What's your opinion on civ switching?

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think I like the idea of optional civ switching. From pure gameplay perspective it looks something like "the worst of both worlds". Like civ switching has its issues, but it solves the problem of early vs. late civs and fits teh age transition concept nicely. If civ switching is optional, the options to switch or not to switch should be balanced against each other, so how it should look like? If we balance against current game approach, we'll need to have a version of each civilization for each age, so instead of 39 current civilizations developers would have to implement 117? Ok, even if we don't recreate earlier version of civs (so, for example, we have Greece for all 3 ages, Mongols for exploration and modern and America for modern only), that's still 78 civs in current approach! And I don't think people will like this uneven thing where you could play ancient civs for 3 eras, but modern age civs only for one.

I think things like this work in more simulation games like those made by Paradox. For strategic games where gameplay is the most important thing, like Civ, I doubt that would work.

 

[McSpank01]

I totally agree that forced gameplay and pushing players into changing civs is simply a poor choice and will create a instinctive level of pushback. I also was quite anti it when I first heard about it. In reality I don't think Civ Switching feels that intrusive at all, in many cases it feels pretty logical. I can totally get immersed going from Rome all the way to America and it makes perfect sense in my head. I keep going back it, but the game is actually not as punishing when it comes to Civ Switching as people claim, the developers really have for the most part allowed players to retain many things from the past so your civ is a culmination of all the choices you have made leading up to that point.

Absolutely I can imagine a world where this is all a lot smoother and more organic. I've laid out ideas for how to improve it in the past.

This is why I still believe Ages are the key problem most people really fight against, even if they think it's something else. Ages mean you need to make your civ switch at a certain time, you don't have a choice. Its a board reset and fade to black. Ages mean each Civ has to be specific to a certain gameplay loop, you really cannot have civs who are the same for all 3 ages, it wouldn't work. I do wish they had not implemented such hard and fast ages, and instead had just made the game more singular.

 

[King Flevance]

Or you can create a "generic ancient" civ, a "generic exploration" civ and a "generic modern" civ with no uniques in those eras. Then you bypass civ selection screen and instead automatically have the game select the civ you chose at start up in it's correct age but in the 2 other ages have it automatically select "generic X" civ. So each civ only gets 1 era with a unique civic tree and unique stuff. And in the other eras, you lean on the leader you pick. Then have it work the same way for AI opponents. So that "France" is in the ancient age but is generic until the modern age.

That would be an easy way to implement a classic made by simply copy and pasting things already in the game and adding 1 new prompt on the age transition screen.

 

[Gorbles]

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.

And you're labelling me a contrarian?

How about we do away with labels entirely. Feels better that way.

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:

The fact that you added your piece regardless (or at least a short summary of it) aside . . .

Do you believe that your opinions on VII, in that its "design is obviously horrendously flawed", has no impact on your perception of the answer you're trying to give? Do you believe you've successfully separated out your own personal distaste from analysing the general sentiment?

Because I think you can. But I believe that goes for anyone, in theory. Including folks who like this game as-is. Which is why we should respond to the posts people actually make, instead of the images we hold of them.

To your theory specifically, a lot of things can be framed as "forced". You could say, in theory, you're forced to build cities (settlements, here). Or that you're forced to build an army. Games in general force you to engage with the systems considered necessary for that game's design.

But at the same time, forcing players on a narrow path restricts them. This generally isn't good. So you want to force them, ideally, but you don't want them to feel forced. Making an entire gameplay system optional only fulfills one of these goals.

 

[Maiq]

Or you can create a "generic ancient" civ, a "generic exploration" civ and a "generic modern" civ with no uniques in those eras. Then you bypass civ selection screen and instead automatically have the game select the civ you chose at start up in it's correct age but in the 2 other ages have it automatically select "generic X" civ. So each civ only gets 1 era with a unique civic tree and unique stuff. And in the other eras, you lean on the leader you pick. Then have it work the same way for AI opponents. So that "France" is in the ancient age but is generic until the modern age.

That would be an easy way to implement a classic made by simply copy and pasting things already in the game and adding 1 new prompt on the age transition screen.

Something like that is such a no-brainer that I am shocked they didn't build that as a "break glass in case of emergency" option.

 

[WillK96]

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?

These kinds of comments demonstrate the extreme bad faith in which you continue to argue. Have you seen buildings from Rome from the medieval or renaissance periods? What about Ravenna? What about Milan? Now compare those to buildings in Sevilla, Madrid, Bilbao, and Cadiz. Similar? Sure. Significant differences? Yes.

