What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Siptah]

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.

Indeed. Also, the more common build a civ to stand the test of time doesn‘t work with 7. hence, they thought something entirely new would be best? I agree its more wishy-washy, but centering on individual experience instead of grand history seems to be in line with recent civ games.

 

[Maiq]

Indeed. Also, the more common build a civ to stand the test of time doesn‘t work with 7. hence, they thought something entirely new would be best? I agree its more wishy-washy, but centering on individual experience instead of grand history seems to be in line with recent civ games.

If that was the case then 7 wouldn't be trying to be a whole 3 act story copied from history.

 

[Gorbles]

A lot of this feels like a Ship of Theseus debate.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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

I mean the Mughals were a Persian/Mongol/Turkic people from Central Asia who ended up conquering most of the subcontinent. That's why I think they could at least have been portrayed differently from the rest of the people on the subcontinent.
The rest of India I could agree in past games, but I don't find it wrong to also separate the Tamil/Chola as long as a unified India doesn't exist at the same time. The people in the Southern part have always been different from the northern part.

 

[Niallism]

A lot of this feels like a Ship of Theseus debate.

Yes. And there are a lot of people in the world who - often unconsciously - believe race is an essential part of a nation, whereas I believe it is a social construct that was created during the colonial period for economic and political power.

So, when my Civ changes from predominantly Greek to predominantly Spanish to American, it does, honestly, surprise me and reduce my immersion a bit. But I like the historical realism and the gameplay choices. But for me, it's exactly the same as when my Persians become Aztecs.

This game is deeply opposed to essentialism of any kind. Much of the controversy is really about philosophy, and not videogames.

There is:

State essentialism - a civilization is only the same if it is the same State. Italy is not Rome, France is not the Franks, Iran is not Persia, Russia is not Nordic, the USA is not European.
Historical essentialism - the world could only have turned out this way.
Geographical essentialism - Persians are nowhere near Normans so how could they change.
National essentialism - the Han people are fundamentally different from the Dai Viet.
Racial essentialism - Greece becoming Spain is fine but Normans becoming Meiji Japan would not be.

Me, I stand with Vision. The Ship of Theseus doesn't bother me much. My life has been liminal - I'm tri-cultural, and an immigrant child of immigrant parents. Despite being whiter than Snow White.

But I am sympathetic to people who find 'Civilization 7 - Ship Of Theseus Edition' jarring and unappealing if they accept that I'm not wrong for liking it.

That is the key thing I've taken from here. The people who are anti Civ-switching don't seem able to accept that anyone could actually like it or not mind it. And while, from a business POV, it matters if we are a tiny or significant percentage, that is not something we users should care about, except as consumers who might want more support in the future.

Essentially, this is all about essentialism.

 

[Krikkit1]

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

IRL DISCUSSION PART
No they are not the "same empire" they are the same regions of the world.... the various empires in China in 1900 AD, 700 AD and 500 BC are just about as similar as the ones in Europe 1900 AD, 700 AD and 500 BC... as in not at all other than they have the same name because they are the same geographic area.

The problem is "civilization" incudes things like cultures, traditions, languages, genetic heritage, governments, empires, etc. all mashed up in a hodgepodge

Even in extreme cases of change some is preserved (many place names all over Eastern North America are based in pre-Columbian languages)... and in even extreme cases of stasis a lot is changed.


GAME DISCUSSION PART
In terms of the game... there are two things, mechanics and labels
Some can change often (mechanically: the policies or techs you have, label: the name of your government and units)
Some stay the same the whole game (mechanically: certain civ / leader abilities, label: leader name)

Civ switching takes some things that stayed the same all game and makes them change.

Changing the label applied to your empire is something that they SHOULD have put under complete player control because it doesn't affect the mechanics but allows the player to immerse themselves in the way that they want.

Mechanics switching is a little more complicated, because the age structure means that different abilities/uu/ui etc. are designed for different ages... many work fine outside of it.... but some don't.

This is why they should do a Default Fix where players can change/keep/choose their civs "name" (+city list+graphics style+music, etc. as a package), and then begin slightly longer work on a game mode where civs can have some default abilities if you play them outside of their own era.
ie you can play "Romans" with Roman abilities in Antiquity, "Americans" with Roman abilities in Antiquity, OR "Americans" with default Antiquity abilities in Antiquity.

 

[King Flevance]

I know many people don't care for Humankind, but one of the things I enjoyed about Humankind's civ switching was that it felt more like the civs were impersonating iconic civilizations. You were not playing as the Phoenicians, you were a civ reminiscent of the Phoenicians. I play though Zhou a lot because I like the early stability boost, but I always picture the Zhou reference as just a flavor template. Not that my empire IS the Zhou, just that is the closest relatable civ to my civ. I don't know why I do it, but I suspect it is because the leaders are generic in Humankind. In Civ 7, it is much harder to do this. Being Harriet Tubman of the Mayan Empire with so many unique aspects, it feels like I am playing the Mayans, not some civ reminiscent of them. I do actually try because that mindset actually helps me enjoy civ "switching" as a mechanic.

