What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Pfeffersack]

I'm not sure I agree. Humankind did it and it was a commercial failure (happy to be corrected but appears support has ended and while reviews were mixed, the general consensus is it was fun for a bit but not great). (...)

On support having ended I'm not entirely sure. I'm not aware of an official message about that (though I concede that not every dev/publisher is always crystal clear about such "bad news") and the last patch was released in May. My perception is that development/support stopped at some point, when Amplitude was attached to SEGA...but after they split again, activity for HK resumed. As said, not sure if there is still more to expect, but wouldn't completely rule it out either.

 

[Civinator]

Players seem to be rejecting that "evolution". We cant say something is an evolution when we still dont have a single succcessful implementation of it

There is a successful implementation of civ evolution since many years with the CCM mods (actual CCM 3) of Civ 3. Crashdummy, it is your personal problem to shorten your horizon, if you never play any mods. The CCM mods are very well accepted for mods of a more than two decades old game and there was never any negative post about the evolution of the civs in those mods. Besides that, there is a massive logical problem in your argumentation: If you say that there is not a single successful implementation of it, how can "players" reject such an - in your eyes - not existing game?

 

[Crashdummy]

There is a successful implementation of civ evolution since many years with the CCM mods (actual CCM 3) of Civ 3. Crashdummy, it is your personal problem to shorten your horizon, if you never play any mods. The CCM mods are very well accepted for mods of a more than two decades old game and there was never any negative post about the evolution of the civs in those mods. Besides that, there is a massive logical problem in your argumentation: If you say that there is not a single successful implementation of it, how can "players" reject such an - in your eyes - not existing game?

We cant meassure how successful a mod is when the vast majority of people play without them. I'm sure it was a good mod, but i am not talking about mods, i am talking about games. The fact that it is a mod means the player had a choice to play with or without it in the first place

About the second question, the implementation is unsuccessful BECAUSE players rejected it. No logical problem

 

[Maiq]

Let's not forget "late game" America with Roosevelt whose units get +5 combat strength on their home continent all game long.

And Canada having buffed tundra all game or Australia getting district yield bonuses from appeal. 6 really kind of knocked it out of the park with good bonuses that were good all game.

 

[Kev1916]

And Canada having buffed tundra all game or Australia getting district yield bonuses from appeal. 6 really kind of knocked it out of the park with good bonuses that were good all game.

Aye , as before loads more examples

"I'll keep arguing the point, but that is really not very different to what would happen in Civ 6. For the most part, once you have built your UU, moved into another age you are just generic civ with almost no distinctive features. Once you get past a certain point in Civ 6 all you have to remind you of which civ you are, "
Perhaps an apology is due ???

 

[McSpank01]

nce again, it is extremely different. If I play as Rome in Civ VI, I can put a Bath in every city from Turn 1 to Turn 500. In Civ VI, I can put a Forum in the amount of cities I have in antiquity and that is the last vestige of the Roman civilization upon the age change. I also really do not appreciate that you continue to act like civilization's unique abilities were not applicable for the entire game in IV, V, and VI. In Civ VI, America, which according to you would be a generic civ with no distinctive feature, gets a wildcard slot instead of a diplo slot in the government system from Turn 1. That is a major feature. Rome gets roads and trading posts until Turn 500. THhat is a major feature. Gran Colmobia's units were ALWAYS faster. That is a major feature. Mali get a production malus and gold and faith bonus, from Turn 1. That is a major feature. These are not insignificant, they are not "almost generic." It is utterly disingenous to suggest that civilizations in Civ VI or previously were "generic civs with almost no distinctive features."

I'm not saying nothing carried over through the entire game, but most of it doesn't. In Civ 6 each Civ has attributes that are unique to it, but also attributes attached to the leader, and then a series of UB and UU. My point is that the difference between what happens in Civ 6 and Civ 7 is nowhere near as extreme as everyone makes out. In Civ 7 attributes are carried over via traditions and your leader abilities, you keep your UBs as well, you keep all your city names if you want. There is a difference in that one part of the civ's abilities are lost, and sure, maybe it would be better to find a way to carry that across, but it's still only a small part of what makes a civ distinctive.

The same is true of Civ 6 and previous games, Civ's were not very distinctive outside of one era for the most part anyway, and the way that Civ 7 allows you to carry across attributes from previous civ's is at least on par with what those games were doing.

