What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Siptah]

Thanks. I have not played those games a lot so correct me if I am wrong. I think the way it works is that you basically have quests and if you complete the quests, you get to upgrade your nation in a historically relevant way. So for example, if you conquer these provinces, switch to this government and adopt this religious stance, you can upgrade your original nation to the Holy Roman Empire. You are still playing as your team, just upgaded in a way that makes some historical sense.

Not quite. You can 'upgrade' to most nations that exist, regardless of who you are. Some are so-called endgame tags that cannot further evolve (e.g., Great Britain, Spain, Ming). But for most others, you just need to fulfill some basic condition and can switch you tag. For example, hold the correct territory or have the majority of your 'heartland' be of a certain culture (which you can change with some investment). That makes it easy to switch from England to Great Britain (basically, you just need to hold Ireland and Scotland), but harder for England to form Tibet or the Ottomans. Yet, some achievements require and players that min-max will do some of this kind of switching. Especially Tibet was popular in EU4 for some time, because it was the easiest way to go from a monarchy or theocracy to a horde (which is good for conquering, while Tibet itself is relatively easy to conquer and form). You are always asked if you want to keep your traditions though, but it is rarely a good idea. In any case, the main point might be: you do it on purpose and in your own time, not forced.

(And the HRE would be a perfect example for something different. You need to go through a lot of hassle to become the HRE, including getting elected emperor a few times – but I think in principle, every nation in the world can become elected if they have the right state religion).

 

[AD1730]

Thanks. I have not played those games a lot so correct me if I am wrong. I think the way it works is that you basically have quests and if you complete the quests, you get to upgrade your nation in a historically relevant way. So for example, if you conquer these provinces, switch to this government and adopt this religious stance, you can upgrade your original nation to the Holy Roman Empire. You are still playing as your team, just upgaded in a way that makes some historical sense.

That's basically how it works. Forming these countries is often an end goal for the player.

 

[UWHabs]

I think it's controversial for those reasons, for sure. But I think if done right, it can still work. Sure, you don't swap out Djokovic for Federer between sets in a Tennis Sim, but you could potentially change strategies to play a more baseline game early, then maybe switch to handle more net play.

But I agree, that would usually be more "the old strategy isn't working, let's change it around". And having a level of "I like where I was, let's keep it" makes sense too.

I do think in a civ context, because the game is set up for the transitions, I do somewhat think ahead so my civ identify is partly defined by where I'm going next. Maybe I play the first era in a peaceful cultural game, but I know next era I'm going to war, so I start preparing for that. And for me, there's at least some interesting interplay in the decision of which civ to go next - do I stay towards the historical side relative to my first civ choice, do I stay true to where my leader should be taking me, or do I let the land and the layout dictate it?

I do think that with a few more civs giving some more natural connections, and then with a little bit more balance, to make sure that the pieces that make a civ special are carried forward while not being too OP for the next era, you can still keep enough identity and also make sure that your decisions matter.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

@SupremacyKing2 +1
And @AD1730 I agree, but I personally also have this connection to my original team in civ 7 (and more so than in Humankind, actually). Maybe I'm just easier to please in that regard or better at convincing myself of new circumstances. I also like these RPG quests in which you lose all your stuff (or some skills) temporarily.

That's fair. Every player is different. I think the 2 game design principles are still true in a general sense and devs would be wise to consider them when they design a civ game.

 

[AD1730]

@SupremacyKing2 +1
And @AD1730 I agree, but I personally also have this connection to my original team in civ 7 (and more so than in Humankind, actually). Maybe I'm just easier to please in that regard or better at convincing myself of new circumstances. I also like these RPG quests in which you lose all your stuff (or some skills) temporarily.

Yeah, the problem is that there is very little player agency when it comes to the change in Civ 7. In the Paradox games, it is solely the player's decisions (and perhaps a little luck) that cause it to happen. That's simply not the case in Civ 7, where switching is forced on the player.

 

[Crashdummy]

Well, it's a relative majority (the American word is apparently plurality), but sure, when you rank it according to preference, sure.

But this is a very separate and distinct point to claiming that only a minority has issues with ahistorical representation. People could prefer games without civ-switching without being a fan of the fact that they're not really historical at all.

