What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Crashdummy]

I think it’s quite easy to imagine that if you keep the age system but remove civ switching then the game is going to be more boring, with less to do than before. Hard to see how the game improves.

The 6 previous games were NOT more boring than this one for many of us. And yes, i tried it, for several hours and several games with different Civs untill i decided to uninstall

So i dont know why you think it would be more boring to us when it is exactly what we are telling you is preventing us from playing the game. You are projecting your tastes on us and thinking everyone has to like the same stuff you do. You see, we acknowledge some people like the current system, thats why we ask for a new MODE, not a game revamp.

I do think Civ 8 will not have this features though, at least thats what i would do if i were them

 

[McSpank01]

The 6 previous games were NOT more boring than this one for many of us. And yes, i tried it, for several hours and several games with different Civs untill i decided to uninstall

Those games also were designed with civs to be played all the way through. Civ 7 is not. Civs are age specific in many ways and the game is basically designed with civs switching in mind. It’s not simply a case that you just go to classic mode and voila you are playing civ 6.

 

[Maiq]

I think it’s quite easy to imagine that if you keep the age system but remove civ switching then the game is going to be more boring, with less to do than before. Hard to see how the game improves.

Just like it was easy to imagine the multitude of problems this entire game has from the moment they announced their new features.

 

[Crashdummy]

Those games also were designed with civs to be played all the way through. Civ 7 is not. Civs are age specific in many ways and the game is basically designed with civs switching in mind. It’s not simply a case that you just go to classic mode and voila you are playing civ 6.

I dont want Civ 6. Civ 7 has interesting stuff, so yes just making it so the game doesnt freaking interrupt my gameplay for no reason and forces me to change my civ it would be a HUGE improvement

 

[McSpank01]

I dont want Civ 6. Civ 7 has interesting stuff, so yes just making it so the game doesnt freaking interrupt my gameplay for no reason and forces me to change my civ it would be a HUGE improvement

Yeah you are talking about Ages here though. Thats why I think Ages are the problem .

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Yeah you are talking about Ages here though. Thats why I think Ages are the problem .

Please just listen to us, they are both the problem. We don't want our games cut in thirds and we do't want to arbitrarily have to switch our civs at those points. Both systems are interconnected and designed to justify each other and they BOTH suck and prevent many players from even entertaining this sequel

 

[Crashdummy]

Yeah you are talking about Ages here though. Thats why I think Ages are the problem .

I am talking about both, read the post you quoted again and this time untill the end of the sentence. Its not the ages the ones that forces me to change my civ. Not only that, Ages are used as a tool to change the civs, which was their main objetive so they can sell easier to make Civs for more money

Civ switching is the main issue though, because its what prevents me to play the Civ i want from start to finish, and its what prevents me from picking any Civ i want to start with

 

[Krikkit1]

I wouldn't mind if the civilizations could evolve rather than switch. Let's say that the American civilization represented by the Mississippians wanted to become nomadic horse people, then they would choose the Comanche. And then maybe they could become some sort of alternate western nation like the Jeffersonians. The issue is that the cost of creating animations for each of the required leaders requires too many resources. Old World tackles this differently in that they have tons of different leaders for each faction, and they are all represented by a single portrait. No animation. It would look rather cheap if a AAA publisher like 2K were to go this route, but it would afford them the nimbleness that I think is necessary to pull off the extreme number of civilizations they would need to make Civ switching feel more like evolving.

That’s why they should allow you to keep/choose your name even when you switch bonuses.

So your Mississippians would pick the Mongol uniques (with Mississippian Traditions and already built UIs)….but
You can Choose to
keep Mississippian name/graphics/city list
or
switch to say ?Shawnee graphics/city list and type in “Comanche”
or
just go with Mongol name/graphics/city list

so your new alt-historic Mongol Cav with Mississippi Traditions can be named the way you want.

(and you could have a setting so the AI sticks with the same name as well…just making sure there’s another indicator of what bonuses they have)

It would not solve everything with civ switching…but it would give a much better immersion/identity.

 

[McSpank01]

Please just listen to us, they are both the problem. We don't want our games cut in thirds and we do't want to arbitrarily have to switch our civs at those points. Both systems are interconnected and designed to justify each other and they BOTH suck and prevent many players from even entertaining this sequel

Meh, I think you are all getting hung up on civ switching far more than makes any real sense. That’s why every time you guys talk about out having your game interrupted and the problems you list, it mainly boils down to Age System. Civ Switching is such a minor issue really, very little changes if you don’t want it to change and you barely lose anything at all. This is mountain out of a molehill stuff.

What gets me is the reaction to Civ Switching is pure emotion, logically none of the objections make any sense if you look at both history and literally what happens in the game. It’s just throwing toys out of the pram level stuff

At least with Ages there are clear gameplay issues that people can point a finger at and say ‘that breaks the flow of the game’, with Civ Switching its.. I don’t get to use Legions in the modern era? Like what is the actual problem?

