civ switching???
If it's about the mechanic, focus on the mechanic...
They put up the rails for you and you are just following the tracks... you're supposed to go off the track..

 

[socratic]

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

I was actually thinking of removing Russia… Mesoamerica, Egypt, Ethiopia, all examples of civs that could work. Firaxis even showed how they could make other regions work with the Missippippians and Khmer

 

[King Flevance]

I want to reiterate that I am not seeking to invalidate the perspective of others. I was just wanting to point out that the idea or concept of civ switching can be implemented in so many possible ways that to write it off a impossible to implement correctly is short sighted. It has been attempted twice, and failed twice so it certainly has a bad commercial record so far. But it wouldn't shock me if a few years from now, a game comes out that implements it in some way that is a commercial success and is held up as an example of what HK and C7 got wrong.

Immersion =/= historically accurate i'd add.

I agree. I brought up the historical accuracy as it was being referenced as a reference to immersion in regards to no "Exploration Age" ever existed and the idea is immersion breaking because it has a "Eurocentric" perspective on history. I pointed out that it has a 3 act "narrative" told through game mechanics perspective. Age systems are common and 3 ages is the most common number of ages. The Eurocentric title of the mechanic may ruin it for some but it is just a title. Just think of it as simply Age 2.

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".

See, for me, this is not what civ is. So milage will probably vary based on your perspective of the franchise. For me, it is simply an empire 4x game that uses human history as a aesthetic. The first 2 games had 0 uniques. It was just what historic civ did you want to have as a placeholder? So I would be OK if they had America get a unique unit in the ancient age like an eagle archer (based on the great seal of the US) or Rome get a unique unit in modern age of an assassin or something to balance the game. But many would not like the stray from "history" when history was already thrown out the windows on turn 1. We all see it in a different light.

I do agree that 7 does push certain specific narrative every game. But the civ switching doesn't bother me so much as to not enjoy the game. However, I would prefer Civ not keep civ switching in the franchise after this iteration.

 

[King Flevance]

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

What is inaccurate?

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"...

Age switching's main primary benefit is the ability to dynamically change the game's mechanics and parameters. Essentially, the ability to change major rules mid game. (Great for major tech discoveries) The Age mechanic's entire purpose is to orchestrate a structured cycle of modifications where the core mechanics can change drastically. (For the record, Firaxis has not really capitalized on this like they advertised pre-launch) The design benefits from being isolated from the other eras. This means tone and pacing is the point. And it is well known that it aimed to fight against snowballing, so winning also needs to be discussed.

The Age mechanic is not a mechanic in a vacuum. It is actually the central nervous system of Civ 7.

 

[SaxonSpooner87]

Note: civ switching is separate from age transition. Here, let's calculate where we stand on civ switching in particular

Terrible, ruined the whole game, It turned Civ into Humankind... you know the massive flop, Civ 7 is basically Humankind 2 also a massive flop.
Keep in mind that i am a big fan of Civ2,3,4,5,6 and even the Colonization remake on Civ4 engine.

 

[Crashdummy]

I want to reiterate that I am not seeking to invalidate the perspective of others. I was just wanting to point out that the idea or concept of civ switching can be implemented in so many possible ways that to write it off a impossible to implement correctly is short sighted. It has been attempted twice, and failed twice so it certainly has a bad commercial record so far. But it wouldn't shock me if a few years from now, a game comes out that implements it in some way that is a commercial success and is held up as an example of what HK and C7 got wrong.

I never said its impossible, my point is that Firaxis should stop trying it with Civilization, and it should be the companies that make new IPs the ones that should try to find a way to make it work

I think the franchise Civilization is fundamentally incompatible with Civ switching, because the whole franchise was built upon the idea to build a Civilization (a single one) to stand the test of Time. So it should be another IP, with a different premise, the one that should keep trying. That, and the fact that Firaxis already screwed one entry of the franchise with that

 

[Kev1916]

What is inaccurate?

Read it again, it’s wrong.

""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 ""

Hence why you maybe dont understand how Civ Switching can be immersion breaking "in any form" , leaving aside the arrogance\ignorance that England = Britain , Rome didnt conquer the British Isles .,

For Americia change it to Colonist's all couple o million of them ( let's just forget about the other's ,,,)
It's bad enough just now with a company putting in Britain with only English cities , I shudder to think what over "countries" they will try flog to justify you and others Homer Simpson's view off history .