Ok let me explain. In the past two iterations of Civ, covering 15 years. Civilizations have had enduring abilities and era specific power spikes related to uniques. For the Civ to "feel" like Carthage, I would expect the enduring ability to be there. In Civ VII that would be the double merchants, double colonists, and one city function. Guess what I lose when I transition to Spain? The "feeling" that I'm playing as Carthage. Civ is not and has never functioned "how history actually works" that is the whole point of this thread and this argument. Sure, Carthage may have looked like Spain anyway. We'll never know. The beauty of Civ is that I get the power to take Carthage's abilities and apply them across the span of history. Not take Carthage's abilities and then take Spain's abilities but in my mind I'm supposed to cosplaying that its Carthage in a Spain skin.

I think the disconnect here is that you don't think of Carthage as a historic empire, what you are talking about is a Civ faction, completely disconnected from reality. That is fine, to you 'Carthage' means all these things to do with.. I dunno colonising and moving capitals and stuff. Those are all just Civ artefacts though, are sat in your head because you play a lot of Civilisation games. You want to take this faction, which just happen to be called Carthage which in your head, should play in a certain way. That 'feeling' of what playing as Carthage means is entirely personal to you, and its also completely constructed based on what you thought Carthage is in previous games. I'm not trying to take that away from you, but just understand that the stuff you are holding onto isn't based on any sort of reality.

A Greece that is extremely detailed but then that transitions into their mortal enemies the Turkic and Slavic Bulgarians, which in turn transitions into the Eastern Slavic Russia is just ridiculous.

To you it might seem ridiculous, but I also think your narrow definition of what an empire is based on a computer game is ridiculous. I personally enjoy the way it depicts the fluid nature of the way Empires change and adopt the attributes of other Empires. The Greeks maybe got destroyed, but then the Romans adopted the Greek language in part and you could say the took some of their traditions. I'm more than happy to consider the fact that history is in fact built in layers, and that the way Civilisations were depicted in previous games was cartoonish. I have no problem with a Greece that turns into a Spain that turns into a France, I find that completely coherent historically, and obviously much more coherent than a Rome still building aqueducts in the space age.

No Civilizations do not morph into unrelated people randomly. You do not need to think about it on the granular level of "60%" of the Western Roman Empire was non-Italian in 450 AD. Rome was the seat of imperial power, Rome was the progenitor of its Empire and the people represented by the Rome of Civ VI were the people of Rome not the absorbed Numidian kingdoms or the semitic Palmyrenes.

Nah, it was a Roman empire. The last few emperors came from places such as modern day France, Hungary Croatia and Turkey. Migration was a massive part of the empire. The idea that the Roman Empire was just a bunch of italians in italian looking houses is a total fiction.

That's not the point, Civ is not a historical simulator. Civ is a 4x, historical what-if game. It has been that for 34 years, and Civ switching destroys that.

It still is. You just don't like the answers to the what if question. Because the answer is not as simplistic as the cartoonish depiction of what an Empire is in your head.

I think what you are finding out is that Civ players, for the most part, do not want a historical simulator. They want a semi historical what if 4x game. The devs misread the room and decided to go in a direction that appeases neither group of players.

Meh, I've been playing this game since Civ 2. I've always loved it for it's depiction of history. It probably kick started my interest in the subject. I'm sure that is the case for plenty of people. But come on, Civ 7 is hardly EU4. It's hardly a hardcore history simulator. It has just said that history is built in layers and that Empire change and adapt over time. You hate that idea because you want to play as the Cartoon version of Carthage that builds Cothons into the space age. The reality though is that the devs have actually considered that people might be upset about people losing their civ and having it replaced by another one, which is why you get to keep so much of your previous civ. I'm sorry you don't get to keep 100% of it, but you can't have everything.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Nah, it was a Roman empire. The last few emperors came from places such as modern day France, Hungary Croatia and Turkey. Migration was a massive part of the empire. The idea that the Roman Empire was just a bunch of italians in italian looking houses is a total fiction.

A better way they could have done it is they could have brought back the nationality mechanic from Civ 4 where you could have multi-ethnic empires, based off of migration, conquest etc.

 

[GeneralZift]

A better way they could have done it is they could have brought back the nationality mechanic from Civ 4 where you could have multi-ethnic empires, based off of migration, conquest etc.

Maybe Civ switch could benefit from a transitional phase between Ages instead of a time skip. Where you're still fully in control.

