What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Siptah]

There are antiquity and exploration only games? I thought modern is the only age that can be played on its own?

 

[stealth_nsk]

If I played an antiquity only game I can't win it the same way I would a discovery only age game.

At the moment there are no antiquity-only or exploration-only games. You could choose starting age, not final.

Sure, at some point those game types will be added with their specific victory conditions, but you could treat them like scenarios - separate victory conditions for a separate game option, added much later to the game.

 

[Maiq]

At the moment there are no antiquity-only or exploration-only games. You could choose starting age, not final.

Sure, at some point those game types will be added with their specific victory conditions, but you could treat them like scenarios - separate victory conditions for a separate game option, added much later to the game.

They legit sold it as "play a single age game" and now that doesn't count?

 

[Krikkit1]

They legit sold it as "play a single age game" and now that doesn't count?

Agreed.
But if you wanted a "single non-modern age game" in civ 1-6 well it would have to be domination/score victory only.

What they have is the starts of victories for those single age games.... which unfortunately they don't have yet (hopefully they will also have "just one more turn" for those earlier ages as well.)

 

[WillK96]

Finally someone is talking about this. That is one of things I was actually looking forward to the most - it looks like it was an option in the build of the game they provided the streamers pre-launch, but they did not have age-specific win conditions/projects, only a tallying of legacy points at the end of the age. Maybe the feedback was bad from the streamers and they shelved it?

 

[stealth_nsk]

They legit sold it as "play a single age game" and now that doesn't count?

I'm not saying that it doesn't count, I'm saying those are different game modes.

The original post I replied to was about rules being changed throughout the game and I just pointed out that they do it no more than in previous games.

Playing different settings with altered victory conditions is not the same as changing those conditions within a single game.

 

[Siptah]

Finally someone is talking about this. That is one of things I was actually looking forward to the most - it looks like it was an option in the build of the game they provided the streamers pre-launch, but they did not have age-specific win conditions/projects, only a tallying of legacy points at the end of the age. Maybe the feedback was bad from the streamers and they shelved it?

I don‘t understand why it was scrapped. It should be very easy to implement if the decision is made based on achieved milestones. It’s borderline false advertising.

 

[socratic]

They were really pushing for age transitions early on, so maybe it was scrapped because it went against the overall direction of the game? It’s such an odd exclusion now that we have stuff like Continuity mode

 

[WillK96]

I don‘t understand why it was scrapped. It should be very easy to implement if the decision is made based on achieved milestones. It’s borderline false advertising.

For real - it should be very easy to implement. I think data miners even uncovered the Great Library as the science project/wonder that wins the Antiquity Age science victory. I think they weren't quite ready for all victories in all eras and they shelved it when the feedback was so bad on release.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don‘t understand why it was scrapped. It should be very easy to implement if the decision is made based on achieved milestones. It’s borderline false advertising.

I don't think it was scrapped, we never seen age-specific victory conditions in actions. They just weren't implemented and it's not an easy way to do as they require hell of the balancing and additional content - projects and wonders to build, victory screens with narration and many more - all this for each of 8 new victories.

And yes it's clear that the game was released incomplete on promised features. I think we'll get kind of "full" game around September with those victories, hotseat (another thing from roadmap) and the last portion of planned DLC content.

 

[Krikkit1]

I don't think it was scrapped, we never seen age-specific victory conditions in actions. They just weren't implemented and it's not an easy way to do as they require hell of the balancing and additional content - projects and wonders to build, victory screens with narration and many more - all this for each of 8 new victories.

And yes it's clear that the game was released incomplete on promised features. I think we'll get kind of "full" game around September with those victories, hotseat (another thing from roadmap) and the last portion of planned DLC content.

I'd say December for a full game... ie the last patches before a Christmas sale will hopefully have the ability to rename your civs (partially avoiding the identity problem with civ switching), and things like tags.

 

[Crashdummy]

Is it the core identity though? I don't like Civ switching, but that feels like a very subjective thing to insist everyone agrees with.

When your motto since the start of the franchise, over 3 decades ago, was "Build your empire to stand the test of time" and this entry of the series was forced to change it then you have to admit they went against the core identity

 

[aieeegrunt]

Is it the core identity though? I don't like Civ switching, but that feels like a very subjective thing to insist everyone agrees with.

Am I building an empire to stand the test of time? Or is it deleted and replaced off screen, via developer fiat, twice?

Given the disaster that sales and playercount indicates, it’s safe to say it’s a majority opinion.