In my opinion, Civ-switching is more historical than immortal dynasties. But people seem to prefer the immortal dynasties. People prefer the more ahistorical design, would be the accurate conclusion to me.

Civ switching is not more historical. Many Civs didnt switch, they got conquered/had cultural changes/had goverment changes, etc. All of that already had a repesentation in the game without civ switching

Greece didnt switch, England didnt switch, China didnt switch, India didnt switch, Egypt didnt switch, etc, etc

What definitely DIDNT happen, because its physically impossible is to have a 2000 year old leader. That, we have ZERO examples of

The thing is, if you follow your explanation why an America in 4000 BC exists, you could do the same for the switching. The explanation for Egypt-Mongols-Japan seems equally logical (or even more – not that it matters). The Mongols almost reached Egypt in their conquest. If they would have just concentrated a bit more to the south (and didn't lose their first battle against the Mamluks of Egypt in what is modern Israel), it seems plausible that they conquered Egypt and either kept it as part of their Empire (if it didn't fall) or established a Khaganate of Egypt. So Egypt > Mongols is checked if we allow a few "what ifs" (and we don't even have to bend the world to make Egypt more Eastern than Persia or something like that or have things happens thousands of years earlier). Now, the Mongols tried to conquer Japan in history, but failed. Yet, if they succeeded, they might have blended into the Japanese (as a nobility, for example, as is often the case). So, Mongols > Japanese is also not really implausible.

This is an example. Mongols conquering Egypt would NOT be an example of civ switching, it would be an exmaple of one Civ conquering another, which was present in the game since Civ 1

That being said, Civilization was NEVER a historical emulator, the pioint was NEVER to copy what happened in Earth's history

 

[Leucarum]

1) Player Identity

I'd add that identity does have another facet, and that is how often players like to play a civ they identify with in real life. I don't know that we have solid data but I'd imagine that's quite high. Look at the popularity of Conficius/Han from Civ's early polling when China is a very large market. In a different but related game. Paradox had a recent poll for CK3 asking how often people like to play their home region, and in a game with only 1/3 of the world a clear majority picked either all the time or at least 50% of the time.

Firaxis could try to fill the rosters for each region, but colonized/conquered regions create a mess. Do you want to force first nations to become a colonial power?

2) Outcomes need to connect with player actions

If player actions and outcomes are connected, then it becomes difficult to avoid an outcome where the player doesn't switch being necessary...

If Firaxis stick the route of Civ Switching they at least need the option to continue playing an older civ into the next era. I'd say that's the bare minimum.

That said, civ switching depends on eras being good, and I think if they don't curtail snowballing (and they are moving in the opposite direction) then that boat has already sailed. If modern continues to be uninteresting, that's gotta be the death knell for the mechanic.

 

[McSpank01]

Civ switching is not more historical. Many Civs didnt switch, they got conquered/had cultural changes/had goverment changes, etc. All of that already had a repesentation in the game without civ switching

Greece didnt switch, England didnt switch, China didnt switch, India didnt switch, Egypt didnt switch, etc, etc

Wat definitely DIDNT happen, because its physically impossible is to have a 2000 year old leader. That, we have ZERO examples of

Again, its a matter of perspective and imagination. I would definitely say the concept of Civ Switching is closer to historical reality than one civilisation that lasts forever.

One obvious example is China. China in previous games is a broad monolithic catchall for numerous time periods and dynasties, where as in Civ 7 it is reflected by 3 specific dynastic periods in 'Chinese' history. Clearly Civ 7 is more reflective of what actually happened than say Civ 6.

You need to use your imagination a bit more for some others, but I think is pretty accurate to say there is a clear cultural path from certain civilisations to others. European Civ's are clearly heavily influenced by Greek and Roman traditions, Great Britain has a legacy path from the Romans to the Normans to becoming Britain itself.

This is an example. Monghols conquering Egypt would NOT be an example of civ switching, it would be an exmaple of one Civ conquering another, which was present in the game since Civ 1

You have to consider what you mean when you say Mongols conquer Egypt. For instance, the military leaders of Mongolia might invade the territory of Egypt, but essentially they take on local customs and religion, and you end up with a merged culture which is reflective of both. That is essentially what happens in most invasions. The Normans conquered England, but eventually called themselves English and a merged culture took place between Anglo Saxon and Norman and that is what we think of as English today.

