What's your opinion on civ switching?

[phoenixician]

Because Civ 7 has a lot more things than just Ages and Civ switching

Seriously, the game has alot of things that are not related to those mechanics that would be great to play in a Classic Mode. The work required for a Classic Mode is MUCH LESS than to create a new game

I posed that question from the perspective of Firaxis/2K btw. I doubt the cost of reworking Civ7 fundamentals is less than polishing the graphics of Civ4/5 though, even before taking risk vs. profit into account.

 

[phoenixician]

...You play well early and you get punished, you get units removed, you get resources taken away from you, and then your opponents get free stuff, upgrading units far beyond their science level, etc

...

I am confused. What is this free stuff?

 

[Crashdummy]

I posed that question from the perspective of Firaxis/2K btw. I doubt the cost of reworking Civ7 fundamentals is less than polishing the graphics of Civ4/5 though, even before taking risk vs. profit into account.

I think it would take less time to remove ages and civ switching than to rewrite all of Civ4/5 into a new engine and create better graphics for them

People are overestimating the time it takes to make a Classic Mode, we have modders that by themselves made a basic attempt in just a few weeks. Alone.

Firaxis can make Classic Mode in a few months

 

[Crashdummy]

I am confused. What is this free stuff?

When the Age ends, everyone gets pushed to the same place in science and culture (if anyone is behind, they get free techs, etc), everyone gets their units upgraded to the same tier (even if you would be unable to do so by yourself), if you have too many resources, you get stripped of them to be close to those that dont have any and much more stuff

 

[McSpank01]

I think that is important...
Basic Science buildings get boosts from Resources...in ALL 3 Ages
Basic Food buidings get boosts from Water...in ALL 3 Ages
Culture buildings get boosts from the same things Happiness buildings do...in ALL 3 Ages

You get resources from other civs by building a Merchant and getting it to a Trade route.... in ALL 3 AGES
..what if Merchants were for Antiquity and
in Exploration, You got resources from other civs or your distant Lands settlements from Treasure Convoys.
You want Iron from China or your new Colony in America... a Treasure Convoy has to move to one of your Homeland cities.. (the Iron doesn't count for points, but the Spices might)
...In Modern, Trade has a different model.. it has to connect to a Factory to supply that Factory.... or not just the exact same thing as Ancient but the Merchant gets to Teleport.

Specialists have a base of 2 Culture and 2 Science with +50% adjacency in Every Age
Now here at least Modern has big Ideology based boosts and Exploration enhances the Adjacency,... but it could be differentiated further.

etc....

Yeah thanks, I think that sort of sums up many of the issues with ages, but also with the basic resetting that Crashdummy mentions above. I think the problem is that Firaxis wanted players to be able to play shorter games starting in any one of the ages, and so built a system and a game that works in that scenario. Therefore you can start in exploration and play a similar game to the one if you started in Antiquity.

I think is a fundamentally bad decision, because the game should not play in the same way in all 3 ages, and it is simply too punishing to reset so many things at the end of an age. It feels bad.

I have a very high confidence that the number of players starting games outside of Antiquity is incredibly low, and so this decision essentially wrecked the game for no reason.

Really a civ game is about using the early ages to build up your strategy, and then use that foundation to move towards a goal in the next age. That doesn't really happen very much in Civ 7 because you spend much of your time just redoing many of the actions you took in the previous age. That is not a fun interaction. I don't mind overbuilding, but if all I am doing is putting a slightly better science building on a now defunked science building (because that makes the most sense) then how is that fun?

 

[Gorbles]

You are not being rewarded, you are being PUNISHED for playing well early. You play well early and you get punished, you get units removed, you get resources taken away from you, and then your opponents get free stuff, upgrading units far beyond their science level, etc

That is LAME and rewards a lazy playstyle

You are supposed to play well or suffer the consequences, if you are not good enough, you should LOSE so you learn. Getting free stuff to compensate for your lack of skills is cheating

I'm not talking about Age transitions. I'm talking about snowballing. Apologies if I wasn't clear (I don't think I was, but doing anything online is significantly more effort than doing it in-person, plus language barriers, lack of tone, etc).

 

[Krikkit1]

Yeah thanks, I think that sort of sums up many of the issues with ages, but also with the basic resetting that Crashdummy mentions above. I think the problem is that Firaxis wanted players to be able to play shorter games starting in any one of the ages, and so built a system and a game that works in that scenario. Therefore you can start in exploration and play a similar game to the one if you started in Antiquity.

I think is a fundamentally bad decision, because the game should not play in the same way in all 3 ages, and it is simply too punishing to reset so many things at the end of an age. It feels bad.

I have a very high confidence that the number of players starting games outside of Antiquity is incredibly low, and so this decision essentially wrecked the game for no reason.

Really a civ game is about using the early ages to build up your strategy, and then use that foundation to move towards a goal in the next age. That doesn't really happen very much in Civ 7 because you spend much of your time just redoing many of the actions you took in the previous age. That is not a fun interaction. I don't mind overbuilding, but if all I am doing is putting a slightly better science building on a now defunked science building (because that makes the most sense) then how is that fun?

It doesn't help that they haven't added the ability to Win the game in any Age.... some people might like starting in Exploration more if they could start there and got to play 80-120 turns to get the Exploration Victory. (same with antiquity... if people prefer Antiquity they should be able to play a quick Antiquity only game)

 

[Siptah]

It doesn't help that they haven't added the ability to Win the game in any Age.... some people might like starting in Exploration more if they could start there and got to play 80-120 turns to get the Exploration Victory. (same with antiquity... if people prefer Antiquity they should be able to play a quick Antiquity only game)

I'm actually not sure if a victory after each age that is not just based on overall legacy points or similar improves the game in any way. If it is just a race to complete one path and a project, even Antiquity would probably feel wrong. And just ending the game after an age is already an option in single player, if you simply abort the game.

