What's your opinion on civ switching?

[McSpank01]

It that were true Civ7 would have at least matched 6’s performance

How many more times are we gonna have people trying to drape the hollowed out skin of an existing IP over their brilliant new idea?

If Beach wants to make a euro board game style game with civ switching…go make BeachKind or whatever

Think you are making a broad statement. The games issues are much wider than just civ switching.

 

[Leucarum]

From the start of the civ switching discourse, all I could think was: "Millennia solved this."* You pick your civ ("Nation") and a minor starting bonus/trait, and then build up cultural identity through the course of the game: National Spirits every _x age that persist into the future, Governments every _y age that replace each other. All options are open to everyone, so you can either adapt to your circumstance, i.e. a Japan surrounded by desert specializing as spice merchants, or maintain the "classic Civ" play-to-perks by forcing a landlocked Britain to pursue navy bonuses.

Milennia is the game I had in my head when making that comment. I was able to kinda get over its Civ3 level of graphics, and see the game that was in there... But it was how generic the game felt which turned me off. You can see the implementation of Civ evolution in there though which is really solid if you can make it feel more tied to your civ's identity. Blandness was Milennia's failing for me.

The games issues are much wider than just civ switching.

And I'm sure that we'll have equally expansive threads discussing them all in time!

 

[Siptah]

Milennia is the game I had in my head when making that comment. I was able to kinda get over its Civ3 level of graphics, and see the game that was in there... But it was how generic the game felt which turned me off. You can see the implementation of Civ evolution in there though which is really solid if you can make it feel more tied to your civ's identity. Blandness was Milennia's failing for me.


And I'm sure that we'll have equally expansive threads discussing them all in time!

I‘m not quite sure why millennia never quite clicked with me. I played 3 games (I think), and I agree that civ evolution and ages work really well there. Also, the resource aspect is a good middle way between the very basic civ and the too detailed (for such a kind of game) Ara. But somehow the mechanics of the game loop don‘t catch me. The vassal - city dichotomy, non-existent diplomacy, never researching all techs or building all buildings, and the completely blank civs just make it feel undercooked to me. And it‘s a bit sad that so many mechanics and content depends on specific choices per game. Did not evolve into explorers? No expeditions for you! Did not chose the steam punk alternate age? Well… you need another game to see what mechanics, techs, units, and buildings that offers.

In contrast, civ 7‘s civs have almost too much identity and some people complain they can‘t even memorize or remember all the bonuses of the civ the are currently playing - and of course not the ones they are playing against. But they‘d probably have the same problem with Millennia.

 

[McSpank01]

In contrast, civ 7‘s civs have almost too much identity and some people complain they can‘t even memorize or remember all the bonuses of the civ the are currently playing

I think its more that the civs themselves do not feel distinct or easy to pigeonhole. I shouldn't really need to memorise each civ's bonuses, I should just instinctively know how each one is meant to be played. For some that seems kind of obvious, I know with Greece I want to be collecting City States, but maybe with others it doesn't all come together quite so obviously. UI issues don't help with this (I think the loading screens have in fact made this worse)

 

[Siptah]

I think its more that the civs themselves do not feel distinct or easy to pigeonhole. I shouldn't really need to memorise each civ's bonuses, I should just instinctively know how each one is meant to be played. For some that seems kind of obvious, I know with Greece I want to be collecting City States, but maybe with others it doesn't all come together quite so obviously. UI issues don't help with this (I think the loading screens have in fact made this worse)

I only agree partially, because learning the civs and how the play them is part of the fun for me. But then again, I played competitive Age of Empires II when it released. and this required to learn all the tech trees by heart, and not all of them made a lot of sense (e.g., Spain has no crossbows which is always good to exploit). So, learning the part of the civs that isn‘t obvious is part of the journey for me.

 

[King Flevance]

The problem I have with all of the unique powers, units, etc. for picking a civ and a leader is that, as McSpank pointed out, there is no obvious strategy for some of them. But also the leader/civ combo makes them work together with different synergies so that it feels like playing Greece with Napoleon might benefit from a different strategy than Greece with Tubman. It may not - but it will change enough to make you aware of it which means that playing Greece, does not always mean playing the same Greek strategy. In some ways this is a perk, in others it is a shortcoming. Additionally, what civ you are currently playing as, you also need to consider what civ you can/will switch to when that comes up. Going from a culture focus civ to a science focused civ may not synergize well and it may be in your best interest to unlock a military civ or culture civ instead. The civ you are playing is not the only civ that matters. Then when you compound that on top of the other neighboring civs also doing the same thing, yet you are not for certain who they will pick at age transition it just makes you have to mentally track a "meta" more than the game itself sometimes.