I do not understand why you continue to attack everyone else saying "you can play classic civ right now, you're just concerned about the name [which you seem to think is an illegitimate concern]." That is fundamentally not true. You are unable to engage in the gameplay systems of the age without using the the civilization designed for that age. You may enjoy that, that's fine. But many do not and our concerns and critiques are valid.

 

[WillK96]

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.

I want to be able to explore the new world with Carthage. Thanks.

 

[notNamed]

Something like that is such a no-brainer that I am shocked they didn't build that as a "break glass in case of emergency" option.

It takes quite a bit of resources to implement this sort of functionality thanks to the amount of unique things and decisions that need to be made per each civ added to the game. And updated along the way (every time there is any new civ added) as well, of course.
Humankind had the feature fully developed and... people still complained about these things all the same. Next to nobody actually used it (3.1% for Civ 7's 2 age run, 2.7% for a full 3 age run using the same civ).

If you're a producer of a project that is struggling to even get the most basic UI done, it's an obvious feature that stands no chance when it comes to effort/effect analysis.

 

[McSpank01]

These kinds of comments demonstrate the extreme bad faith in which you continue to argue. Have you seen buildings from Rome from the medieval or renaissance periods? What about Ravenna? What about Milan? Now compare those to buildings in Sevilla, Madrid, Bilbao, and Cadiz. Similar? Sure. Significant differences? Yes.

How is it bad faith? How is the graphical difference between Spanish or Norman housing in Civ 7 any different to the generic European housing used for medieval times in Civ 6? People keep accusing me of bad faith or trolling, but I’m absolutely not, you are just not able to answer basic questions.

I do not understand why you continue to attack everyone else saying "you can play classic civ right now, you're just concerned about the name [which you seem to think is an illegitimate concern]." That is fundamentally not true. You are unable to engage in the gameplay systems of the age without using the the civilization designed for that age. You may enjoy that, that's fine. But many do not and our concerns and critiques are valid.

It is true. You cannot even define what a civilisation even means. Every time anyone does it basically boils down to a name and an icon. Previous games weren’t giving you these civs that covered all of history at all, so why pretend like you lost something so precious.

I want to be able to explore the new world with Carthage. Thanks.

what does this actually mean though? So if your civ was named Carthage and not Spain would you be ok? Would you be ok with 0 unique buildings or units during the rest of the game?

 

[Crashdummy]

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.

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.

I'm done with this discussion, you clearly dont want to understand our points and keep asking us to ignore 80% of the game so it then can fit your narrative

 

[fantsu]

It takes quite a bit of resources to implement this sort of functionality thanks to the amount of unique things and decisions that need to be made per each civ added to the game. And updated along the way (every time there is any new civ added) as well, of course.
Humankind had the feature fully developed and... people still complained about these things all the same. Next to nobody actually used it (3.1% for Civ 7's 2 age run, 2.7% for a full 3 age run using the same civ).

View attachment 739619

If you're a producer of a project that is struggling to even get the most basic UI done, it's an obvious feature that stands no chance when it comes to effort/effect analysis.

They wanted to sell mediocre game with full price and then get some.
Paradox-style but with no love. VII is a bad game as an 4X. They relied on previous fame without any passion.
Hard cold facts. But they have talent still remaining. I just think this time their luck is up.
VII has less longevity than quality mobile game. Its just the dressing on the cake.

 

[McSpank01]

I'm done with this discussion, you clearly dont want to understand our points and keep asking us to ignore 80% of the game so it then can fit your narrative

That’s fine, I knew you couldn’t answer basic questions with facts , it’s just pure emotion. Maybe that’s relevant but I don’t want to pretend it’s useful to the discussion

 

[Crashdummy]

I don't think I like the idea of optional civ switching. From pure gameplay perspective it looks something like "the worst of both worlds". Like civ switching has its issues, but it solves the problem of early vs. late civs and fits teh age transition concept nicely. If civ switching is optional, the options to switch or not to switch should be balanced against each other, so how it should look like? If we balance against current game approach, we'll need to have a version of each civilization for each age, so instead of 39 current civilizations developers would have to implement 117? Ok, even if we don't recreate earlier version of civs (so, for example, we have Greece for all 3 ages, Mongols for exploration and modern and America for modern only), that's still 78 civs in current approach! And I don't think people will like this uneven thing where you could play ancient civs for 3 eras, but modern age civs only for one.

I think things like this work in more simulation games like those made by Paradox. For strategic games where gameplay is the most important thing, like Civ, I doubt that would work.