I also think Modern would be improved by making it less of a race – it wouldn't automatically be great, but at least the civs would matter a bit and you would focus on more than just one area of the game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm actually not sure if a victory after each age that is not just based on overall legacy points or similar improves the game in any way. If it is just a race to complete one path and a project, even Antiquity would probably feel wrong. And just ending the game after an age is already an option in single player, if you simply abort the game.

I also think Modern would be improved by making it less of a race – it wouldn't automatically be great, but at least the civs would matter a bit and you would focus on more than just one area of the game.

It's a good question. Having different victory types actually was always a problem. On one hand, ages make it less impactful, because only the last age is affected (unlike previous civ games where you often railroad to the chosen victory quite early), on the other hand, the last age is affected heavily and the problem is highlighted.

The most radical solution would be avoiding specific victory conditions at all, just keep conquest and point victory. I believe some competitors do this already.

However I'm not sure what could be done with Civ7.

 

[Crashdummy]

I'm not talking about Age transitions. I'm talking about snowballing. Apologies if I wasn't clear (I don't think I was, but doing anything online is significantly more effort than doing it in-person, plus language barriers, lack of tone, etc).

Civ 7 way to deal with snowballing IS Age transitions. Both are the same thing when we are talking about Civ 7

 

[Krikkit1]

It's a good question. Having different victory types actually was always a problem. On one hand, ages make it less impactful, because only the last age is affected (unlike previous civ games where you often railroad to the chosen victory quite early), on the other hand, the last age is affected heavily and the problem is highlighted.

The most radical solution would be avoiding specific victory conditions at all, just keep conquest and point victory. I believe some competitors do this already.

However I'm not sure what could be done with Civ7.

I think the solution is to
1. Make sure the legacy paths are good. Modern Age Legacies are really hurt by snowballing rushing them.

2. make the Victory FAR more than just a little project after the legacy. Finishing the Legacy should only take you about 1/2 way there, the Victory itself should have significant investment, interaction and counterplay.

 

[Gorbles]

Civ 7 way to deal with snowballing IS Age transitions. Both are the same thing when we are talking about Civ 7

They're not the same things. Snowballing is a thing you like. Transitions are a thing you don't. By that definition alone they are literally separate things.

The (intended) solution to a problem doesn't make the solution the problem.

My argument was that a) snowballing is only good when you benefit from it. It feels bad being subject to it, and b) maintaining a close-fought advantage is not the meaning of "snowballing".

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think the solution is to
1. Make sure the legacy paths are good. Modern Age Legacies are really hurt by snowballing rushing them.

2. make the Victory FAR more than just a little project after the legacy. Finishing the Legacy should only take you about 1/2 way there, the Victory itself should have significant investment, interaction and counterplay.

1. It's the biggest problem, because victory conditions were never good in civ games.
2. That's probably the right direction, because if we compare goals for non-final ages (get as much as possible from 4 legacy paths) and final ones (get 1 legacy path and a bit extra) it's clear that the victory part on top of the legacy path should be much bigger. It's just hard to think about how it should be done right. Probably that's why Firaxis requires so much time to add those victories for Antiquity and Exploration.

 

[socratic]

I think a big issue with civ-switching (as it currently exists) is that there is a disconnect between the narrative and the actual gameplay. What is actually happening in the world of the game when your civ switches? If we look at some of the historical paths in the game, like for England, China, and Iran, the narrative is of shifting power. Each civ switch represents the change in the ruling class/culture that presides over a group. When Rome turns into the Normans, the Romans are gone, leaving only their infrastructure and traditions behind. The Normans aren’t building Forums because that is something the Romans do. But in a game, this is not what exactly plays out. Depending on how you’re playing, the flavor text suggests that what is happening is not a changing of hands, but an evolution. And my Romans were great rulers anyway, they wouldn’t lose control. The Romans aren’t being replaced, they’re turning into the Normans. Okay so maybe this is an alt-history simulator. The Mayans can turn into the Arabs with no problem. But then the question arises, why? What has happened in the gap between Ages that my Romans have adopted a new culture? Why have they stopped making new Forums? Surely it isn’t because they’re outdated, they’re literally Ageless. And why does my Arab civ have a dynastic name? I thought the Mayans were turning Arabic naturally, not getting conquered by Arabic rulers.

 

[King Flevance]

1. It's the biggest problem, because victory conditions were never good in civ games.

Actually, I think Civ 1 had the best setup for victory conditions. They definitely had the best space victory. You only had conquest, Space, and score. However, the Space Victory was more dynamic. You would have to build the ship but you could build thrusters, life support, fuel reserves, habitats, and solar panels. You could see if your ship could make the journey. However, without enough life support your people could die before you reached Alpha Centauri losing you the victory. You could run out of fuel or power, etc. Whats cool was the game announced whenever opponents launched and it was nerve racking. You would start adding thrusters and fuel to speed up your flight time to try to beat them even though they launched before you. Sometimes, the game would announce you opponent's crew died on their journey. I would love to see a variation of this come back.

I think it would also be cool if they could figure out a way to do this type of thing with the united nations for a diplomatic victory. Though you would not be building space ship modules, you would push influence into "building" humanitarian efforts like Green Peace or Red Cross. This would actually boost food and happiness yields for an opponent's empire or even globally risking giving an opponent an edge for another victory.