What's your opinion on civ switching?

[phoenixician]

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).

This is probably a hot take, but the Distant Land concept in this game is a bit bizarre. If a landmass is separated from your home continent by ocean tiles even if it's only 2-4 tiles away from your continent, then it is considered to be Distant Land? It is such a bizarre notion to me. I would define Distant Land as how the Romans thought of China back then--almost inaccessible, a lot of travel attrition in-between, no line of communication nor roads in-between, etc...

What is worse about the Distant Land concept in civ7 is that it forces the map to be so predictable no matter what map type you pick--you always expect small islands forming in vertical lines on left or right of your home continent. The predictability partially kills the Exploration Age for me, as much as I am loving Civ7.

As for the treasure fleet, I honestly don't mind it as a concept. My problem with it is that it lacks interaction and it is just a unnecessary tedium. By lack of interaction, I mean the AI rarely if not ever tries to impede or capture your treasure fleet at all. No matter how far you've progressed in the treasure fleet, the AI never tries to slow you down. Furthermore, there is no form of hired piracy you can employ against other civs' treasure fleets. The treasure fleet therefore devolves into a game of settling on the so called distant land and wait for what feels like almost an eternity for the points to hit 30. This leads to it being tedious. In my opinion, what makes it even worse is that you have to directly order the treasure fleet where to drop off. Manually moving the fleets wouldn't be too tedious for me if there were any actual threats nearby, but due to the lack of interactions, it becomes a meaningless real time action for me. I would not have complained as much if there was an automatic process that resumes to manual control if threat is nearby.

There's more about the current Exploration Age that is actively cheapening the experience, but the above are what stood out for me. Religion has issues too, but I rather save it for another thread.

 

[Crashdummy]

This is probably a hot take, but the Distant Land concept in this game is a bit bizarre. If a landmass is separated from your home continent by ocean tiles even if it's only 2-4 tiles away from your continent, then it is considered to be Distant Land? It is such a bizarre notion to me. I would define Distant Land as how the Romans thought of China back then--almost inaccessible, a lot of travel attrition in-between, no line of communication nor roads in-between, etc...

What is worse about the Distant Land concept in civ7 is that it forces the map to be so predictable no matter what map type you pick--you always expect small islands forming in vertical lines on left or right of your home continent. The predictability partially kills the Exploration Age for me, as much as I am loving Civ7.

As for the treasure fleet, I honestly don't mind it as a concept. My problem with it is that it lacks interaction and it is just a unnecessary tedium. By lack of interaction, I mean the AI rarely if not ever tries to impede or capture your treasure fleet at all. No matter how far you've progressed in the treasure fleet, the AI never tries to slow you down. Furthermore, there is no form of hired piracy you can employ against other civs' treasure fleets. The treasure fleet therefore devolves into a game of settling on the so called distant land and wait for what feels like almost an eternity for the points to hit 30. This leads to it being tedious. In my opinion, what makes it even worse is that you have to directly order the treasure fleet where to drop off. Manually moving the fleets wouldn't be too tedious for me if there were any actual threats nearby, but due to the lack of interactions, it becomes a meaningless real time action for me. I would not have complained as much if there was an automatic process that resumes to manual control if threat is nearby.

There's more about the current Exploration Age that is actively cheapening the experience, but the above are what stood out for me. Religion has issues too, but I rather save it for another thread.

Distant Lands was surely a concept derived from Firaxis making the Eurocentric Exploration Age. Since the whole Age is manufactered from the Europe view of how they "conquered" America and Africa and part of Asia, the whole game had to revolve about that

Thats why after deciding such an Age, they decided on the Distant Land mechanic

One mistake leading to another

 

[uppi]

As for the treasure fleet, I honestly don't mind it as a concept. My problem with it is that it lacks interaction and it is just a unnecessary tedium. By lack of interaction, I mean the AI rarely if not ever tries to impede or capture your treasure fleet at all. No matter how far you've progressed in the treasure fleet, the AI never tries to slow you down. Furthermore, there is no form of hired piracy you can employ against other civs' treasure fleets. The treasure fleet therefore devolves into a game of settling on the so called distant land and wait for what feels like almost an eternity for the points to hit 30. This leads to it being tedious. In my opinion, what makes it even worse is that you have to directly order the treasure fleet where to drop off. Manually moving the fleets wouldn't be too tedious for me if there were any actual threats nearby, but due to the lack of interactions, it becomes a meaningless real time action for me. I would not have complained as much if there was an automatic process that resumes to manual control if threat is nearby.