I would really like to see this same mechanic as just a way to evolve your civ instead. Like if you found 3 cities on the coast, or become suzerain of 3 city states, instead of unlocking a civ - it unlocks an upgrade possible at age transition. So all your old stuff remains but now you gain more geared towards whatever focus you choose. But I digress, it would take more than a simple coat of paint.

I oddly think Civ 7's biggest fault is that they are trying to retell history the same way it happened as much as possible as others have pointed out. This is the opposite of why I play the civ franchise. They want Egypt to get the Pyramids and the Americas to be discovered when Columbus called dibs. Oddly specific design but then want Catherine the Great leading Aksum who will magically transform into the Chola at the same time Ben Franklin's Persia magically transforms into Spain. I understand the mechanical design, but thematically, this is bonkers. And it is laughable they want Egypt to have a bonus for the Pyramids or try to model ANYTHING in real history. Just drop that act at this point. But we are probably on this crazy train full steam ahead. So, I just hope it leads somewhere fun.

 

[Wrenched]

Players are perfectly fine with Civ switching and Civ evolving. Tons of players engage with that concept routinely in games like Europa Universalis, Crusader Kings, Age of Wonders, Victoria, and others. I think the concept needs more scaffolding and and support in Civ.

In other games you may have pressure from your populations, conquered lands, religions, over-extension, or internal division. In Civ 7 the change comes from a club to the back of the head, lights out, black screen, choose a new Civ disconnected from anything that has occurred up to that point.

The design commits a double foul in eliminating all/most creative sandbox engagement with Civilization (along with hard age changes) while not really providing a proper on-ramp to Civ changing.

The design team was so close to a great concept with Civ 6's loyalty. Settle too outside of your Civ's range/influence and your city would flip to the more influential neighbor. There was a great seed of Civ change and Civ evolution there if developed further with more iteration. Would be cool if independent peoples, city states, and other major Civ's have an impression and influence on your Civ/Culture...rather than a club to the back of the head with the necessity to pick a Civ completely unrelated to the existing game state.

I think most players are on board with Civ-change, but the context, lead-up, and presentation needs some work.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Changing the label applied to your empire is something that they SHOULD have put under complete player control because it doesn't affect the mechanics but allows the player to immerse themselves in the way that they want.

In general, I like the ability to rename the civilization. It doesn't change gameplay and if it help some people with immersion, that's great.

However, the problems I see:

1. Narration on loading screen will still mention the original civilization name
2. Civilization names is used in narrative events, so editing Civilization name would require entering separate name for civilization and its inhabitants in different forms. This may look ok for English, but official translations include languages with cases, so for them you may need to enter like 30 forms to make it work without breaking grammar. Or let some AI do it, but it's a challenge with many downsides
3. Part of the immersion breaking is not only your civilization, but others too. Not sure if the game should let player rename AI civilizations as well?

Overall it looks like a territory for mods, not a game feature.

 

[Civinator]

No they are not the "same empire" they are the same regions of the world

And in my eyes this is exactly the entry for a much better handling of the "civ switching" and "goofy-leader" problems in Civ 7, as I have posted it here and at some other places several times:

Firaxis should set the "switching of civs" properly (the territory of a civ defined by the present situation and than former historical situations on that territory, and here avoiding settings when another civ that is participating in the game is dominating that territory, so in the game it is one civ in its different stats und territorial aspects).

"History in layers" is working very well with the methode I described above, as it is shown in the CCM mods for C3C since nearly two decades. A fixed ruler is not needed for the identification of the civs in such a game, as the constant location of the core of the civ and the connection of different rulers during a game to a certain territory is sufficient enough for the identification of such a civ.

 

[Civinator]

However, the problems I see:
Narration on loading screen will still mention the original civilization name

This is no problem for a civ with its different territorial forms.

Civilization names is used in narrative events, so editing Civilization name would require entering separate name for civilization and its inhabitants in different forms. This may look ok for English, but official translations include languages with cases, so for them you may need to enter like 30 forms to make it work without breaking grammar. Or let some AI do it, but it's a challenge with many downsides

If a single modder is able to manage this in the genious C3X mod for Civ 3, Firaxis should be able to do this, too.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

In general, I like the ability to rename the civilization. It doesn't change gameplay and if it help some people with immersion, that's great.

However, the problems I see:

1. Narration on loading screen will still mention the original civilization name
2. Civilization names is used in narrative events, so editing Civilization name would require entering separate name for civilization and its inhabitants in different forms. This may look ok for English, but official translations include languages with cases, so for them you may need to enter like 30 forms to make it work without breaking grammar. Or let some AI do it, but it's a challenge with many downsides
3. Part of the immersion breaking is not only your civilization, but others too. Not sure if the game should let player rename AI civilizations as well?

Overall it looks like a territory for mods, not a game feature.

When the problem is preventing people from buying the game, adding a mod isn't going to get people to buy the game

 

[stealth_nsk]

This is no problem for a civ with its different territorial forms.

Why? You'll still have original civ name in the voiceover.

If a single modder is able to manage this in the genious C3X mod for Civ 3, Firaxis should be able to do this, too.