This can all "wash out" any unique flavor like making a buffet of different foods but oversalting every dish and now there is a ton of variety but it all tastes very similar with a few exceptions. (Salty)

There is certainly a variety of flavor in Civ 7's design based on who you pick. But for me, it can sometimes get washed out mid-age as I focus on my cities and units and often instead of thinking "I am going to do this because I get this bonus", I think "Why is...oh yeah, I have that ability to help me do this thing I was planning, I forgot about that." Like Tubmans vegetated movement. This is a shortcoming on my part so I could see someone saying I am at fault and not the game and that is certainly a valid perspective on it. However, another valid perspective is that the bonuses are not implemented in an intuitive way, and I feel I need a "player aid" next to me to remember my strengths. I do often have to click on my portrait and go look at my bonuses.

 

[aieeegrunt]

This is Mass Effect, Halo, Fallout and Dragon Age all over again (and all those games also had players that liked them, and even more players than Civ 7, they failed anyway), people dont understand that franchises cant suddenly transform into another franchise, playing completely different and people will just accept that

Even with thigns that do work in other franchises (which civ/culture/whatever switching has NOT worked yet) that doesnt mean it will work in an already established one

Whatever, i hope Firaxis understands this eventually

You can add things like the Halo TV show to this.

Think you are making a broad statement. The games issues are much wider than just civ switching.

The other issues are not new to the franchise, but Civ7’s poor performance is

 

[McSpank01]

The other issues are not new to the franchise, but Civ7’s poor performance is

Huh? I don't agree with that statement at all. This is the only game with a 3 stage ages system, I also don't remember any Civ game being as poorly put together as this one. There is a real myth around the civ cycle, which seems to handwave just how much of Civ 7 feels incomplete and poorly thought out.

 

[socratic]

I think its more that the civs themselves do not feel distinct or easy to pigeonhole. I shouldn't really need to memorise each civ's bonuses, I should just instinctively know how each one is meant to be played. For some that seems kind of obvious, I know with Greece I want to be collecting City States, but maybe with others it doesn't all come together quite so obviously. UI issues don't help with this (I think the loading screens have in fact made this worse)

I think a big reason why a lot of the civs lack idenity is how straightforward the Ages (and Legacy Paths) are. Almost all of the Civs in Exploration have the design principle of "reward expansion to Distant Lands", which can only have so much variety. Most of the distinct abilities seem to be locked to Leaders and Antiquity civs

 

[Leucarum]

I think a big reason why a lot of the civs lack idenity is how straightforward the Ages (and Legacy Paths) are. Almost all of the Civs in Exploration have the design principle of "reward expansion to Distant Lands", which can only have so much variety. Most of the distinct abilities seem to be locked to Leaders and Antiquity civs

To some extent... I mean the fact that Civs with alternatives to distant lands expansion is a major piece of design space in exploration speaks volumes. But exploration culture is also so rudimentary it lacks design space, and science is just "play the game well." Legacy paths in exploration definitely haven't helped produce compelling civ designs, but I think the problem goes deeper than just the distant lands.

Antiquity is the most "classic" experienve of the three ages, and there seem to have been more interesting civ designs that came out of it.

Amd then Modern has the opposite problem in that civ abilities are irrelavent because the age itself is irrelavent.

 

[Haig]

Here and elsewhere people bring up that game Dragon Age, what is the deal with that? Not familiar with it.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think a big reason why a lot of the civs lack idenity is how straightforward the Ages (and Legacy Paths) are. Almost all of the Civs in Exploration have the design principle of "reward expansion to Distant Lands", which can only have so much variety. Most of the distinct abilities seem to be locked to Leaders and Antiquity civs

I already stated this for some time, but the biggest problem of Civ7 is the distant land feature.

If we'd have minimal changes to the current game - classic map ganeration and exploration age legacy paths based on continents instead of distant lands, that would be much better game.

 

[The Civs 6]

I already stated this for some time, but the biggest problem of Civ7 is the distant land feature.

If we'd have minimal changes to the current game - classic map ganeration and exploration age legacy paths based on continents instead of distant lands, that would be much better game.

How many features are the "biggest problem" of Civ 7? Could I count them all on one hand?

 

[stealth_nsk]

How many features are the "biggest problem" of Civ 7? Could I count them all on one hand?