You dont have 39 Civs, you have 39 thirds of a Civ. You wouldnt have 117 Civs, you would have 39 full Civs like in the previous 6 entries

And no, if you cant pick every Civ to start with, then it wouldnt really be a good change either

Optional Civ switching could work if you dont get forced to go to the Civ selection screen anyway, which as i stated breaks the flow of the game and the immersion

Or you can create a "generic ancient" civ, a "generic exploration" civ and a "generic modern" civ with no uniques in those eras. Then you bypass civ selection screen and instead automatically have the game select the civ you chose at start up in it's correct age but in the 2 other ages have it automatically select "generic X" civ. So each civ only gets 1 era with a unique civic tree and unique stuff. And in the other eras, you lean on the leader you pick. Then have it work the same way for AI opponents. So that "France" is in the ancient age but is generic until the modern age.

That would be an easy way to implement a classic made by simply copy and pasting things already in the game and adding 1 new prompt on the age transition screen.

The civics trees would need to be be specific for all three eras. Buildings and units can be generic (most of them are already)

 

[uppi]

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

Not anymore (by default)

You lose your cities which now become shells of themselves

Not if you are playing well and decide not to let them revert to towns

your lose your empire's langauge and naming conventions

Yet the settlements and their names all stay

Your civilization is quite literally replaced by another that gets their own uniques, cities, etc.

You change you uniques, but that does mean your "civilzation" is "literally" "replaced". What your civilization built remains.

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.

London was abandoned at the end of Antiquity and was mostly a town for the next 400 years until the Anglo-Saxons and the Normans built it up again (sounds familiar?). And then the transition from Norman-ruled London to the present day British city was a more or less peaceful morphing of Normans and Anglo-Saxons (and not so peaceful integration of other cultures). It was not violence that made the ruling class of England switch from French to English (and the current King is still a descendant of William the Conqueror)

 

[WillK96]

How is it bad faith? How is the graphical difference between Spanish or Norman housing in Civ 7 any different to the generic European housing used for medieval times in Civ 6? People keep accusing me of bad faith or trolling, but I’m absolutely not, you are just not able to answer basic questions.

The architectural style of Spain or Normans in Civ 7 is intentionally detailed to contrast. Spain uses a Mediterranean architectural style and the Normans use a Northern European style. While Spain feels more like what Rome would've looked like in Civ VI, it is not the same and has a distinct Spanish flavor. So yes, I think if you played as Rome, I would prefer a more generic Mediterranean style without the Spanish influence (because Spain is the only Mediterranean civ on release, their architecture heavily influenced the base design). Also - in Civ VI - the Spanish, French, Germans, Rome, and Greek cities do not look identical in the medieval era - as you appear to suggest here.

It is true. You cannot even define what a civilisation even means. Every time anyone does it basically boils down to a name and an icon. Previous games weren’t giving you these civs that covered all of history at all, so why pretend like you lost something so precious.

In every civ game prior to Civ VII, a civilization referred to either a (1) nation-state/empire representing a certain people (think Rome or Egypt) and/or (2) an generally acceptable ethnic group (think Gauls or Germans of Civ VI or Arabians of Civ V). In a sandbox environment, these civilizations could be pitted against other civilizations from throughout history. These civilizations (via architecture and unit ethnicity/demographics/art style) progressed to generally their modern day counterparts (whether that be Modern era roman tanks looking like the European tanks of WW2 or Arabian tanks looking like tanks from Desert Storm). Now civilizations ONLY represent a nation/state empire for the specific time they actually existed IRL (and even that is not controversial - think Maya in antiquity - even though they existed and fought against the Spanish in exploration and exist as a major ethnic group today) and can only compete against civilizations who existed at that time in IRL. That is is a fundamental gameplay change. That I can no longer fight against the Khmer as Gran Colombia is a loss of something precious, something that made CIV CIV. No amount of handwaving can dismiss this.

what does this actually mean though? So if your civ was named Carthage and not Spain would you be ok? Would you be ok with 0 unique buildings or units during the rest of the game?

I no longer receive the bonuses applicable to Carthage in the antiquity age for the rest of the game. For example, I can now have more than 1 city, I do not receive a second copy of a settler (colonist) or merchant when I train them, and I can no longer build my unique buildings in my new cities! That is a major change from prior civilization games. In CIV VI I could build a Cothon in 2000AD in my new city of Byblos. Now in CIV VII, in the modern age, even though I started as Carthage, I can no longer build a Cothon in my new city of *checks notes* Puebla. So, yes - I think I and the rest of the civilization community would be fine with the lack of unique units and buildings for the rest of the game. Just like we have been for the last 30 years. Of course, Civ VII would be more difficult to play without uniques for the entire game, unlike the previous Civs - but that is because of the radical civ switching and age mechanics design - which is a major failure in its current state.