And what happens is that the old nationality sort of phases into the new nationality over time.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

The vast majority of people dont play with mods. Mods do not make a Civ game successful or unsuccessful

No, no and no.
Mods are the reason Civ fanatics exist.
If the Early Civs, C2, C3, C4 weren't so good at letting people mod the game we wouldn't be here now.
The hardcore fanbase is the one that is bread and butter with mods and modding.

I said this already, one of minimum requirements for me to even begin to think to buy C7 is the Worldbuilder.
Without it, I won't even consider it.

C6 was very closed to modding, and we are lucky at least some stuff has been made possible to mod.
Without mods like infinite roads charges for workers or disabled loyalty and min city founding 1 hex,
infinite projects repeat...
I would't even start playing C6 today.
And there's a TON of other stuff C6 would need to be modded to be made "good".
It is not. It still is a slop, snowballing fest, with hundreds of interruptions and micromanagement stuff.

The success is due to the publisher decision to make a version ready for all platforms.
This wasn't true for its predecessors. C5 is far superior and C4 is miles ahead. C3 is untouchable.
Steam DRM made it also possible, massively helping with piracy and ease of access. distribution.
This is by far the biggest factor for the success of a game now, but it blends the waters...
The franchise built its fame before the Steam ERA, for completely different reasons.
NO CD pirated copies and the modding community helped build up the franchise.
Steam replaced the NO CD and gave people mod access via the Steam workshop. This is critical.
Consoles success is the reason we have this "infantilization" of the franchise.
The Unity model of distribution has a built in auto-destroy button and the lid is now been opened...

In C3 we can rename Units, settle on mountains, change defence bonuses for each unit, or civilization,
the Worldbuilder is so advanced now it's probably better than what developers had at the time of the making.
This kind of mod community is the backbone of the franchise.
It is where young gamers get the first glimpse of what is to like programming and such.

Monster Hunter wilds has sold 10M copies, 1.3M players peak and now 9K players.
UE5 Lumen has destroyed the gameplay. Overwhelmingly negative.
Sure, no mods in the world can save that horrible looking game, but C7 looks good, it takes ages to ends animations and turns,
so allowing fast movement, combat, etc, is vital so gamers can have a leaner experience, more tailored to their play style.
In any way you put it, mods and customisation are still vital to the success of a game..
If my end game lasts 30 min a turn bc I can't enable fast movement, I will never end a game, I'll just quit.
IN C3 and C4, it's really rare I don't go all the way through. From C5 onwards, late game are so tedious and slow I'd rather
kill the game and start a new one. Sure, you can play without mods. Moderator Action: This is unnecessary. The point was made without going here. -lymond

 

[Sagax]

I'm not saying nothing carried over through the entire game, but most of it doesn't. In Civ 6 each Civ has attributes that are unique to it, but also attributes attached to the leader, and then a series of UB and UU. My point is that the difference between what happens in Civ 6 and Civ 7 is nowhere near as extreme as everyone makes out. In Civ 7 attributes are carried over via traditions and your leader abilities, you keep your UBs as well, you keep all your city names if you want. There is a difference in that one part of the civ's abilities are lost, and sure, maybe it would be better to find a way to carry that across, but it's still only a small part of what makes a civ distinctive.

The same is true of Civ 6 and previous games, Civ's were not very distinctive outside of one era for the most part anyway, and the way that Civ 7 allows you to carry across attributes from previous civ's is at least on par with what those games were doing.

I think the disconnect here is that you don't think of Carthage as a historic empire, what you are talking about is a Civ faction, completely disconnected from reality. That is fine, to you 'Carthage' means all these things to do with.. I dunno colonising and moving capitals and stuff. Those are all just Civ artefacts though, are sat in your head because you play a lot of Civilisation games. You want to take this faction, which just happen to be called Carthage which in your head, should play in a certain way. That 'feeling' of what playing as Carthage means is entirely personal to you, and its also completely constructed based on what you thought Carthage is in previous games. I'm not trying to take that away from you, but just understand that the stuff you are holding onto isn't based on any sort of reality.

To you it might seem ridiculous, but I also think your narrow definition of what an empire is based on a computer game is ridiculous. I personally enjoy the way it depicts the fluid nature of the way Empires change and adopt the attributes of other Empires. The Greeks maybe got destroyed, but then the Romans adopted the Greek language in part and you could say the took some of their traditions. I'm more than happy to consider the fact that history is in fact built in layers, and that the way Civilisations were depicted in previous games was cartoonish. I have no problem with a Greece that turns into a Spain that turns into a France, I find that completely coherent historically, and obviously much more coherent than a Rome still building aqueducts in the space age.