It's not a problem of coding difficulty - that's really easy. It's a problem of potentially clunky interface (huge forms to fill are not fun thing in the game) and requirement to change all the narrative events for all languages (there are thousands of them per language). Civ3 didn't have narrative events and I don't know which particular mod you're talking about, but I expect it to not handle non-English grammar well. Again, that's something which is ok for mod, but unacceptable for the game itself.

When the problem is preventing people from buying the game, adding a mod isn't going to get people to buy the game

I don't look at features as things to save the game. First, I'm not convinced the game requires "saving". Second, reading the negative opinions on Civ7 here on this forum, I don't think those people would by the game unless it's scraped and rereleased as Civ 6.5. So, I look as potential city renaming as nice flavor touch, not something to make people buy the game.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I don't look at features as things to save the game. First, I'm not convinced the game requires "saving". Second, reading the negative opinions on Civ7 here on this forum, I don't think those people would by the game unless it's scraped and rereleased as Civ 6.5. So, I look as potential city renaming as nice flavor touch, not something to make people buy the game.

Saving is your word not mine, I don't consider it needs saving either so it's a bit weird you quote the word "saving" like that

And I would buy it if they made it appealing to buy. But I'm not buying it so that I need mods for it. I generally don't like or want mods, I want a complete game that appeals to me without that hassle.

I also firmly do not want Civ 6.5. 6 has already been gathering dust in my steam library for 8 years.

 

[Civinator]

Why? You'll still have original civ name in the voiceover.

Because it is no problem to describe the different stats of such a civ and its leaders in the introduction of the game. Here is a screenshot showing a part of the introduction starting a game with Rome/Italy, listing the different leaders of the civ in the four eras of the game in CCM 3 (in the next version even the different names for the 4 levels of that civ will be added):

 

[stealth_nsk]

Saving is your word not mine, I don't consider it needs saving either so it's a bit weird you quote the word "saving" like that

Yeah, sorry. I just encounter that word a lot on this forum in the context of how to make people buy the game.

And I would buy it if they made it appealing to buy. But I'm not buying it so that I need mods for it. I generally don't like or want mods, I want a complete game that appeals to me without that hassle.

I understand, but you're probably a minority here. As seen from polls, the opinions on the game are quite polar, so the majority of people who don't buy the game are not going to buy the game until its core features completely changed.

Because it is no problem to describe the different stats of such a civ and its leaders in the introduction of the game. Here is a screenshot showing a part of the introduction starting a game with Rome/Italy, listing the different leaders of the civ in the four eras of the game in CCM 3 (in the next version even the different names for the 4 levels of that civ will be added):

View attachment 738860

Yes, it's not a problem, but it's completely unrelated. I was talking about letting players rename their civs.

 

[Kev1916]

White mice going around on a wheel makes more sense, to some of the posts on here

35% of pollster’s wouldn’t buy this switch version of Civ with Civ “switching” and the tied in age re-set

No amount of aye but what if or look at this other game or let’s try this or whatever.

This game will only stay in production if the casual console crew buy into it .

For serious 4x PC players they can stick with the current “Civ” games or Endless Legends is just around the corner.

For the record and as previous in AOW4 you do Not change your Civ

 

[Krikkit1]

In general, I like the ability to rename the civilization. It doesn't change gameplay and if it help some people with immersion, that's great.

However, the problems I see:

1. Narration on loading screen will still mention the original civilization name
2. Civilization names is used in narrative events, so editing Civilization name would require entering separate name for civilization and its inhabitants in different forms. This may look ok for English, but official translations include languages with cases, so for them you may need to enter like 30 forms to make it work without breaking grammar. Or let some AI do it, but it's a challenge with many downsides
3. Part of the immersion breaking is not only your civilization, but others too. Not sure if the game should let player rename AI civilizations as well?

Overall it looks like a territory for mods, not a game feature.

The game should pull all mentions of a civ name from the files.(and extra translation isn’t needed if you only use civ names that are already in the game)

as for AI, there should be a setting where they either change every age (like now) or keep the same name each age.(probably based on leader so Isabella would be Spain all 3 ages, Amina could choose Songhai, etc.)

 

[Gedemon]

When the problem is preventing people from buying the game, adding a mod isn't going to get people to buy the game

And most people buying the game would have no interest in the mod.

White mice going around on a wheel makes more sense, to some of the posts on here

35% of pollster’s wouldn’t buy this switch version of Civ with Civ “switching” and the tied in age re-set

No amount of aye but what if or look at this other game or let’s try this or whatever.

This game will only stay in production if the casual console crew buy into it .

For serious 4x PC players they can stick with the current “Civ” games or Endless Legends is just around the corner.

For the record and as previous in AOW4 you do Not change your Civ

While I understand people reluctance to civ-switching in the Civilization series, I really don't see how civ1-6 are "more serious" 4x games than civ7.

 

[Civinator]

Yes, it's not a problem, but it's completely unrelated. I was talking about letting players rename their civs.

Yes, it is unrelated for the topic about letting players rename their civs, but I was talking about civs with their different territorial forms in the sentence you quoted and asked "why".

So I think you agree with my post, that this is no problem for civs in their different territorial forms ?