It is this merging and building in layers that Civ 7 is somehow replicating. It isn't accurate to say that Mongolia invades somewhere and now everyone is Mongolian and the previous culture disappears. It doesn't work like that.

 

[Crashdummy]

Again, its a matter of perspective and imagination. I would definitely say the concept of Civ Switching is closer to historical reality than one civilisation that lasts forever.

One obvious example is China. China in previous games is a broad monolithic catchall for numerous time periods and dynasties, where as in Civ 7 it is reflected by 3 specific dynastic periods in 'Chinese' history. Clearly Civ 7 is more reflective of what actually happened than say Civ 6.

You need to use your imagination a bit more for some others, but I think is pretty accurate to say there is a clear cultural path from certain civilisations to others. European Civ's are clearly heavily influenced by Greek and Roman traditions, Great Britain has a legacy path from the Romans to the Normans to becoming Britain itself.



You have to consider what you mean when you say Mongols conquer Egypt. For instance, the military leaders of Mongolia might invade the territory of Egypt, but essentially they take on local customs and religion, and you end up with a merged culture which is reflective of both. That is essentially what happens in most invasions. The Normans conquered England, but eventually called themselves English and a merged culture took place between Anglo Saxon and Norman and that is what we think of as English today.

It is this merging and building in layers that Civ 7 is somehow replicating. It isn't accurate to say that Mongolia invades somewhere and now everyone is Mongolian and the previous culture disappears. It doesn't work like that.

You need to "use your imagination" to make Civ switching work, but you dont need that to make previous situations work

The reason? Because you have to fill gaps with the current implementation with your imagination, because its LESS REPRESENTATIVE. You didnt need to fill gaps before because there were no such gaps

Also, China wasnt monolithycal before, you had different units/buildings etc that were of different dynasties, you just werent taken away from the game to change it in a civ selection screen 2 times in the middle of a game

A Civilization conquering another is NOT the conquered Civilization switching, doesnt matter how many arumentative gumnastics you try to do. Mongos could already conquer Egypt in every single Civ game. Also, for Egypt to be conquered by Mongols, Mongols had to be already present, so Ehypt transforming into a Mongol Civ that wasnt in the game before is LESS REPRESENTATIVE of that situation

Civ switching sinks from every single angle you can think of, and the reason is that it wasnt inotrduced because it made sense, it was introduced so they could sell the same Civ several times

 

[Nikolai II]

From the patch 1 thread for 1.2.4 just posted:

From Ed's post:

"Finally, we want to let our community know that we do have ideas for a third Age Transition Impact setting, something on the other, harsher side of Regroup, a setting we are tentatively calling Collapse. It’s still early in testing, and we’ll need time to see if it feels fun and fits well into the game. If it does, we’ll look into when it might make sense to include it in a future update. We’ll have more to share once it’s further along!"

 

[McSpank01]

The reason? Because you have to fill gaps with the current implementation with your imagination, because its LESS REPRESENTATIVE. You didnt need to fill gaps before because there were no such gaps

What do you mean? There are enormous gaps you need to fill with previous iterations. You need to really dig deep into your mind to think about what America in the antiquity age looked like. It didn't exist, and you can either think of it as something like the Mississippians or maybe Rome if you wanted to think about the implications of what you mean by an Antiquity America.

Also, China wasnt monolithycal before, you had different units/buildings etc that were of different dynasties

It basically was, it a crude version of a sort of medieval China. Clearly Civ 7 is more representative of reality here. You can't even argue that surely?

A Civilization conquering another is NOT the conquered Civilization switching, doesnt matter how many arumentative gumnastics you try to do. Mongos could already conquer Egypt in every single Civ game. Also, for Egypt to be conquered by Mongols, Mongols had to be already present, so Ehypt transforming into a Mongol Civ that wasnt in the game before is LESS REPRESENTATIVE of that situation

You understand the point I am making about civilisations merging right? Do you not accept that happens or do you want me to bring out more examples?

