What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Leucarum]

I like the attribute trees way more than Civ switching... My main complaint is that Civ7 is a game of stacking bonuses to make number go up and some of the attibute trees really exacerbate this.

 

[McSpank01]

I don’t mind the attribute system, I guess it is fine, even though it feels like it turns the game into more of an RPG. Theoretically I like the idea that your civ levelling up at certain areas of the game simply by doing more of them, which is sort of what the attribute system is. Maybe it is too powerful however, and again, feels like a blunt and simplistic system.

Momentos are the absolute worst though! Awful.

 

[Leucarum]

I thought I would dislike momentos... But I'm kind of ok with them.

The two strikes I'd say against them rte that some of them almost more impactful than the leaders. The power level went down with their last balance pass but I think it could stand to go down further. And also, changing them on age transition is probably a bad move. It would make for a bigger tradeoff if you took momentos that gave you an early boost but couldn't swap them out later...

 

[Gorbles]

Agreed. If you apply the rule of thirds (which Firaxis ignored on this iteration, regardless of what they claim), the 1/3rd new "budget" was entirely spent on civ switching and eras. Anything new beyond that goes into the red.

That isn't how video game development budget works. Assuming your guess is even accurate, which nobody, not least you, have has any way of proving.

There's a word for this. It's called unfalsifiable.

 

[King Flevance]

I really like the idea of leaders only gaining the 2 attribute trees associated with their attributes. Additional trees could be unlocked through legacy paths that correspond to the attribute. This could help them restructure age transitions too. Some of the current legacy path rewards could be an issue with the heavy remodeling of age transitions. For example, with economic legacy letting you keep all your cities as cities in the next age - if they decide the game is better just letting that be carried over you need to replace the reward. Most Ancient rewards are "Age transition doesn't set you back here". Where it could be "Here, have access to this tree" or if you already have access to that tree, "Here have an attribute point of that type and a wildcard attribute point." Something like that would make legacy paths about customizing your leader.

 

[Nokturno]

One of my first posts on the forum and on a controversial subject - please bear with me

Upon hearing the news that there would be civ-switching in Civ 7, my first reaction was that of shock and horror. Being a massive Civ fan (since Civ1) I did end up buying the game, though.

I think there are (at least) two kinds of Civ players: 1) those approaching it as any other game and being interested in min-maxing and such, and 2) those looking for historical roleplay. I don't think the designers who have made this design choice fully appreciated how much cognitive dissonance ahistorical transitions would cause for the latter group. Some of my favorite childhood memories were of desperately defending the Romans from invasions (I must have been a pretty weak player, so these did happen) and succeeding. This design takes that away from me.
The real issue too might be that the game is basically the same since Civ 5 and this is essentially the third time the same paradigm is used. We still have the same hexagon-tiled cylindrical map, cultural and religious gameplay etc. that we had all the way back to Civ5, and there's only so much innovation you can get through tweaking the ruleset alone, which might have prompted such a drastic change. I've recently completed a playthrough of Civ 5 and 6 each, *after* buying Civ 7. I was amazed at how much even the graphics still felt fresh and in case of Civ 6, even possibly better than 7 in some ways.

So, I dislike Civ transitions, but it is what it is. I actually don't want them to do a Classic mode, now - I don't think that would result in a good game. I'd rather Firaxis focus on giving us more Civs for historical transitions - I can only really play that way, and right now there's a limited number of viable paths. Even doing some sort of a Civ 6 remaster (like Test of Time for Civ 2) would IMHO be better than a classic mode, for supporters and detractors of civ switching alike.
As for Civ 7, I think the best way to proceed now is to give it a reasonable, but shortened, lifespan - like what happened with Windows 8 or the Wii U. After that, we could have a proper, non-rushed, Civ 8 for the late 2020s and beyond, with a different paradigm than the "Panzer General" one of 5, 6 and 7. I have some thoughts on what that could look like, I hope to put it in a post one of these days.