 

[Maiq]

If you're a producer of a project that is struggling to even get the most basic UI done, it's an obvious feature that stands no chance when it comes to effort/effect analysis.

It might be time for a new producer then because shutting out a not insignificant portion of players is a bad move, especially when the game has so many issues in so many other areas that they really need people providing the hard, ingame data that they need.

 

[stealth_nsk]

You dont have 39 Civs, you have 39 thirds of a Civ. You wouldnt have 117 Civs, you would have 39 full Civs like in the previous 6 entries

Based on the amount of work and number of uniques for each civ, you need to multiple their number, not divide.

 

[WillK96]

You dont have 39 Civs, you have 39 thirds of a Civ. You wouldnt have 117 Civs, you would have 39 full Civs like in the previous 6 entries

Exactly - I understand Firaxis puts a large amount of detail into each "Civ" and I appreciate that detail. But that does not change the reality that Antiquity Greece is only present for 1/3rd of the game.

 

[socratic]

You cant

the developers really have for the most part allowed players to retain many things from the past so your civ is a culmination of all the choices you have made leading up to that point

This is the main problem. For me and many others the game does not sell civs as transitions or evolutions, but as entirely different entities that have moved in and set up shop. And yes this extends beyond just the aesthetics. Even in some “historical” pathways, there is a lack of identity that keeps things feeling cohesive.

 

[McSpank01]

The architectural style of Spain or Normans in Civ 7 is intentionally detailed to contrast. Spain uses a Mediterranean architectural style and the Normans use a Northern European style. While Spain feels more like what Rome would've looked like in Civ VI, it is not the same and has a distinct Spanish flavor. So yes, I think if you played as Rome, I would prefer a more generic Mediterranean style without the Spanish influence (because Spain is the only Mediterranean civ on release, their architecture heavily influenced the base design). Also - in Civ VI - the Spanish, French, Germans, Rome, and Greek cities do not look identical in the medieval era - as you appear to suggest here.

I don't thats true and a quick google suggests it isn't as I had to check. There was a Mediterranean style that was shared by Greece and Rome and more of a European one that Germany and France would use, but they were still generic. I don't see that as being very different to what is happening with Spain and Normandy.

In every civ game prior to Civ VII, a civilization referred to either a (1) nation-state/empire representing a certain people (think Rome or Egypt) and/or (2) an generally acceptable ethnic group (think Gauls or Germans of Civ VI or Arabians of Civ V)

Well Civ games are always grouping nations and empires together, slapping a label on it and saying 'that is a civ'. They are this kind of cartoonish idea of history that doesn't really correlate to reality except in a sort of vague loose way. Egypt is almost always depicted as the Egypt of Cleopatra, which is just a small bit of it's history, and has zero correlation to the Egypt of 2025. They don't even really represent Cleopatra's Egypt in any real way. These civs are nothing more than ideas.

Like, I get the desire to see what happens if you took Ancient Egypt into modern age and launched a spaceship with it, thats cool. But at the same time, that idea of Egypt is just a fiction, its a cartoon, it's almost like having a concept of Egypt that is entire created by Civilisation games. I have been guilty in the past of basing my historic knowledge on what Civ games do, and then realising how unrealistic that idea is.

I no longer receive the bonuses applicable to Carthage in the antiquity age for the rest of the game. For example, I can now have more than 1 city, I do not receive a second copy of a settler (colonist) or merchant when I train them, and I can no longer build my unique buildings in my new cities! That is a major change from prior civilization games.

To be fair, Carthage is basically one of the only civs in Civ 7 that has any sort of unique playstyle. So picking that one is maybe not representative. Having said that, I have played numerous Carthage > Spain games and it absolutely worked, because it is quite easy to imagine that if you took Carthage forward in time it would basically be just like Spain in many ways, acting like a naval exploration faction with southern med styling. So in that regard, it's hard to see what the difference is, it then just becomes a label on the front of the Civ. Yeah maybe that one specific mechanic which is unique to Carthage doesn't stick around (maybe it should) but then you keep all your Cothons that you built and they still work. But then it's hard to imagine that the Carthaginians would just be building the same stuff hundreds and thousands of years later.