Biggest is always one, by definition.

 

[King Flevance]

Unless there are equal contenders for biggest. (Though that is super ambiguous in this context)

Fun Fact: the record for the "Biggest Largemouth Bass" is a tie so they gave the person who caught it first the #1 title. But what if they both caught it at the same time?

 

[McSpank01]

Distant lands is maybe one of the bigger problems for me, given then I tend to just drop out of the game usually midway through the exploration age. On paper I think the exploration age is an awesome concept. Ideally your civ would be at the point where you might consider investing in expanding on your home continent (maybe if you are militarily strong with land units and terrain) or maybe you decide to go and find somewhere on another continent (maybe if your home continent has been a bit of a dud or you've been pressed for space). Then each civ would evolve in a different way and try and specialise in one of those directions.

That doesn't seem to happen in Civ 7. Instead you just.. race to put your settlers down on tiny islands to get a treasure fleet that never arrives. Bleugh.

 

[Crashdummy]

Distant lands is maybe one of the bigger problems for me, given then I tend to just drop out of the game usually midway through the exploration age. On paper I think the exploration age is an awesome concept. Ideally your civ would be at the point where you might consider investing in expanding on your home continent (maybe if you are militarily strong with land units and terrain) or maybe you decide to go and find somewhere on another continent (maybe if your home continent has been a bit of a dud or you've been pressed for space). Then each civ would evolve in a different way and try and specialise in one of those directions.

That doesn't seem to happen in Civ 7. Instead you just.. race to put your settlers down on tiny islands to get a treasure fleet that never arrives. Bleugh.

That's what happens when you try to force a gameplay instead of letting people choose by themselves

Another consequence of breaking the sandbox concept

 

[King Flevance]

I think for Exploration to be fun, each Civ would need asymmetrical custom legacies. Or some way to randomize everyone's legacies. Some civs focus on religion, other on founding colonies, and others on treasure fleets, and others on home continent. This way everyone's empire becomes strong in different ways instead of everyone racing for the same things. I feel like giving each civ in Exploration their own custom legacy paths, it would add a lot of flavor to the Exploration Civs and would add more depth to which one you picked.

 

[Gorbles]

That's what happens when you try to force a gameplay instead of letting people choose by themselves

Another consequence of breaking the sandbox concept

I personally hate being pidgeonholed into the Science victory I chose to pursue

Jokes aside, I have to choose a victory condition. I can't not. This applies to any iteration of Civ.

The whole sandbox vs. design goal thing has generated a lot of discussion. And it's valid - we all like what we like. People who genuinely like a sandbox aren't going to like strictly-defined conditions the game needs to end with.

But I think this is very separate to whether or not these goals are engaging. Distant Lands / Exploration has generated a lot of criticism because the actions are often described as tedious (if they're even viable in the first place - in earlier patches, sometimes you were just stuffed depending on your setup and game RNG).

Short version: you're both criticising what Firaxis did, but you're criticising different things in different ways. This impacts how improvements are considered (to either thing).

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

I‘m not quite sure why millennia never quite clicked with me. I played 3 games (I think), and I agree that civ evolution and ages work really well there. Also, the resource aspect is a good middle way between the very basic civ and the too detailed (for such a kind of game) Ara. But somehow the mechanics of the game loop don‘t catch me. The vassal - city dichotomy, non-existent diplomacy, never researching all techs or building all buildings, and the completely blank civs just make it feel undercooked to me.

I haven't followed the discourse at large (despite its shortcomings it hooks me in a way I haven't felt by any game in years), but the common critique seems to be it's a mile wide and an inch deep: it seeds a plethora of innovative ideas, but fails to flesh them out mechanically and/or mesh them in an intuitive way. Religion is probably the most conspicuous, which becomes One More Need in the Medieval age only to literally fade into irrelevance in modernity unless you go for the related Victory Age or adopt a Fundamentalist government.

One Reddit post speculated this was basically self-sabotage by Paradox's modus operandi of DLC baiting: throw out a ton of barebones foundations that are then built up in dedicated expansions—the perennial curse of Not!Early Access. Of course, this assumes the base game does well enough that the bigwigs continue to fund development, and while they're still doing patch work the active development cycle seems to have ended.

Hopefully other studios pick its bones, because it's probably the most conceptually imaginative 4X I've seen in a long while.

And it‘s a bit sad that so many mechanics and content depends on specific choices per game.

There's probably a good reason some of the first major mods were to jailbreak the timeline.