 

[UWHabs]

I really like the idea of leaders only gaining the 2 attribute trees associated with their attributes. Additional trees could be unlocked through legacy paths that correspond to the attribute. This could help them restructure age transitions too. Some of the current legacy path rewards could be an issue with the heavy remodeling of age transitions. For example, with economic legacy letting you keep all your cities as cities in the next age - if they decide the game is better just letting that be carried over you need to replace the reward. Most Ancient rewards are "Age transition doesn't set you back here". Where it could be "Here, have access to this tree" or if you already have access to that tree, "Here have an attribute point of that type and a wildcard attribute point." Something like that would make legacy paths about customizing your leader.

I think the attribute trees and legacy rewards are probably next on the balance tier list. Really, it should be balanced that in nearly all cases, you should take the reward for the legacy, and you only choose the attribute point if you're really digging down one tree, or you played in a weird way.

The problem now is that more than once, I've left like an econ point on the table, because I would rather get my 2 econ attribute points rather than get 1 point and choose one of the legacy rewards (if I didn't end with that many trade routes). Or maybe they should find more good 1-point rewards (eg 1 point econ scale = 1 free merchant at the start of the next era), and maybe even force you down those paths more by maybe capping the total number of attribute points you can add at an era transition to 2, rather than 2 per bucket.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

For those interested in history, here is a nice video I found about how the Vikings became the Normans.

In very simple terms, the Vikings raided and pillaged what is now northern France. Eventually they settled in that area, became Christian, through intermarriage and politics mixed with the local Frankish population and evolved into what we call "Normans".

This could be abstracted in civ where maybe another civ forward settles near you or conquers one or your coastal cities and the city "flips" civ6 style but instead of flipping back to you, it becomes a new civ.

I know that civ is not a history simulator but I think it could be interesting gameplay if new civs could emerge like this rather than just "switch". It would allow new civs to enter the game and shake things up. If anything, this mechanic would be more organic to gameplay.

And you could give the player a choice:
1) Assimilate. Switch your remaining cities to the new civ and play as the new civ.
2) Reform. The cities that became a new civ would remain that new civ. But your remaining cities would became their own new civ that the player would choose from history.
3) Resist. The cities that became a new civ would remain the new civ. The player keeps their remaining cities and stays as their old civ and tries to play on.

So in-game, it might look like this. You are playing as the Frankish civ. The Viking civ raids your coasts and forward settles near you. That city "flips" and becomes the "Norman" civ. You have a choice. You could choose to flip all your cities to become "Norman" and play as the Norman civ. You could reform and declare your cities the "French" civ. Or you could resist and try to keep playing as the Franks.

I think having civs emerge and giving players a choice would be more interesting than just selecting a civ during an Age transition.

 

[McSpank01]

For those interested in history, here is a nice video I found about how the Vikings became the Normans.

In very simple terms, the Vikings raided and pillaged what is now northern France. Eventually they settled in that area, became Christian, through intermarriage and politics mixed with the local Frankish population and evolved into what we call "Normans".

This could be abstracted in civ where maybe another civ forward settles near you or conquers one or your coastal cities and the city "flips" civ6 style but instead of flipping back to you, it becomes a new civ.

I know that civ is not a history simulator but I think it could be interesting gameplay if new civs could emerge like this rather than just "switch". It would allow new civs to enter the game and shake things up. If anything, this mechanic would be more organic to gameplay.

And you could give the player a choice:
1) Assimilate. Switch your remaining cities to the new civ and play as the new civ.
2) Reform. The cities that became a new civ would remain that new civ. But your remaining cities would became their own new civ that the player would choose from history.
3) Resist. The cities that became a new civ would remain the new civ. The player keeps their remaining cities and stays as their old civ and tries to play on.

So in-game, it might look like this. You are playing as the Frankish civ. The Viking civ raids your coasts and forward settles near you. That city "flips" and becomes the "Norman" civ. You have a choice. You could choose to flip all your cities to become "Norman" and play as the Norman civ. You could reform and declare your cities the "French" civ. Or you could resist and try to keep playing as the Franks.

I think having civs emerge and giving players a choice would be more interesting than just selecting a civ during an Age transition.

Yeah I think there is the potential for more interesting 'civ merging' mechanics, but I don't think any of them would ever be implemented into the game, and potentially just move the game too far away from the idea of controlling a specific civ anyway.