Civ6 already had a pretty good potential anti snowball concept in loyalty, it just fell victim to the usual post 4 problem of zero follow through or development

because that takes work

Civ3 had some interesting mechanics surrounding relative culture. If you went all in on military over everyrhing else to rush your neighbours, as per history your conquests ended up being very short lived as your savages were quickly culturally assimilated by the “degenerates” they overran.

I feel like you could refine both those systems together if you did the work

 

[Siptah]

When your motto since the start of the franchise, over 3 decades ago, was "Build your empire to stand the test of time" and this entry of the series was forced to change it then you have to admit they went against the core identity

Technically, there was no forcing to change this motto. You still keep your empire and grow it over three ages. In contrast to history, in which I don‘t think any empire can claim to have existed for more than 1500 years (which is also an exception as longer than 500 years is very rare). Usually, empires crumble a few times in the 6000 years time span of civ. And you can even make a case that this one empire that stood 1500 years changed culture from Latin to Greek.

 

[Leucarum]

Am I building an empire to stand the test of time? Or is it deleted and replaced off screen, via developer fiat, twice?

Given the disaster that sales and playercount indicates, it’s safe to say it’s a majority opinion.

Civ6 already had a pretty good potential anti snowball concept in loyalty, it just fell victim to the usual post 4 problem of zero follow through or development

because that takes work

Civ3 had some interesting mechanics surrounding relative culture. If you went all in on military over everyrhing else to rush your neighbours, as per history your conquests ended up being very short lived as your savages were quickly culturally assimilated by the “degenerates” they overran.

I feel like you could refine both those systems together if you did the work

Your criticisms are valid, but it's not saying that the core of the game is gone. Core identity is still Civ to me. That honestly makes he hope it can be saved.

 

[Crashdummy]

Technically, there was no forcing to change this motto. You still keep your empire and grow it over three ages. In contrast to history, in which I don‘t think any empire can claim to have existed for more than 1500 years (which is also an exception as longer than 500 years is very rare). Usually, empires crumble a few times in the 6000 years time span of civ. And you can even make a case that this one empire that stood 1500 years changed culture from Latin to Greek.

I disagree. China, japan, Greece, India, etc all of them are the same empire that just changed goverment types and culture, which you could ALREADY CHANGE in previous Civs

All of those were better represented in previous Civs than now, and yes, i know there are 3 different "kind of" China and India in Civ 7, but that is a bad attempt to fix the problem Civ switching introduced

We obviously wont agree on this one though, so we will have to agree to disagree

 

[Civinator]

Technically, there was no forcing to change this motto. You still keep your empire and grow it over three ages.

Technically may be, but practically Firaxis/Take 2 did it - and there is a reason behind changing such a traditional strong slogan to an, in my eyes, much weaker wishy-washy slogan.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I disagree. China, japan, Greece, India, etc all of them are the same empire that just changed goverment types and culture, which you could ALREADY CHANGE in previous Civs

I wouldn't necessarily agree that Greece and India are the exact same people as they were thousands of years ago. Though I also never minded any of them being singular civs in previous games and thought there was no need to split off certain "dynasties" to an extent. I do think that a Mughal civ separate from India could have been justifiable in Civ 6, similar to how they had a separate Macedon from the rest of Greek city-states.

To play devil's advocate, I also do agree with the statement that every game you are building an empire to stand the test of time.
It's just this iteration that empire is made up of three different civilizations, instead of one like in previous iterations. Of course they went all in with the "dynasties" part in order to make it work with nations like China and India.

 

[Maiq]

Technically may be, but practically Firaxis/Take 2 did it - and there is a reason behind changing such a traditional strong slogan to an, in my eyes, much weaker wishy-washy slogan.

And walking face first into "what if I believe in having one civ go from stone age to space age" is too funny. They might need a professional troll on the payroll to float some of these ideas by so they don't keep stepping on rakes.

 

[Crashdummy]

I wouldn't necessarily agree that Greece and India are the exact same people as they were thousands of years ago. Though I also never minded any of them being singular civs in previous games and thought there was no need to split off certain "dynasties" to an extent. I do think that a Mughal civ separate from India could have been justifiable in Civ 6, similar to how they had a separate Macedon from the rest of Greek city-states.

To play devil's advocate, I also do agree with the statement that every game you are building an empire to stand the test of time.
It's just this iteration that empire is made up of three different civilizations, instead of one like in previous iterations. Of course they went all in with the "dynasties" part in order to make it work with nations like China and India.

I mean, Macedon has the same roots, but they took a different path, and they are still there today

I wouldnt mind splitting large groups into new Civs, but i do think China and India are the same Civilization, even if some part of their culture, traditions and goverment changed

Empires rise and FALL, they dont change into new Civilizations while remaining the same Empire, but i guess that is just my view on it and others might disagree