Eh, that is not true anymore. As of the latest patch, the AI will capture your treasure fleets if you are at war and don't protect them. I find myself having a few ships on shipping lane protection, because otherwise, the AI will just capture too many of them.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Civ3 *had* a cultural identity for each pop. A pop would start out with the culture of whoever controlled the city when they were born.

Yeah, and certain government, like fascism, would speed up the replacement, you would need to basically turn half of the pop in to cops, sacrifice one or two, and in a few turns you would have you culture pop completely replaced the original pop. Any other govn type, there would always be at least one pop original, especially if it was the capital, and it could rebel and flip back if not tampered with happiness or military presence at any time.

So that rushing a settler from a captured city would produce a settler of that pop, and not yours, unless some newborns already started appearing.

 

[kotpeter]

Recently an idea crossed my mind on how the civ switching problem could be solved. Here it is (would be happy to hear everyone's feedback):

• When the crisis becomes stronger for the 1st time (around 80%), you get a reasonably hard quest (e.g. clear 3 raging hordes' camps, or cure all diseased settlements until the age ends or maintain all your cities during happiness crisis until the last turn of the age, etc.).
• If you fail the quest, you need to choose the new civ for the next age. Then the game plays as usual.
• If you manage to complete this quest (aka survive the crisis), you may keep your civ for the next age, keeping its passive bonuses, but not the UU or UB (as those are obsolete in the new age).
  • Your conquered settlements still count as being conquered during the next age.
  • Your civ's accomplishments (all passive bonuses and quest rewards) still remain.
  • You don't get new UU or UB or traditions or quests during the next age, but your civ's bonuses may now scale with ages where applicable (e.g. Greece's bonus now provides +3 influence PER AGE on palace)
  • Your chosen golden age legacy bonus costs 0 legacy points (you can still pick only one golden age bonus).

 

[Siptah]

Recently an idea crossed my mind on how the civ switching problem could be solved. Here it is (would be happy to hear everyone's feedback):

• When the crisis becomes stronger for the 1st time (around 80%), you get a reasonably hard quest (e.g. clear 3 raging hordes' camps, or cure all diseased settlements until the age ends or maintain all your cities during happiness crisis until the last turn of the age, etc.).
• If you fail the quest, you need to choose the new civ for the next age. Then the game plays as usual.
• If you manage to complete this quest (aka survive the crisis), you may keep your civ for the next age, keeping its passive bonuses, but not the UU or UB (as those are obsolete in the new age).
  • Your conquered settlements still count as being conquered during the next age.
  • Your civ's accomplishments (all passive bonuses and quest rewards) still remain.
  • You don't get new UU or UB or traditions or quests during the next age, but your civ's bonuses may now scale with ages where applicable (e.g. Greece's bonus now provides +3 influence PER AGE on palace)
  • Your chosen golden age legacy bonus costs 0 legacy points (you can still pick only one golden age bonus).

This would be an interesting way of doing it. Exchange extra effort for a weaker set of cards. I like it, but a lot of people would probably expect more rewards for getting successfully through the crisis. You should still be allowed to „reform“ to another civ in my opinion anyway. It could certainly be a head start into the next age if you keep your bonuses from the last age on your tiles and improvements.

It doesn‘t solve the perceived problem that you cannot start with any civ in antiquity though.

 

[Krikkit1]

Recently an idea crossed my mind on how the civ switching problem could be solved. Here it is (would be happy to hear everyone's feedback):

• When the crisis becomes stronger for the 1st time (around 80%), you get a reasonably hard quest (e.g. clear 3 raging hordes' camps, or cure all diseased settlements until the age ends or maintain all your cities during happiness crisis until the last turn of the age, etc.).
• If you fail the quest, you need to choose the new civ for the next age. Then the game plays as usual.
• If you manage to complete this quest (aka survive the crisis), you may keep your civ for the next age, keeping its passive bonuses, but not the UU or UB (as those are obsolete in the new age).
  • Your conquered settlements still count as being conquered during the next age.
  • Your civ's accomplishments (all passive bonuses and quest rewards) still remain.
  • You don't get new UU or UB or traditions or quests during the next age, but your civ's bonuses may now scale with ages where applicable (e.g. Greece's bonus now provides +3 influence PER AGE on palace)
  • Your chosen golden age legacy bonus costs 0 legacy points (you can still pick only one golden age bonus).

