What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Kev1916]

Nah, if we are going to use that analogy it's more like you go to watch Arsenal play, in the second half they bring on some subs, they change formation, they play more attacking, maybe they go with a more direct style.

I mean you could keep making analogies all day, the complaints about Civ switching still don't make any real sense if you actually look at the things that actually change in the game when you change civs.

Your at it !, With Civ Switching and using Arsenal .

At the start your cant go and watch Arsenal , because your not given that choice !!

But Arsenal had a famous goal keeper Davie Seaman, and his last match for England lost a goal to Artim Šakiri who was from Macedonian.

So you first have to watch FK Kukësi play then, What NO you cant watch Arsenal ?? ,

Nope, thou Artim Šakiri who's wife was from a region of Sweden and who's cat supported Halmsted , Means that you must then watch Halmstads Bollklubb.

Then after watching that game , because Freddie Ljungberg played for Halmstad then moved to the Arse
You can sit back and be bored playing as Arsenal ..

Civ Switching logical and as clear as Skånsk spettkaka Cake

 

[McSpank01]

Yeah, i was playing a China which had some stuff from Han, some from Ming... which is what i said, a sum of dinasties and not just one. A FULL China

But that isn't a full China is it. China has a long history based on many dynasties and leaders and time periods. In Civ 6 all you got was a generic asian faction that had some special bonuses and UU and UBs in one era. That applies to basically all the factions.

I am not asking for realism in the buildings, the point is that those buildings, that of course werent equal to reality because America was not in antiquity, were the buildings of that Civ in the game

No but you are asking for something that you literally didn't have in any of the previous Civ games either and throwing your toys out of the pram because you are not getting it. You never really had an 'empire to last the test of time', you had a generic boilerplate empire that was only ever different and unique for a tiny portion of the game and was mainly defined by a name and an icon. So essentially you could get all that in Civ 7 if you just had the ability to customise your faction name and icon. If you wanted to play as America you could pretty much do that then, and ignore all the bonuses you'd get from civ switching till modern era.

The buildings change to architecturally Spanish buildings, your leader is referred to as the leader of Spain, and you play with Spain's bonuses.

What is the difference between a exploration age roman building and a spanish one? Rome didn't even exist in the Exploration age, what do you imagine their buildings would look like?

What I mean by Spanish flavor is that you can now build conquistadors. You have new Spanish themed traditions to improve naval gameplay. New Spanish UBs that clash against those Greek ones. Literally, the gameplay is tailored to shout "You're Spain!" In your face.

The game actually allows you to basically ignore all the Spanish stuff if you don't want to play with it. You don't have to do their civic tree, you don't have to build their buildings, you don't have to build their units. So really all you are responding to here is the word Spain. Again, if the word Spain is so appalling for you to deal with then yeah go play another game.

Your proposed solution is to stick your fingers in you ears, shut your eyes, ignore your civic tree, ignore your UBs, UUs, and basically play against that civs strategy (play poorly) just to pretend civ switching isn't in the game.

I'm responding to people who demand a 'classic mode' or who want civ to get rid of civ switching. I think they need to consider what that actually means, because I don't think they have actually thought about it. It's all gut instinct stuff that doesn't reflect what happens in Civ 7 or ever happened in any Civ game in the past.

 

[Kev1916]

Rome didn't even exist in the Exploration age,

Maybe edit that line big guy

 

[McSpank01]

Maybe edit that line big guy

Why?

 

[Haig]

Kev1916 how you know about spettkaka and Ljundberg and all that

 

[Kev1916]

Why?

LOL

 

[McSpank01]

LOL

Not an answer mate. What point are you trying to make? You want to talk about the Western Roman Empire, which was gone by the point of the Exploration age, or the Eastern Roman Empire which has been represented by Byzantium in previous Civ games. Even then that was basically taken over by the Ottomans by a point in the Exploration age.. unless you want to say the Roman empire SWITCHED to the Byzantium empire and then SWITCHED to the Ottomans? Surely that never happened.. how did they have an empire that lasted for all time!