Julius Caesar Roman Statesman and General leader of the British becomes leader of the Americians , aye enjoy your night

 

[GIO888]

I have played Civ since 1992, all iterations - except Civ VII.

I played Humankind and hated it. When Civ VII was announced I was really worried it was Humankind with nicer graphics. I think I was correct, from reviews and cold hard sales statistics thus far.

I am waiting for "Classic" mode - or Gedemon et al to come to the rescue with Mods.

 

[Leucarum]

Rome didnt conquer the British Isles

Umm... Not all of them I guess...

 

[aieeegrunt]

I never said its impossible, my point is that Firaxis should stop trying it with Civilization, and it should be the companies that make new IPs the ones that should try to find a way to make it work

I think the franchise Civilization is fundamentally incompatible with Civ switching, because the whole franchise was built upon the idea to build a Civilization (a single one) to stand the test of Time. So it should be another IP, with a different premise, the one that should keep trying. That, and the fact that Firaxis already screwed one entry of the franchise with that

This gutless trend where people have an idea but are too cowardly to see if it will sink or swim on it’s own so they essentially take an existing popular IP, gut it, and then put the skin of it on their totally different thing is enraging.

Just in the gaming sphere alone we have had Halo, Fallout and now Civ ruined by it.

If Ed Beach wants to make Euro Board Games so badly, go make Euro Board Games.

I have played Civ since 1992, all iterations - except Civ VII.

I played Humankind and hated it. When Civ VII was announced I was really worried it was Humankind with nicer graphics. I think I was correct, from reviews and cold hard sales statistics thus far.

I am waiting for "Classic" mode - or Gedemon et al to come to the rescue with Mods.

Same here. I have wanted a civ game without builders since the first five minutes of my first Call to Power game. I want to try this Influence system and the whole towns vs cities thing too.

But if I wanted Humankind I’d be playing Humankind

Umm... Not all of them I guess...

The Romans looked at Ireland, calculated that it would require the miminal investment of a legion to pacify and hold it, and concluded it wasn’t even worth that

That. That is a pretty savage burn.

 

[King Flevance]

Read it again, it’s wrong.

""Not to invalidate anyone's view but I don't understand how civ switching "in any form"

I wasn't planning on pulling this back up but since I am being asked to explain myself, I originally posted this:

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.

Then this common sentiment was said in response:

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

I dont want to single out CrashDummy here though, I could spend a few extra minutes and grab other quotes on this site (even in this thread - even after that comment was made) or others of people expressing the same notion.

So the notion that civ switching "in any form" won't work -IS- a common sentiment expressed with Civ 7 within the anti-Civ switching crowd.

So that is NOT inaccurate for me to comment, in quotes as a way to tell you I am paraphrasing the sentiment of others that you can easily see in this thread and pretty much anywhere civ switching is discussed.

Hence why you maybe dont understand how Civ Switching can be immersion breaking "in any form" , leaving aside the arrogance\ignorance that England = Britain , Rome didnt conquer the British Isles .,

For Americia change it to Colonist's all couple o million of them ( let's just forget about the other's ,,,)
It's bad enough just now with a company putting in Britain with only English cities , I shudder to think what over "countries" they will try flog to justify you and others Homer Simpson's view off history .

Julius Caesar Roman Statesman and General leader of the British becomes leader of the Americians , aye enjoy your night

First, as pointed out already, Rome did conquer a sizable portion of the British Isles, specifically England. So part of Britain (England) was, at one time, 'part of the Roman Empire'

Second, you are correct, Britain is the correct reference instead of England. In this case Rome conquered most of England, which later became Britain. I did shorthand it to speed up my point and that was lazy.

Thanks for pointing out my arrogance/ignorance.

Third, I want point back to my original post I quoted and once again reiterate that Civ has always been a loose light hearted caricature of history. They do try to be culturally sensitive and open the stage and include as many diverse cultures as they can and be as true to history as they can. But they are human first, game developers second, and history fans third. I would not expect them to never have an oversight.

History has a lot of small details and when -you- are trying to develop a game, spend time with your family, your mower isn't running right and it keeps raining and you need to get you lawn mowed, your car has been acting up, and you have friendly social obligations to meet, etc. I think that Britain having solely English names is something that should be fixed but nothing I am going to be pissed about. It was probably just a simple oversight and humans are prone to error.

However, Civ is not the game I would chase after if I want historical realism. They intentionally keep the mechanics simple as that is the style of game format they have always targeted - which means the realism can only ever be an abstraction. It is good to want it to embody history more accurately but it should be fun and easy to learn first. Encouraging more accuracy is a better tactic than demanding it.