Nah, it was a Roman empire. The last few emperors came from places such as modern day France, Hungary Croatia and Turkey. Migration was a massive part of the empire. The idea that the Roman Empire was just a bunch of italians in italian looking houses is a total fiction.

It still is. You just don't like the answers to the what if question. Because the answer is not as simplistic as the cartoonish depiction of what an Empire is in your head.


Meh, I've been playing this game since Civ 2. I've always loved it for it's depiction of history. It probably kick started my interest in the subject. I'm sure that is the case for plenty of people. But come on, Civ 7 is hardly EU4. It's hardly a hardcore history simulator. It has just said that history is built in layers and that Empire change and adapt over time. You hate that idea because you want to play as the Cartoon version of Carthage that builds Cothons into the space age. The reality though is that the devs have actually considered that people might be upset about people losing their civ and having it replaced by another one, which is why you get to keep so much of your previous civ. I'm sorry you don't get to keep 100% of it, but you can't have everything.

Personally, I think that the concepts of “empire” and “civilization” are distinct enough and should not be used interchangeably. Semantically I would indeed put the word “civilization” closer to “faction” than I would put the word “empire”. And I think one of the reasons for this ongoing debate is FXS going down this slippery slope and blurring the line between “civilization” and “empire/polity” with each subsequent game. But I digress.

You keep referring to other people’s interpretation of civ continuity as “illogical”, “disconnected from reality”, “emotional” and whatnot. To all of these, there is one single response, the one you yourself used: “Okay. So what?” The fact remains that the previous designs worked well enough not to alienate a chunk of the player base - however “irrational” they are - and each player was free to (ir)rationalize the existence of their civilization/empire as they pleased. And, really, no one can be the arbiter of the story another player built for their playthrough. “The Roman Empire lasting 5000 years in Civ 6 is not realistic? I’m sorry, I’m in the modern age running a Democratic Republic of Rome and thinking about letting citizens vote via TV and updoots. We’ve gone through two dark ages and changed our system of government three times - what do you mean we’re the same “empire” that never changed? We did change and evolve, without the need of becoming Spain and being called such for the rest of the game in the process.”

And even if someone did position their playthrough as an unchanging entity, they were in their right to do so. That’s the beauty of the “what if” alt-history that this franchise offers, the ability to play things out wildly differently from the one single history and timeline that we have IRL. Your counter to this seems to be “Civ 7 does give you the what-if options, you just don’t like the answers”. That’s… exactly the point and the problem? I don’t think it’s that surprising that when choosing between “no specific answers, just a vague framework - go write your own” and “pick one of the multiple answers we created for you”, many people would much prefer the former.

Long story short, my stance on this is that both the “rational, as history should be” players and the “irrational, unrealistic history” players should be able to enjoy the same game, able to accommodate their own interpretations - which has been the case for the past games. And if the current design is turning off either side and causing avoidance of the game, then it’s a problem worth addressing, not dismissing.

 

[aieeegrunt]

A better way they could have done it is they could have brought back the nationality mechanic from Civ 4 where you could have multi-ethnic empires, based off of migration, conquest etc.

Each population having a culture assigned to it, and cultural pressure being able to “flip” pops and tiles from Civ3, as well as culture having a hig impact on how likely a ciry is to rebel or split off.

The vassal system from Civ5.

Loyalty from Civ6, NOT based on population but amenaties

All of the tools are already there.

Maybe Civ switch could benefit from a transitional phase between Ages instead of a time skip. Where you're still fully in control.

And what happens is that the old nationality sort of phases into the new nationality over time.

Why is this neccessary at all? This is civ switching with extra steps.

Civ3’s culture system combined with a Loyalty system could do this in a way where the player, NOT the designer has a hand in how it plays out

No, no and no.
Mods are the reason Civ fanatics exist.
If the Early Civs, C2, C3, C4 weren't so good at letting people mod the game we wouldn't be here now.
The hardcore fanbase is the one that is bread and butter with mods and modding.

I said this already, one of minimum requirements for me to even begin to think to buy C7 is the Worldbuilder.
Without it, I won't even consider it.

C6 was very closed to modding, and we are lucky at least some stuff has been made possible to mod.
Without mods like infinite roads charges for workers or disabled loyalty and min city founding 1 hex,
infinite projects repeat...
I would't even start playing C6 today.
And there's a TON of other stuff C6 would need to be modded to be made "good".
It is not. It still is a slop, snowballing fest, with hundreds of interruptions and micromanagement stuff.