 

[Kev1916]

Kev1916 how you know about spettkaka and Ljundberg and all that

Long time ago and long story , used to on occasion have to work ( party ) in London and often went with friends to highbury stadium , to see the standard 1-0 win

Then often met some of the players in "exclusive" night clubs including the bold Freddie , got a signed copy ( worth a fair amount ) of FA cup final were he scored against Chelsea.

Also he played for my team sadly when he was semi retired and moved to Scotland .

 

[Kev1916]

Not an answer mate. What point are you trying to make? You want to talk about the Western Roman Empire, which was gone by the point of the Exploration age, or the Eastern Roman Empire which has been represented by Byzantium in previous Civ games. Even then that was basically taken over by the Ottomans by a point in the Exploration age.. unless you want to say the Roman empire SWITCHED to the Byzantium empire and then SWITCHED to the Ottomans? Surely that never happened.. how did they have an empire that lasted for all time!

Rome the eternal city - which in your head didn't even exist in the Exploration age,

You enjoy your night "pal" Im done with your nonsense .

 

[McSpank01]

Rome the eternal city - which in your head didn't even exist in the Exploration age,

You enjoy your night "pal" Im done with your nonsense .

Huh? So Rome is now just the city? SO this whole time we have been referring to the Roman empire.. we should have been talking about just the city? Sigh. What on earth are you talking about.

 

[aieeegrunt]

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.

Boring like the 6 games that came before that outperformed it?

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

A lot of stuff I’d like to try, but I don’t want to have my civ deleted and replaced offscreen by developer fiat

Twice

No, it wasn't criticism on grammar, it was on the difference in time. Yes. Your claim that it is ridiculous -might- be valid, but you are still comparing two wholly different things. Again, I'm not saying I disagree with your thoughts per se, or whether it's a massive fail or not, I'm saying that V had time to mature, and that 'time' alone is not a sufficient argument in my opinion. In 15 years, people might be stating the same thing about VII saying it really came into its own after a while, and that the newly released IX is absolutely horrible because of 'feature X' that they just implemented.

Player counts tend to reach a peak after launch and then do a decline. I can’t see Civ7 reversing this trend unless some sort of Classic Mode manages to entice back the majority of the playerbase that clearly did not want civ switching/era resets

Civ7 is being played by fewer people than a fifteen year old game. There is no way to spin that

 

[Gorbles]

Player counts tend to reach a peak after launch and then do a decline.

And then can recover. Nobody at this point in time can say that VII won't. Nobody can say much of anything.

There is no real spin here (or rather, let's say there is "spin" on all sides), because it all depends on what the poster in question wants for the game. Do the want it to do well? Do they want it to change? Or do they want it to fail?

 

[King Flevance]

This is simply untrue. My Greek old quarter persists, as do the Greek government traits I've unlocked in the unique civics tree for that Civ, and the names of the cities.

Not sure what is untrue. I didn't say your Greek quarters and traditions no longer exist.

Taking Spain just gives Spain flavor instead. I can't just pick Greek flavor. The point is that the specifically Greek flavor is gone. Civ 1-6 I had that all game. Sure, it diluted as the game went on but once you pick another civ at age transition, the Greek flavor WILL be overpowered by a new civ. Some people do not like that about Civ 7.

You may see the Greek flavor as still there, but for most people when the game is showering you with all these new Spanish flavored abilities we don't feel like we are playing Greece. It doesn't matter if you have a couple old traditions in the civic screen or an Acropolis here or there. Just like if I am playing Rome, I don't suddenly feel like I am playing Egypt if I build the Pyramids in a city and build a bunch of chariots. It's because the rest of the game is pouring Rome flavor at me.

The game actually allows you to basically ignore all the Spanish stuff if you don't want to play with it. You don't have to do their civic tree, you don't have to build their buildings, you don't have to build their units. So really all you are responding to here is the word Spain. Again, if the word Spain is so appalling for you to deal with then yeah go play another game.