 

[Siptah]

From the patch 1 thread for 1.2.4 just posted:

 

[SupremacyKing2]

From the patch 1 thread for 1.2.4 just posted:

So is Collapse a setting that will make Age Transitions harsher where your civ completely collapses? Am I understanding that correctly?

 

[Nikolai II]

So is Collapse a setting that will make Age Transitions harsher where your civ completely collapses? Am I understanding that correctly?

Or at least risk it? Sounds like it.

 

[Siptah]

So is Collapse a setting that will make Age Transitions harsher where your civ completely collapses? Am I understanding that correctly?

I think we don't have enough info yet. But I would assume the simple things first: you can take less units, gold, and influence into the next age. Then, you might even loose settlements to independents or something similar – or lose districts and pop. As @Nikolai II alludes, it would be great if this is a risk that you can at least partly prevent through gameplay – or prepare for, because you can estimate what will happen.

 

[Crashdummy]

What do you mean? There are enormous gaps you need to fill with previous iterations. You need to really dig deep into your mind to think about what America in the antiquity age looked like. It didn't exist, and you can either think of it as something like the Mississippians or maybe Rome if you wanted to think about the implications of what you mean by an Antiquity America.


It basically was, it a crude version of a sort of medieval China. Clearly Civ 7 is more representative of reality here. You can't even argue that surely?

You understand the point I am making about civilisations merging right? Do you not accept that happens or do you want me to bring out more examples?

No, those werent gaps. Its an antiquity building, you dont need to imagine anything, you see them and it makes sense

It wasnt a cruse version of a medieval China, it was a synthesis of a whole China

Again, for Civlizations to MERGE, BOTH need to exists. That has NOTHING to do with Civ switching, where you are Civilziation A changing to a NON EXISTING Civilization B. You are trying to justify civ switching with things that literally have nothing to do with it

Situations where a Civ A switches to a non previously existant Civ B are close to 0 in history

And i want to clarify again, to me Civilization was NEVER about trying to reproduce Earth's history

 

[Leucarum]

That is the direction they'd need to go in to keep the age system relevant. Though unanswered questions beyond what is kept...

Will it happen to the AI too? If yes it won't achieve much vs snowballing.

Will players use it? I don't remember anyone talking excitedly about Dramatic Ages in Civ6.

This post probably goes better in a thread dedicated to collapse mode. Do we need one? Is that a dumb question on CivFanatics?

 

[Siptah]

That is the direction they'd need to go in to keep the age system relevant. Though unanswered questions beyond what is kept...

Let's see what they can come up with. It will also be interesting for things like GotM when you can vary setting.

Will it happen to the AI too? If yes it won't achieve much vs snowballing.

It might be not wise to think of even more customization option, but what if this could be toggled as one of the difficulty options? AI reset either continuity/regroup/collapse. Might be fun to go through collapse while the AI blazes through the transition, or the other way around for players that want to be on the receiving end of a rubber band.

Will players use it? I don't remember anyone talking excitedly about Dramatic Ages in Civ6.

That will depend on how well it is executed, no? I don't remember dramatic ages, guess that came after I left civ 6.

This post probably goes better in a thread dedicated to collapse mode.

Maybe. Would also be interesting to see people's wishes.

Do we need one?

Of course.

Is that a dumb question on CivFanatics?

There are no dumb questions.

 

[McSpank01]

No, those werent gaps. Its an antiquity building, you dont need to imagine anything, you see them and it makes sense

So there was an American civilisation in Antiquity was there? Tell me more.

It wasnt a cruse version of a medieval China, it was a synthesis of a whole China

Not really. Where are the modern chinese units and buildings?

Again, for Civlizations to MERGE, BOTH need to exists. That has NOTHING to do with Civ switching, where you are Civilziation A changing to a NON EXISTING Civilization B. You are trying to justify civ switching with things that literally have nothing to do with it

Right, so you basically do not understand it.

Situations where a Civ A switches to a non previously existant Civ B are close to 0 in history

Is history built in layers or is it not built in layers?

 

[SupremacyKing2]

As @Nikolai II alludes, it would be great if this is a risk that you can at least partly prevent through gameplay – or prepare for, because you can estimate what will happen.

I do hope they tie it in more with the Crisis mechanic where how well you handle a Crisis affects what you can take with you to the next Age.