 

[McSpank01]

Look, classic mode basically already exists in the game if you want it to. If you just want to play as Rome, pick Augustus, pick Rome.

Play through antiquity, build all your UU and UB. Then get to exploration. Pick Norman’s, don’t build any of their buildings, don’t build their units. Don’t use any of their traditions but use Roman ones. Rename any cities how you like. Do the same thing in Modern.

There you go, that is going to be the Classic experience in Civ 7. You find that fun, go for it.

 

[Krikkit1]

Look, classic mode basically already exists in the game if you want it to. If you just want to play as Rome, pick Augustus, pick Rome.

Play through antiquity, build all your UU and UB. Then get to exploration. Pick Norman’s, don’t build any of their buildings, don’t build their units. Don’t use any of their traditions but use Roman ones. Rename any cities how you like. Do the same thing in Modern.

There you go, that is going to be the Classic experience in Civ 7. You find that fun, go for it.

It’s not Just the mechanics that concern people…they also care about the immersion. They need a way to be called Rome as they launch their spaceship.

Whether they are called Rome while they have Hussars and no Legions or just no Legions is a different Mechanics issue. (that also bothers some people …but can be separate)

 

[Sagax]

What gets me is the reaction to Civ Switching is pure emotion, logically none of the objections make any sense if you look at both history and literally what happens in the game. It’s just throwing toys out of the pram level stuff

And I’d posit that emotional response does matter in an entertainment product, which video games absolutely are. It’s the same reason why I don’t touch any sci-fi or fantasy based turn-based strategies. Logically, they share the same mechanical foundation and scratch the same gameplay itch as Civ. But you can recommend Endless Space or Endless Legend to me all you want, yet I won’t look into them because those are not the premise or setting that I want.

For better or worse, the Civ franchise has grown out of its dry strategy shell and has been attracting more “sandboxy” and/or narrative-driven players for a while. And there should be a way to improve their experience without sacrificing the game’s vision. One sentiment that grinds my gears from the side of pro-switchers is that somehow an option to keep your civ is seen as infringement on their own gameplay experience. When in reality, if done right it will literally take away zero from them.

 

[McSpank01]

It’s not Just the mechanics that concern people…they also care about the immersion. They need a way to be called Rome as they launch their spaceship.

Whether they are called Rome while they have Hussars and no Legions or just no Legions is a different Mechanics issue.

Riiiight.. so it’s what? The change of a label? An icon? Like come on, break it down.

 

[McSpank01]

And I’d posit that emotional response does matter in an entertainment product, which video games absolutely are

To an extent, how a game makes you feel will determine your enjoyment. The issue with the Civ Switching complaints is that they are just totally emotional and don’t actually connect to the reality of what happens in Civ 7, or in the previous titles.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Meh, I think you are all getting hung up on civ switching far more than makes any real sense. That’s why every time you guys talk about out having your game interrupted and the problems you list, it mainly boils down to Age System. Civ Switching is such a minor issue really, very little changes if you don’t want it to change and you barely lose anything at all. This is mountain out of a molehill stuff.

I just don't understand why detractors here can tell you exactly what they don't like over and over again and how willing and how quickly many of you will try to do mental gymnastics to tell us that we're wrong and we're just not thinking about it correctly and we'd all actually secretly like civ switching. Yes ages being an abrupt interuption are also a problem but no, we don't want to play Arabs that shapeshift into Bugandans. We don't want Ada Lovelace leading Greeks who become Americans either.

What gets me is the reaction to Civ Switching is pure emotion, logically none of the objections make any sense if you look at both history and literally what happens in the game. It’s just throwing toys out of the pram level stuff

If we look at history, the entire world didn't undergo crisis and then every single nation on earth swaps didn't into completely unrelated peoples, nations, and ethnic groups all at th same time and civilizations are not lead by immortal leader. So please don't invoke history into this conversation

At least with Ages there are clear gameplay issues that people can point a finger at and say ‘that breaks the flow of the game’, with Civ Switching its.. I don’t get to use Legions in the modern era? Like what is the actual problem?

No we tell you all the time the problems we have with civ swapping and how it completely destroys our immersion to our original civs/empire and our enemies and then we get hit by a chorus of defenders telling us what we think is "subjective" as a means to dismiss us while they play a game with less players than a 15 year old iteration in the same series

Also spoilers: you weren't using legions in modern era in past civs either (atleast not if you're intelligent)

 

[McSpank01]

No we tell you all the time the problems we have with civ swapping and how it completely destroys our immersion to our original civs/empire and our enemies and then we get hit by a chorus of defenders telling us what we think is "subjective" as a means to dismiss us while they play a game with less players than a 15 year old iteration in the same series

Come on, break down what actually changes in Civ 7 that you don’t like? You are literally just talking about a label and an icon here. You can literally ignore any changes civ switching makes if you want.

Also spoilers: you don't use legions in modern era in past civs either

exactly my point.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Come on, break down what actually changes in Civ 7 that you don’t like? You are literally just talking about a label and an icon here. You can literally ignore any changes civ switching makes if you want.