I'm responding to people who demand a 'classic mode' or who want civ to get rid of civ switching. I think they need to consider what that actually means, because I don't think they have actually thought about it. It's all gut instinct stuff that doesn't reflect what happens in Civ 7 or ever happened in any Civ game in the past.

I am saying ignoring your civ's uniques is just going to make you play poorly so it is not a realistic alternative to a "classic mode". You pick the civ at age transition should coincide with the strategy you plan to use in exploration. SO you should pick something you plan to use, not pick something you plan to ignore. Also, you chose Spain the first time you ignored my point, I said Chola originally so it is obviously not that I am "appaled by the word Spain" or the word "Chola". My argument is flexible because I am not arguing the shallow name of the civ. That is such an ignorant response. If you have to resort to underhanded debate tactics like that it usually means you are aware that you have lost confidence in your own argument's merit.

Your argument is akin to saying that if someone doesn't like 1UPT then just pretend each tile has 100 or 1,000 units of the same type on the tile. If someone doesn't like leaders like Ben Franklin in the game, just pretend it is George Washington. No matter the problem, just pretend the problem isn't actually there and ignore it.

I get that you are attempting to defend Civ 7's design against those who see little or no merit in it. However, assuming you know their motives in the discussion will only make you worse at debating/discussing anything with them. You have fully shown that you are not willing to actually consider the perspectives of others, but rather you insinuate that they are crybabies who haven't thought this through and should just ignore their grievances. You should not be assuming the intention of others in a discussion but rather trying to see their perspective - not assigning them a strawman perspective for you to tear apart to highlight YOUR perspective. I have explained an actual aspect I understand from those who don't like civ switching as best I could, and I am ok with civ switching, and all you did was dismiss what I was actually saying and then rudely mock me for something I didn't say.

 

[uppi]

A lot of stuff I’d like to try, but I don’t want to have my civ deleted and replaced offscreen by developer fiat

Twice

Your civ does not get deleted. Your borders stay, your settlements stay (and keep their name), your buildings stay on the map, and so on. With the continuity options, also your units stay.

The civ gets a new name and a new icon. I have no idea why this gets overdramatized to the civ dying or being deleted.

 

[McSpank01]

I am saying ignoring your civ's uniques is just going to make you play poorly so it is not a realistic alternative to a "classic mode".

I'm saying that realistically that is exactly what a 'classic mode' would look like in Civ 7. Unless you want to completely redesign each civ so they have something totally unique in every age then that is exactly what is happening. But then that never happened in any of the previous games and I doubt you were up in arms because Rome didn't get a unique modern UU. So what is it you actually want to happen in Civ 7? Do you want to keep your civ throughout all of history but then only ever get special and interesting stuff in one age? If you are so in love with that idea, you can play like that now. Yes it's not optimal and makes the game less fun.. but it's exactly what you are asking for.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Not an answer mate. What point are you trying to make? You want to talk about the Western Roman Empire, which was gone by the point of the Exploration age, or the Eastern Roman Empire which has been represented by Byzantium in previous Civ games. Even then that was basically taken over by the Ottomans by a point in the Exploration age.. unless you want to say the Roman empire SWITCHED to the Byzantium empire and then SWITCHED to the Ottomans? Surely that never happened.. how did they have an empire that lasted for all time!

The Eastern Roman Empire survived well into the Exploration age. The Exploration Age starts in the Dark Ages, Anatolia wasn't conquered by Turks until the 1200s.

No we don't want to say the Roman Empire "SWITCHED" to the Ottomans because that didn't happen in real life. The eastern part of the Empire was still a Roman empire and the Byzantines didn't "switch" to the Ottomans they were conquered by another civilization. Something already represented in past Civilzations. We don't want civ switching especially as it is poorly moddelled in this game. I don't get what you do not understand about that

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

Your civ does not get deleted. Your borders stay, your settlements stay (and keep their name), your buildings stay on the map, and so on. With the continuity options, also your units stay.

The civ gets a new name and a new icon. I have no idea why this gets overdramatized to the civ dying or being deleted.