The success is due to the publisher decision to make a version ready for all platforms.
This wasn't true for its predecessors. C5 is far superior and C4 is miles ahead. C3 is untouchable.
Steam DRM made it also possible, massively helping with piracy and ease of access. distribution.
This is by far the biggest factor for the success of a game now, but it blends the waters...
The franchise built its fame before the Steam ERA, for completely different reasons.
NO CD pirated copies and the modding community helped build up the franchise.
Steam replaced the NO CD and gave people mod access via the Steam workshop. This is critical.
Consoles success is the reason we have this "infantilization" of the franchise.
The Unity model of distribution has a built in auto-destroy button and the lid is now been opened...

In C3 we can rename Units, settle on mountains, change defence bonuses for each unit, or civilization,
the Worldbuilder is so advanced now it's probably better than what developers had at the time of the making.
This kind of mod community is the backbone of the franchise.
It is where young gamers get the first glimpse of what is to like programming and such.

Monster Hunter wilds has sold 10M copies, 1.3M players peak and now 9K players.
UE5 Lumen has destroyed the gameplay. Overwhelmingly negative.
Sure, no mods in the world can save that horrible looking game, but C7 looks good, it takes ages to ends animations and turns,
so allowing fast movement, combat, etc, is vital so gamers can have a leaner experience, more tailored to their play style.
In any way you put it, mods and customisation are still vital to the success of a game..
If my end game lasts 30 min a turn bc I can't enable fast movement, I will never end a game, I'll just quit.
IN C3 and C4, it's really rare I don't go all the way through. From C5 onwards, late game are so tedious and slow I'd rather
kill the game and start a new one. Sure, you can play without mods. Moderator Action: This is unnecessary. The point was made without going here. -lymond

People downplaying the importance of mods on a healthy player community need only be pointed at the Bethesda Phenomenon

 

[GeneralZift]

Why is this neccessary at all? This is civ switching with extra steps.

If you have to have civ switching... Then this is what I would change to improve it.

Essentially, when there's no cut, and imagine there's no time skip, no moved units, and the eras essentially blend from one to the next, then at least it will be slightly less obtuse.

 

[Gorbles]

Long story short, my stance on this is that both the “rational, as history should be” players and the “irrational, unrealistic history” players should be able to enjoy the same game

I think this is inherently limiting, mainly because it bypasses the ongoing debate of historical adherence to things that the devs sometimes sidestep (for whatever reason).

But regardless, I agree on one level that this is a part of all of the ongoing debate. Or debates. But at the same time I wish people introspected a bit more and realises that your analysis is the root of their position. Instead of framing a difference in perspective as "objectively" good (or bad) design.

 

[aieeegrunt]

If you have to have civ switching... Then this is what I would change to improve it.

Essentially, when there's no cut, and imagine there's no time skip, no moved units, and the eras essentially blend from one to the next, then at least it will be slightly less obtuse.

Ya that would certainly be better

At whaf point does game or player “decide” a switch happens?

 

[socratic]

Ya that would certainly be better

At whaf point does game or player “decide” a switch happens?

Maybe legacy paths? What if there was a unique legacy path dedicated to unlock a civ instead of simple “get 3 camels” type quests? You continue through the path slowly unlocking the UI and other bits of the civ, and once you finish the legacy path you unlock the civ’s ability. Once enough civs complete legacy paths and their transition, the Age changes. This seriously compromises the original vision of Ages though so idk.

If I could rework civ transitions without compromising too much of the base game, I’d tie the leaders with a single “Civilization” and change the current civs to “Cultures” with an ability and UI or UU that you can be built the whole playthrough. You would keep your Civilization all game while your Culture changes

A game with as “France” with Napoleon as your leader could read as:

Roman France > Norman France > Imperial France

If I wanted to forge my own path it could be:

Greek France > Chola France > Mexican France

Certain Culture names would changed so not to be confused with the Civ. For example Isabella would represent Spain so that path would be:

Roman Spain > Castilian Spain > Mexican Spain

Some Civ names would be based more loosely named. A potential Montezuma would lead “Mesoamerica” and have the Jawal building all game:

Mayan Mesoamerica > Aztec Mesoamerica > Mexican Mesoamerica

 

[Crashdummy]

No, no and no.
Mods are the reason Civ fanatics exist.
If the Early Civs, C2, C3, C4 weren't so good at letting people mod the game we wouldn't be here now.
The hardcore fanbase is the one that is bread and butter with mods and modding.