For a related idea:
An "unlock" quest
And (since some people have "all civs unlocked") a quest could give a bonus to the unique civics of the civ

so 3 Iron OR 5 Walls unlocks Normans.. opening up a Quest... getting 4 Iron AND 7 Walls AND 3 Traditions slotted completes the Quest and gives you +10% to Norman civics (or 50 free culture in your first Norman civic)



What I could see then is also a "Stasis" option... where you got a generic ability in the next age based on your attributes.

 

[Crashdummy]

Recently an idea crossed my mind on how the civ switching problem could be solved. Here it is (would be happy to hear everyone's feedback):

• When the crisis becomes stronger for the 1st time (around 80%), you get a reasonably hard quest (e.g. clear 3 raging hordes' camps, or cure all diseased settlements until the age ends or maintain all your cities during happiness crisis until the last turn of the age, etc.).
• If you fail the quest, you need to choose the new civ for the next age. Then the game plays as usual.
• If you manage to complete this quest (aka survive the crisis), you may keep your civ for the next age, keeping its passive bonuses, but not the UU or UB (as those are obsolete in the new age).
  • Your conquered settlements still count as being conquered during the next age.
  • Your civ's accomplishments (all passive bonuses and quest rewards) still remain.
  • You don't get new UU or UB or traditions or quests during the next age, but your civ's bonuses may now scale with ages where applicable (e.g. Greece's bonus now provides +3 influence PER AGE on palace)
  • Your chosen golden age legacy bonus costs 0 legacy points (you can still pick only one golden age bonus).

No, at best the quest should be to change the Civ, not to maintain it. Besides, at this point i think most people play with Crisis off, so keeping the Civ shouldnt be linked to Crisis

But even that wouldnt be fine honestly, we should be able to start with any Civ and keep that civ untill the end of the game. That was always what the franchise was all about

The solution is a Classic Mode, picked BEFORE you start the game, so those that want to play with the current rules can, and those of us that dont want any of those stuff can just opt out

 

[Leucarum]

The solution is a Classic Mode, picked BEFORE you start the game, so those that want to play with the current rules can, and those of us that dont want any of those stuff can just opt out

I often feel like I would like a classic mode but do Firaxis have the capacity to produce two parallel games at once?

I suspect if classic vs official game modes are available then one will cannibalize the other. Given the performance of 7 to date I suspect the survivor of this thunderdome would be classic which kind of sucks for everyone enjoying the game as it is.

That said I think the direction of travel is a classic game as with every update Firaxis are introducing more features which make snowballing more permissive. If you don't curb snowballing then the later ages are irrelavent and that fatally undermines the era system and civ switching.... I don't disagree with what Firaxis are doing, the game needs an audience, but unless they pull a rabbit from their hat which I can't currently see, then it seems the direction of travel is imevitable.

 

[Crashdummy]

I often feel like I would like a classic mode but do Firaxis have the capacity to produce two parallel games at once?

I suspect if classic vs official game modes are available then one will cannibalize the other. Given the performance of 7 to date I suspect the survivor of this thunderdome would be classic which kind of sucks for everyone enjoying the game as it is.

That said I think the direction of travel is a classic game as with every update Firaxis are introducing more features which make snowballing more permissive. If you don't curb snowballing then the later ages are irrelavent and that fatally undermines the era system and civ switching.... I don't disagree with what Firaxis are doing, the game needs an audience, but unless they pull a rabbit from their hat which I can't currently see, then it seems the direction of travel is imevitable.

Most things are shared. And to be honest, they probably wont need a perfect balance which is what it would be the hardest things to achieve

About what Firaxis is doing, i do disagree with them. Because the changes they are making are not enough to convince those of us that are not playing, but they will probably discourage the ones that already were playing. They need to make a decision, they either go full Classic Mode, or they try to survive with the current playerbase and stop enabling snowballing. Lets be honest, being able to transfer more gold and influence between ages is not going to bring anyone back.