 

[Crashdummy]

I dont want to single out CrashDummy here though, I could spend a few extra minutes and grab other quotes on this site (even in this thread - even after that comment was made) or others of people expressing the same notion.

So the notion that civ switching "in any form" won't work -IS- a common sentiment expressed with Civ 7 within the anti-Civ switching crowd.

So that is NOT inaccurate for me to comment, in quotes as a way to tell you I am paraphrasing the sentiment of others that you can easily see in this thread and pretty much anywhere civ switching is discussed.

Dont worry about singling me out, i dont have a crystal skin. Yes, i might have gone too far in that comment, the idea might work in other games with a different implementation

I do think it wouldnt work on Civ though, because the franchise is already attached to the idea of taking a single Civ and make it stand the Test of Time, which goes against the idea of Civ switching

 

[aieeegrunt]

Dont worry about singling me out, i dont have a crystal skin. Yes, i might have gone too far in that comment, the idea might work in other games with a different implementation

I do think it wouldnt work on Civ though, because the franchise is already attached to the idea of taking a single Civ and make it stand the Test of Time, which goes against the idea of Civ switching

The Rhys and Fall mod for civ and the game History Of The World both had Civ switching mechanics that were well recieved

Both operated on the principal of new powerful challengers arising to try and topple existing empires. In both cases the player had a choice whether to try and prevent their existing empire from falling, or taking control of the new civ and trying to overthrow the existing empire.

I think a BIG reason they worked was because you as a player had a choice about it.

It you were hitting the dreaded Late Game Fatigue effect and were sick of next turning it, you could instead switch gears and go back to expanding and warring and conquoring.

If you wanted to see if you could make your civ go the distance and have Ancient Egypt eventually put a sphinx on the moon, you could do that too.

In any case you at least had some say in the matter, and actually got to play out the crises, which is probably going to be the most fun part of the game regardless of which side you are on.

 

[Crashdummy]

The Rhys and Fall mod for civ and the game History Of The World both had Civ switching mechanics that were well recieved

Both operated on the principal of new powerful challengers arising to try and topple existing empires. In both cases the player had a choice whether to try and prevent their existing empire from falling, or taking control of the new civ and trying to overthrow the existing empire.

I think a BIG reason they worked was because you as a player had a choice about it.

It you were hitting the dreaded Late Game Fatigue effect and were sick of next turning it, you could instead switch gears and go back to expanding and warring and conquoring.

If you wanted to see if you could make your civ go the distance and have Ancient Egypt eventually put a sphinx on the moon, you could do that too.

In any case you at least had some say in the matter, and actually got to play out the crises, which is probably going to be the most fun part of the game regardless of which side you are on.

Be careful on takings mods popularity and extrapolating it to the whole playerbase

Very few people play with mods. I do think it any implementation of Civ switching works, it must be optional, but i just dont see it working on Civilization

 

[Hannibal XIII]

I voted the bottom option in the poll, but that is in large part due to how Civ switching and eras are implemented in Civ 7 (forced switch, nonsense like Egypt-Songhai-Buganda, eras that skip over hundreds of years between each other and tie in to other badly-implemented discovery and religion mechanics) that leave the game looking like three bad-to-mediocre scenarios stacked one on top of the other in a trenchcoat.

Civ switching as a broader concept, OTOH, I can be persuaded towards. I enjoyed Rhyes and Fall all those years ago.

To me, player choice is a must-have -- I want to be able to choose whether to switch and to fullt experience the downfall or transition my society experiences.

However, a more thorough representation of things like the fall of Rome and the Volkerwanderung or other civ-transitions worldwide would also need other more fleshed out mechanics.

I think the barbarians/independent peoples would really hrlp. You could be conquered by Geiseric of the Vandals or a North American indigenous group and leader (which lets be real are much more akin to city-states or independent peoples given their IOTL lack of real urbanism) or whoever and adopt some of that peoples values, mechanics or culture while keeping the name and core identity of your old one.

This could allow for "foreign elites" mechanics, like the Yuan Mongols and Qing Manchu over the Yuan, or the early Umayyad Arab domination of Iranians and other peoples, or the Germanic kingdoms slowly becoming the post-Roman peoples we know today.

Or you could choose a more thorough replacement, perhaps after a period of disease or prolonged warfare or climate collapse. Teotihuacan into the Triple Alliance, the Anglo-Saxon migration, Pagan and the Mon replaced by the Bamar, the Turkish conquest of the Byzzies. This could be the space for replacing a full civ with another full civ.