I said this already, one of minimum requirements for me to even begin to think to buy C7 is the Worldbuilder.
Without it, I won't even consider it.

C6 was very closed to modding, and we are lucky at least some stuff has been made possible to mod.
Without mods like infinite roads charges for workers or disabled loyalty and min city founding 1 hex,
infinite projects repeat...
I would't even start playing C6 today.
And there's a TON of other stuff C6 would need to be modded to be made "good".
It is not. It still is a slop, snowballing fest, with hundreds of interruptions and micromanagement stuff.

The success is due to the publisher decision to make a version ready for all platforms.
This wasn't true for its predecessors. C5 is far superior and C4 is miles ahead. C3 is untouchable.
Steam DRM made it also possible, massively helping with piracy and ease of access. distribution.
This is by far the biggest factor for the success of a game now, but it blends the waters...
The franchise built its fame before the Steam ERA, for completely different reasons.
NO CD pirated copies and the modding community helped build up the franchise.
Steam replaced the NO CD and gave people mod access via the Steam workshop. This is critical.
Consoles success is the reason we have this "infantilization" of the franchise.
The Unity model of distribution has a built in auto-destroy button and the lid is now been opened...

In C3 we can rename Units, settle on mountains, change defence bonuses for each unit, or civilization,
the Worldbuilder is so advanced now it's probably better than what developers had at the time of the making.
This kind of mod community is the backbone of the franchise.
It is where young gamers get the first glimpse of what is to like programming and such.

Monster Hunter wilds has sold 10M copies, 1.3M players peak and now 9K players.
UE5 Lumen has destroyed the gameplay. Overwhelmingly negative.
Sure, no mods in the world can save that horrible looking game, but C7 looks good, it takes ages to ends animations and turns,
so allowing fast movement, combat, etc, is vital so gamers can have a leaner experience, more tailored to their play style.
In any way you put it, mods and customisation are still vital to the success of a game..
If my end game lasts 30 min a turn bc I can't enable fast movement, I will never end a game, I'll just quit.
IN C3 and C4, it's really rare I don't go all the way through. From C5 onwards, late game are so tedious and slow I'd rather
kill the game and start a new one. Sure, you can play without mods. Moderator Action: This is unnecessary. The point was made without going here. -lymond

I never said mods arent important, and yes, mods help extend the lifetime of a game (Skyrim keeps being played a lot mostly thanks to mods)

But mods dont make a game good, the game first has to be good, and the modding helps extend the lifetime

Yoiu said it yourself, Civ 6 was very closed to modding and yet its the most successful Civ game. I prefer Civ IV, which i consider its the best, but that is just my preference, i cannot deny Civ 6 was the most sufcessful one

So again, mods dont make a game successful or not, mods improve a game and extend lifetime but the game itself needs to be successful first

And yes, i can play with mods, i ONLY play without mods, i played all 7 Civs without them, as most people do

 

[GeneralZift]

Ya that would certainly be better

At whaf point does game or player “decide” a switch happens?

If you're still talking about Civ7 then you'll probably be looking at the same system of 'fixed' age resets. But if you don't set it up like a hard reset, and instead go with this soft system, then you may feel more agency as it happens. Call it a 10-20 turn transitional phase.

Although maybe this switch should happen when the local player reaches their local age threshold rather than a global system.

IF you had that system too, then they'd have to sort of rework all the yields, bonuses and age-relevant systems.
For example instead of having the buildings nerf themselves upon age up, they'd have to change it so that the tech costs go up instead.

It'd be so messy that it'd be better fit for a Civ8 with refined age system.

 

[canadamufc]

Anyone else ever wish they can start a playthrough as their home country but then realize they can't because they're not Greek, Italian, or Chinese?

 

[uppi]

Personally, I think that the concepts of “empire” and “civilization” are distinct enough and should not be used interchangeably. Semantically I would indeed put the word “civilization” closer to “faction” than I would put the word “empire”. And I think one of the reasons for this ongoing debate is FXS going down this slippery slope and blurring the line between “civilization” and “empire/polity” with each subsequent game. But I digress.

I personally think that it is the other way around "empire" and "faction" are much closer to each other than they are both to "civilization". An empire is a faction on a geopolitical stage, but its borders are usually different from the limits of civilization. "Civ" was an ill-fitting term for the factions of the game since Civ 1, since you were usually building empires instead of civilizations.