For instance, I always thought about the idea of 'fascination techs', a bit like in Crusader Kings, where it's easier to research techs that other cultures near you have. So in Civ, that might translate as each civ having a much more unique tech and civ tree, that could potentially have techs and civs shared between two neighbouring civs. If you also had a mechanic similar to the one you mentioned, or maybe using the population mechanic I think from Civ 4 (or 5, I forget) then having a city that has mixed cultures and pops could speed up the ability to share civics etc.

You could also gain tech boosts through trade.

Maybe with enough shared civics etc you would have the ability to form a new culture, which is basically the same as Civ switching.

This is not very well articulated or thought through, but I think it tries to approach the main problem I think happens with Civ Switching, in that it's too abrupt, too forced and doesn't feel tied enough to the events of the game or the choices you have made.

 

[Siptah]

I think the Normans are indeed a good inspiration for many mechanics around switching etc. It's a rather distinct culture with an interesting history that would be fun if modeled in the game.

There's the part how the duchy of Normandy came about that you have in your video. But then there's also the continuation, how Normans took over England, and basically founded what is today seen as English culture – which is still very visible in the old architecture all over the country today. iirc even the stones of the Tower of London were imported from Normandy and not local stones. So, at some point Normans became English with Norman traditions by conquest (but when? 1066 isn't the date for the switch). And then there is also the modern region of France which has become French with Norman traditions (but again, when? After the 100 years war or only when French became the primary language?). To model this, it either necessary that empires can split at era transition (which is realistic, but probably more controversial than anything we currently have), or that conquering cities of foreign lands allows to switch culture or taking over their traditions (which could be fun but also very exploitable).

And of course there's the southern part of Norman history in Southern Italy and Sicily, where they assimilated Greek and Arabian traditions. To model this, it would also mean that you get traditions from the civs you conquer (or that previously owned your cities). Yet, Norman culture itself was probably less lasting in these parts of the world than in Normandy and England.

 

[socratic]

Something I’ve realized when going back to Civ 6, Civ 7 is superrr gamey. In Civ 6, the strategy is mainly responding to your start and leveraging it to make use of your bonuses. You may go into a game with a strategy in mind, but you’ll often be forced to adapt to what you have available, what terrain you have, what city-states spawned near you. This, at least to me, feels more like what leading a civilization is vs Civ 7. Civ 7’s strategy is more similar to something like Pokemon. Before the game, I am making a “build”. In Pokémon, I am choosing what mons I have on my team, what abilities they will have, what items to bring, what type coverage I should focus on. In Civ 7, I am choosing what my leader will be, what civ I’m choosing, what civ i’ll lead to, and what mementos I have. This just does not work for me. I want to evolve a civilization through time and circumstance, not pre-select it in a menu.

 

[Crashdummy]

This is not very well articulated or thought through, but I think it tries to approach the main problem I think happens with Civ Switching, in that it's too abrupt, too forced and doesn't feel tied enough to the events of the game or the choices you have made.

I dont think that is the main issue (although it is an issue)

I think the main issue with Civ 7 civ switching is that it is forced and that it removes the ability to start the game with any civ you want, therefore disabliing the way people played the franchise for over 3 decades

 

[McSpank01]

I dont think tnat is the main issue (although it is an issue)

I think the main issue with Civ 7 civ switching is that it is forced and that it removes the ability to start the game with any civ you want, therefore disabliing the way people played the franchise for over 3 decades

I think that is your problem with it. Yeah I don’t have any issue with not being able to play as an ahistorical representation of a fictional civilisation ( because there is nothing historic or realistic as playing as America in the Antiquity age) from the start.

I just cannot get caught up worrying about that stuff, it’s just such rigid thinking.

Building a civ to last the test of time doesn’t automatically mean building a civ based on these predetermined game specific factions we have presented to you in previous games. Some people just need to open their minds a little.

Civ Switching has a lot of far more pressing issues to deal with and we shouldn’t be wasting effort trying to appease those who want to continue to think inside a very tiny box.

 

[Kumbao]

You honestly think that you contribute to the discussion by calling the critics of civ switching "narrow minded"? That is not an argument, that is just an unneccessary insult.