Your army gets move back to the starting line without any input and you can even have units removed from map if they don't have commanders
You lose your cities which now become shells of themselves
your lose your empire's langauge and naming conventions
Your civilization is quite literally replaced by another that gets their own uniques, cities, etc.

What do you guys think crises and off screen transitions that force civ swapping represent? How do you think London got its "layers"? I'm going to spoil it, it wasn't by just peacefully morphing into completely unrelated ethnic groups and nations at the end of an age. Firaxis clearly is abstracting your empire falling and another rising in its place.

I'm saying that realistically that is exactly what a 'classic mode' would look like in Civ 7. Unless you want to completely redesign each civ so they have something totally unique in every age then that is exactly what is happening. But then that never happened in any of the previous games and I doubt you were up in arms because Rome didn't get a unique modern UU. So what is it you actually want to happen in Civ 7? Do you want to keep your civ throughout all of history but then only ever get special and interesting stuff in one age? If you are so in love with that idea, you can play like that now. Yes it's not optimal and makes the game less fun.. but it's exactly what you are asking for.

What part of this are you struggling with so badly? We want civ abilities that are relevant for the entire game and uniques that apply to their relevant ages , Just like it had been for the past Civ titles we have enjoyed for over two decades

No we can't play like that now like you keep insisting that we can while ages exist, while civ abilities are only relevant for specific ages, and while our enemies switch into complete nonsense civs and gain uniques every age. The game wouldn't be less fun with classic mode like you keep implying, because half the people playing are not even having fun with current ages and civ swapping mechanics. We keep telling you we don't want civ swapping and it seems you're just trying your best to ignore us and tell us what we want isn't fun (despite it being how two sucessful decades of Civ games have worked and VII having less players than V)

Moderator Action: Please stop the personal attacks and trolling. leif [/mod3]

 

[McSpank01]

What part of this are you struggling with so badly? We want civ abilities that are relevant for the entire game and uniques that apply to their relevant ages , JUST LIKE IT HAD BEEN IN PAST TITLES WE ENJOYED FOR THE PAST TWO DECADES.

But they haven't really ever been doing that. There is a small element of individual flavour for each civ, which has been mostly represented by a leader in Civ 6 which is continuous throughout your playthrough, but it is in the most cases only really relevant to one small part of the runthrough. That really isn't very different to what happens in Civ 7, you just aren't thinking about it. In Civ 7 you have a Leader who has continuous abilities throughout the game. You get a series of traditions from your previous civ that follow throughout the game, their UQs stick around. In terms of what you actually lose when you transition to a new civ, it's really very small. Again you are just speaking in broad, clumsy terms without actually addressing what in fact playing these games is like. I suspect you don't actually play Civ 7 at all.

 

[Thrasybulos]

Nobody can say much of anything.

... without Gorbles the Contrarian jumping in ?

Alright, I have zero interest in Civ7 : the game's design is obviously horrendously flawed, and even if it weren't, the franchise headed with V on a path leading in a direction diametrically opposed to what I enjoy in that kind of games.
So not here to add my piece to the kind of entrenched opinions clashes which serve as a substitute for dialogue nowadays, but because I believe I can provide an hint of the answer to the question which was asked here:

Why do (some / many) people hate civ switching?

I recently read the following EU4 AAR: The Three Mountains
Different game, but I believe it provides the needed insight.
In his report, the player explains how he plans successive civilization changes to try and pull off what's apparently regarded as a difficult achievement.

And the parallel with Civ7 hit me.
I don't think people hate civ switching per se... what they hate is forced civ switching.

If it had been an option, completely uncorrelated with Age Transitions (say with instead "unlocking" conditions like certain techs, wonders, GP, whatever), I'd bet you'd have instead people embracing the system, planning their game around abusing the system cleverly timed synergies.
That might even have yielded some actual content for the strategy forum section (imagine that)...

And of course, with it being merely an option, those who prefer the "roleplaying" approach would have been happy too.