I want to build an empire that spans the length of time. Not have that time cut into three minigames where my empire is ruined/destroyed off screen and all civilization is replaced by a completely unrelated group of peoples just because Ed Beach told me its time to switch. Civ switching RUINS my immersion to the empire I want to build and even to my civilizations I'm playing against who swap into completely nonsense civilizations while being lead by nonsense choices for leaders. You want call that an "emotional resposnse" sure knock yourself out but don't tell me I don't actually have a problem with Civ swapping

exactly my point.

Your point was silly. I don't want to be build legions in the modern Age, I want my Roman empire to span all of time like it has done without issue for over two decades of my playing this series. I don't want to build a Tubmanian Empire that has to switch from Romans to British to Americans for some odd reason.

 

[WillK96]

Come on, break down what actually changes in Civ 7 that you don’t like? You are literally just talking about a label and an icon here. You can literally ignore any changes civ switching makes if you want.

exactly my point.

Civ was a sandbox historical game (what if the Romans spawned next to the Iroqious and fought a medieval era war against the Zulu). This is destroyed with civ switching. Not only does it lose the sandbox flavor for the player led civ (who is now forced to pick another civ, representing another distinct ethnic group or civilization), but it also forces the AI to evolve into entirely unrelated civilizations. This fundamentally changes the game. No longer can I fight the Indians as the Carthaginians in 1700 AD, even if I roleplay my evolved civ in the way you suggest. Instead, I am forced to fight the Mughals as a Mexico skinned Carthage? That is a material change to a core gameplay mechanic that you cannot handwave away. By the way, the Mughals are led by Napoleon and your Mexico skinned Carthage is led by no one related to either.

 

[ombak]

To an extent, how a game makes you feel will determine your enjoyment. The issue with the Civ Switching complaints is that they are just totally emotional and don’t actually connect to the reality of what happens in Civ 7, or in the previous titles.

As an example, if World of Warcraft was a completely different looking game, with different music, sound effects, quest text and a completely different art choice, but the gameplay layer were exactly the same, the people I met were the same, but I just couldn't get into it and couldn't get past the differences in this hypothetical WoW, you could characterize that as an entirely emotional decision, especially if you had the other experience to compare it to, however, you'd be conflating two very different experiences, even if both are "emotional".

I'm with you on some criticisms being just complaints without substance, but even though I also pointed out that civ switching can be entirely cosmetic, it is closely tied to gameplay choices. Would they have chosen to implement this version of eras without it? Maybe. They certainly could. But how different would it feel? It would be a very different reality, one which might lower the resistance of a lot of players to these mechcanics. Then maybe they could polish those mechanics and move towards civ switching in a more "integrated" way in the future, where you choose new civ bonuses, have a narrative about becoming a horse people like Mongols, or an early industrial power in the modern era, and maybe we'd be in an alternate universe where we arrived at the exact same gameplay and yet everyone who is complaining on these forums might instead be praising the game. We'll never know.

I hope they overcome the criticisms in the long-term and stay on this track gameplay wise, with improvements to transitions and polish in the later eras. But I can't dismiss all criticism of the civ switching as merely emotional when everything is so intertwined and they took so big a swing.

 

[WillK96]

Civ was a sandbox historical game (what if the Romans spawned next to the Iroqious and fought a medieval era war against the Zulu). This is destroyed with civ switching. Not only does it lose the sandbox flavor for the player led civ (who is now forced to pick another civ, representing another distinct ethnic group or civilization), but it also forces the AI to evolve into entirely unrelated civilizations. This fundamentally changes the game. No longer can I fight the Indians as the Carthaginians in 1700 AD, even if I roleplay my evolved civ in the way you suggest. Instead, I am forced to fight the Mughals as a Mexico skinned Carthage? That is a material change to a core gameplay mechanic that you cannot handwave away. By the way, the Mughals are led by Napoleon and your Mexico skinned Carthage is led by no one related to either.

This also goes to another point I haven't seen discussed on this thread regarding civ switching; when I play as Spain in Civ VI and I fight the Egyptians in the Classical era, my head canon is that my "Spain" civilization simply represents the people and ethnic groups that inhabited Spain at the time. I don't think of it as Renaissance Spain with Hernan Cortes fighting Ramses (though some do), I think of it as the Iberian tribes unified and are fighting Ramses. The same goes for someone like the Egyptians - when I launch that spaceship in 1850 AD to win the space race in Civ VI, I don't think of Egypt as the tunic wearing pharaonic dynasty Egyptians launching that ship. I think of it as the relatively modern day Arabic Egyptians. This interpretation was reflected in the architectural changes displayed when you entered a new era. Ancient and Classical Poland's architecture looked northern germanic/slavic, and grew into the Eastern Euroepan architecture we know today. That kind of internal, subtle "civ switching" was destroyed with this current railroad system which forces the player to "change" to drastically different and unrelated (Geographically, Culturally, and Ethnically) civilizations.