 

[Crashdummy]

You honestly think that you contribute to the discussion by calling the critics of civ switching "narrow minded"? That is not an argument, that is just an unneccessary insult.

When someone has poor arguments need to attack the person they are discussing with to try to support their PoV. Its nothing new

 

[McSpank01]

You honestly think that you contribute to the discussion by calling the critics of civ switching "narrow minded"? That is not an argument, that is just an unneccessary insult.

At this point I just have to call it how I see it. I think there are absolutely arguments against civ switching but there is a lot of closed minded thinking coming from some of the anti crowd, and really I don’t see any point in pretending it’s anything but that. Some of the arguments put forth are so irrational and it’s hard to see why people take such a hard line over such an abstract concept they have built up in their own heads.

 

[socratic]

( because there is nothing historic or realistic as playing as America in the Antiquity age) from the start

This still exists in the game though? Sure “America” isn’t in the game at Antiquity, but the very American and very 18th century Ben Franklin is sure as hell sitting there in Antiquity. Only now he’s leading an ancient chinese dynasty instead. I don’t see how that is any more “historical” than what we’ve had in previous games.

 

[Siptah]

This still exists in the game though? Sure “America” isn’t in the game at Antiquity, but the very American and very 18th century Ben Franklin is sure as hell sitting there in Antiquity. Only now he’s leading an ancient chinese dynasty instead. I don’t see how that is any more “historical” than what we’ve had in previous games.

It‘s a somewhat lost point to call anything in civ historical in my eyes. I personally find neither Teddy in 4000 BC leading America building Stonehenge in any way historic, nor Maya morphing into Ming into Britain. I see civ not as a history game in the sense of playing history or alternate history. Instead, it‘s a World Cup in which the leaders of the world compete on a friendly basis to find out who is this week’s Bestest Leader Of All Time (TM). In this tournament, everything is allowed - even using Knights as Aztecs. And the rules change every now and then (as it does in all sports, see soccer before they banned smoking breaks and trees on the field). Currently, the rules are that you regroup three times and choose a different civilization each time. History is just the theme, not the actual task or game.

I‘m happy that the game doesn’t suggest any longer that civilizations are monoliths though. I wish it had more mechanics about exchange, migration, culture, etc to bring that point through in a more dynamic way though.

 

[Kumbao]

Do what you want, but I seriously dont want to discuss with people like you. I dont think that you contribute anything with that mindset and just push the divide in our community. Arrogance is always a bad advisor. Maybe you want to try it with respect instead. Could help with further discussions.

At this point I just have to call it how I see it. I think there are absolutely arguments against civ switching but there is a lot of closed minded thinking coming from some of the anti crowd, and really I don’t see any point in pretending it’s anything but that. Some of the arguments put forth are so irrational and it’s hard to see why people take such a hard line over such an abstract concept they have built up in their own heads.

 

[Crashdummy]

It‘s a somewhat lost point to call anything in civ historical in my eyes. I personally find neither Teddy in 4000 BC leading America building Stonehenge in any way historic, nor Maya morphing into Ming into Britain. I see civ not as a history game in the sense of playing history or alternate history. Instead, it‘s a World Cup in which the leaders of the world compete on a friendly basis to find out who is this week’s Bestest Leader Of All Time (TM). In this tournament, everything is allowed - even using Knights as Aztecs. And the rules change every now and then (as it does in all sports, see soccer before they banned smoking breaks and trees on the field). Currently, the rules are that you regroup three times and choose a different civilization each time. History is just the theme, not the actual task or game.

I‘m happy that the game doesn’t suggest any longer that civilizations are monoliths though. I wish it had more mechanics about exchange, migration, culture, etc to bring that point through in a more dynamic way though.

I dont like a historical simulation either, that was never what i wanted form a Civ game

We both know we disagree with civ switching, i think the Civilization franchise has already established its gameplay and just cant change it as much as civ switching and age transitions do, which is more than 33%. Maybe those mechanics work in another franchise, but Civilization will not survive another attempt to make them work IMHO

Civilization's gameplay also thrived in the freedom it provided to the player, which age transitions and civ switching significantly lowers, and that is a huge problem, a bigger problem than the ones age transitions and civ switching supposedly came to solve