Or you could, as we all did for decades, build one civilization to stand the test of time from the advent of agriculture to the stars.

The way they did it for Civ 7 is too rigid and not fleshed out enough to go for what they were trying for. Taking away choice, especially for a system as half-assed as the one they gave us, earned this game the lower sales and divisive reputation it currently has.

 

[Pfeffersack]

(...)

I am waiting for "Classic" mode - or Gedemon et al to come to the rescue with Mods.

Gedemon already released a "Classic Civ" mod as alpha version, which allows to play without civ switching: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/classic-civ.695614/

Another mod ("Enduring Empires") was recently published in the Steam Workshop, heading the same direction (though without the option to play advanced civs in prior eras)

 

[Krajzen]

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.

To enhance your post neatly explaining the main problem with the civ switching, there's one more thing I'd like to add.

There is an big difference between
"Oh you see, civ switching is realistic, because IRL Polish people are also a hybrid of many peoples: they mainly have genes of A+B+C (input three European genetic populations very very close to each other relative to the global diversity), and were mainly influenced by the languages C+D+E (input three European languages very very close to each other relative to the global diversity), and the vast majority of their culture and institutions comes from E+F+G (input three main European sources all ultimately being very very close to each other relative to the global diversity), and over the millenium they have experienced an evolution from one sort of Central European Catholic Slavic civilization to another sort of Central European Catholic Slavic civilization..." *
*-yes I know Polish culture also got a trillion things from the Middle East and China and Africa etc it's not the point here, I mean MAIN influences!!

...and the civ7 jump of Polish people in civ suddenly becoming some black African people speaking Bantu language and with a proud cultural traditions of the oceanic trade and jungle warfare

Yeah well sure I'd be fine with the civ "switching" (rather "evolution") being some sort of steady influence of the nearby cultures, institutions, languages and genes intermingling with your people in this particular corner of the world, thereby going through Silla Korea to modern Korea. Too bad the reality is that my black people loving forests, cavalry and culture suddenly become white people and now they love deserts, infantry and money. Gee what an immersive historical lesson in how cultures subtly change over millenia, truly a clever blow to the naive essentialist nationalist narratives

Modern Norwegian still has a lot in common with the Germanic language that was spoken there two millenia ago, it hasn't been the jump four language families away with nothing remaining from its Roman-era past - which is how such change looks and feels in civ7. It's not a "subtle modern historical discourse grasping the cultural change over millenia", it's a sudden jump from blue elephants to red sharks, with the two having nothing in common.

It's not the gradual evolution of cultures, it's the sudden replacement of cultures. Of course it's immersion breaking, where did my Asians go???

 

[Gorbles]

...and the civ7 jump of Polish people in civ suddenly becoming some black African people speaking Bantu language and with a proud cultural traditions of the oceanic trade and jungle warfare

Assuming this is a combination that actually happens ingame (and I'm being charitable, because Poland . . . isn't in) . . . this would be something the player chooses.

Player choice is good. If this isn't something you'd ever choose, then that's the system working as intended. Unexpected; jarring transitions are less good (bad, even). I've often asked if improving that transition itself would help at all. People often say "no", because their problem doesn't seem to be the transition itself. Their problem seems to be that civs "evolve" at all. Which is hilariously ahistorical!

So what do the devs choose? Ahistorical option A, or ahistorical option b?

The answer is, of course, "the one I want". But that gets tricky when you have hundreds of thousands of fans, and these design decisions need to be locked in months before the release of a game.

 

[Crashdummy]

So what do the devs choose? Ahistorical option A, or ahistorical option b?

The answer is, of course, "the one I want". But that gets tricky when you have hundreds of thousands of fans, and these design decisions need to be locked in months before the release of a game.

The answer is the one that proved to be popular among YOUR playerbase for over 3 DECADES over the one that still has to be successful with ANY playerbase

 

[Gorbles]

The answer is the one that proved to be popular among YOUR playerbase for over 3 DECADES over the one that still has to be successful with ANY playerbase

If that were the answer, then no sequel would ever do anything different. Your answer is the one I already said: "the one you want" (or are happy with, if that's an acceptable substitution). Nobody is psychic. Every change is a gamble, from the small ones to the big ones.

The devs have been pretty open about how this time they went for a big one. That comes with risk. It hasn't paid off yet, as much as I'd like it if it did. I was as fond of VI, and that turned out great.