 

[Leucarum]

They need to make a decision, they either go full Classic Mode, or they try to survive with the current playerbase and stop enabling snowballing.

I think they have made a decision as to which direction to go in, and that that will inevitably lead to a classic mode which dominates the game.

If snowballing gets more extreme it undermines the age system, and ages not working undermines civ switching... As players invariably start playing game modes which increasingly are more classic then support for the original mode withers on the vine. Eventually we're left with classic but with leader/civ mixing which seems to be the only new feature not undermined if ages fail...

I have mixed feelings since I think the age system is worth pursuing if it can eventually reduce end-game tedium, but profoundly dislike civ switching and want it to be regarded as enough of a failure that no dev will ever touch it with a ten foot pole for the benefit of the genre....

I think I'd be happier with a classic mode than where we are now though.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Most things are shared. And to be honest, they probably wont need a perfect balance which is what it would be the hardest things to achieve

I don't know which "most things" are shared, but the game was built around age transitions for more than 5 years now. All tech trees, civic trees, victory conditions, legacy paths, units and buildings are designed for age transition. All civilizations with all their uniques are designed to work within one age. Most complex game mechanics like independent powers are designed for age reset, the mechanics around buildings, quarters, adjacency bonuses and overbuilding are designed around age reset.

What's left to share? Commanders, leaders and basic mechanics like unit movements?

 

[McSpank01]

I don't know which "most things" are shared, but the game was built around age transitions for more than 5 years now. All tech trees, civic trees, victory conditions, legacy paths, units and buildings are designed for age transition. All civilizations with all their uniques are designed to work within one age. Most complex game mechanics like independent powers are designed for age reset, the mechanics around buildings, quarters, adjacency bonuses and overbuilding are designed around age reset.

What's left to share? Commanders, leaders and basic mechanics like unit movements?

This is kind of the key point, the entire game is built on the foundation of ages. It is pretty much the USP of the whole thing. There simply is no possibility of a 'classic mode' in the way that some people seem to be imagining it. It cannot happen.

I also don't understand what it is that people are in fact suggesting when they think of 'classic mode'. So what, you pick a civ and for 2/3 ages you get no specific bonuses, UU, UBs, you just end up being deeply generic? Sure maybe that might have made sense in something like Civ 5 or 6, but it just doesn't work in a game like Civ 7. I mean, I would love them to implement it, just so it becomes obvious to people what a bad idea it was.

 

[Siptah]

This is kind of the key point, the entire game is built on the foundation of ages. It is pretty much the USP of the whole thing. There simply is no possibility of a 'classic mode' in the way that some people seem to be imagining it. It cannot happen.

I also don't understand what it is that people are in fact suggesting when they think of 'classic mode'. So what, you pick a civ and for 2/3 ages you get no specific bonuses, UU, UBs, you just end up being deeply generic? Sure maybe that might have made sense in something like Civ 5 or 6, but it just doesn't work in a game like Civ 7. I mean, I would love them to implement it, just so it becomes obvious to people what a bad idea it was.

There are already 2 mods for people to try a classic mode when it comes to civs. One released shortly after release, one more recently. I‘m not sure how popular they are.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There are already 2 mods for people to try a classic mode when it comes to civs. One released shortly after release, one more recently. I‘m not sure how popular they are.

Yeah, but mods have different standards than AAA games. Things you could try in mods often would be considered totally unplayable for the main game.

That is, I expect mods to explore various ways to yo at least preserve civs within the current game framework.

 

[Siptah]

Yeah, but mods have different standards than AAA games. Things you could try in mods often would be considered totally unplayable for the main game.

Yes, of course. But don't you think the mods are a good indication for how a potential official classic mode might play? Hence, people that want a classic mode might want to check these mods and provide their honest written feedback. That could be very useful for FXS as well: whether the avenue of what the mods have been doing is worth following, where they could/should deviate, and maybe most importantly whether any classic mode is worth pursuing at all or just a waste of resources (which I think isn't answered yet, despite the loud voices that ask for it).

For example, there have been some voices that the "Humankind" way of being able to keep your civ at age transition, which is what the Enduring Empire mod does (https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/enduring-empires.32262/), would be a wrong approach. Of course, it's not that easy, as others seem content with that.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yes, of course. But don't you think the mods are a good indication for how a potential official classic mode might play? Hence, people that want a classic mode might want to check these mods and provide their honest written feedback. That could be very useful for FXS as well: whether the avenue of what the mods have been doing is worth following, where they could/should deviate, and maybe most importantly whether any classic mode is worth pursuing at all or just a waste of resources (which I think isn't answered yet, despite the loud voices that ask for it).

I've looked at Steam Workshop. Enduring Empires mod's common library is at the end of the 3rd page of mods by popularity, so surely far from popular.

The approach of Enduring Empires is nice - it deals with civ switching only, not touching age transition. So it's not exactly "classic mode", but surely helps those people who dislike civ switching in particular. But even if this approach there's a problem of adopting each civ to its non-native eras. As I understand, the mod just started touching this. So even with this limited approach, that's a lot of work.

Not sure which second mod is, I was unable to found it.

--

Anyway, I think that I see is pretty expected. It's possible to do some implementation of classic mode, but to make it playable by commercial game standards, the amount of work is comparable to making some a bit smaller new game. Limited things like creating specific versions of each civilization for each age are more realistic, but again I see them as mod, not game mode, because they require huge amount of work and totally separate balancing.

 

[Siptah]

Thanks for checking Enduring Empire's popularity. I think I'll try it soon and see how it feels.

I agree with your points but maybe playing this mod and the second one (https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/classic-civ.695614/) would help the people that want a classic mode to see how it could actually work and what limitations it has. If they write down their experience and expectations, this is a useful resource to assess whether it makes sense to create an official classic mode or not, and if so, how it should look.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Thanks for checking Enduring Empire's popularity. I think I'll try it soon and see how it feels.

I agree with your points but maybe playing this mod and the second one (https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/classic-civ.695614/) would help the people that want a classic mode to see how it could actually work and what limitations it has. If they write down their experience and expectations, this is a useful resource to assess whether it makes sense to create an official classic mode or not, and if so, how it should look.

Yeah, like with any other mod, it's good if it helps developers.

 

[Crashdummy]

There are already 2 mods for people to try a classic mode when it comes to civs. One released shortly after release, one more recently. I‘m not sure how popular they are.

Thats not a Classic Mode, that just removes civ switching

You cant start with any civ for example

I think they have made a decision as to which direction to go in, and that that will inevitably lead to a classic mode which dominates the game.

If snowballing gets more extreme it undermines the age system, and ages not working undermines civ switching... As players invariably start playing game modes which increasingly are more classic then support for the original mode withers on the vine. Eventually we're left with classic but with leader/civ mixing which seems to be the only new feature not undermined if ages fail...

I have mixed feelings since I think the age system is worth pursuing if it can eventually reduce end-game tedium, but profoundly dislike civ switching and want it to be regarded as enough of a failure that no dev will ever touch it with a ten foot pole for the benefit of the genre....

I think I'd be happier with a classic mode than where we are now though.

That's what i meant, they are going to a middle ground that is not going to please anyone. They need to implement a Classic Mode so that people can pick how they play or just forget about it and try to survive with the little amount of players they have

They are risking losing even more players

Yes, of course. But don't you think the mods are a good indication for how a potential official classic mode might play? Hence, people that want a classic mode might want to check these mods and provide their honest written feedback. That could be very useful for FXS as well: whether the avenue of what the mods have been doing is worth following, where they could/should deviate, and maybe most importantly whether any classic mode is worth pursuing at all or just a waste of resources (which I think isn't answered yet, despite the loud voices that ask for it).

For example, there have been some voices that the "Humankind" way of being able to keep your civ at age transition, which is what the Enduring Empire mod does (https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/enduring-empires.32262/), would be a wrong approach. Of course, it's not that easy, as others seem content with that.

As one of the people that want Classic Mode, i have ZERO interest in even trying those mods, because they are, again a half way to what i want. Classic Mode isnt just keeping your Civ, it means much more, like the example i gave above, being able to start with ANY Civ not to mention we still have all the age transitions stuff