What's your opinion on civ switching?

[Leucarum]

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

I've been advocating for more options, but I'm starting to think we're reaching a point where it's gonna be tough for Firaxis to balance the game when everyone is using completely different settings. At least sticky settings are nice for dealing with the bloat.

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

It led to you losing settlements to rebellions if you did poorly in an age. I think it was an option where everyone tried it once and noped on out.

Which is my default opinion for how this game mode would fare TBH...

 

[Siptah]

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.

This would be my wish as well. But as a first step, this would require crises that are impactful. I recently had the revolution crisis in a game. The cards didn't make a difference, and the crises actually played out until the end, and forced me to switch governments. But that's it. No revolution on the map, no uprising, no penalty. Just: stop being a plutocracy, you are now a revolutionary dictatorship and can only choose these two bonuses at celebrations. That's so... wrong on many levels.

 

[Crashdummy]

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

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

Right, so you basically do not understand it.


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

You dont need to imagine what you see. I thought i was clear. There wasnt an American building in Antiquity, but there is in the game and you can see it

You dont need specific Chinese modern buildings, because that was not how the previous games were modeled. Not every Civ neederd unique stuff at all times, that is just boring

I understand it perfectly, you are trying to justify comething using things that have NOTHING to do with it

Yes, history is built in layers, and previous Civ already modeled such layers

 

[Crashdummy]

About the new option, i think more options are always good, and if there are people that like such option,m thats great for them and i am happy

I dont think it will bring new/back players though

 

[McSpank01]

You dont need to imagine what you see. I thought i was clear. There wasnt an American building in Antiquity, but there is in the game and you can see it

You dont need specific Chinese modern buildings, because that was not how the previous games were modeled. Not every Civ neederd unique stuff at all times, that is just boring

Right, so you need huge amounts of imagination to understand gaps like what an ancient American civilisation looked like, because it never existed. What you are talking about is game factions, completely disconnected from reality. You want to play as your game faction that you are used to, nothing more nothing less. You don’t want any real relationship to history or any more added complexity than that. That’s fine, but this game is not just sticking to the same old game factions in the same way.

Yes, history is built in layers, and previous Civ already modeled such layers

No, they modelled civs as a small snapshot of an idea of a civ and turned them into a game faction. They didn’t work in layers, they expanded out a single layer in time and made you use your imagination for how that layer looks across time

 

[Siptah]

No, they modelled civs as a small snapshot of an idea of a civ and turned them into a game faction. They didn’t work in layers, they expanded out a single layer in time and made you use your imagination for how that layer looks across time

I personally always found that civs modeled to portray multiple eras of a region or nation felt a bit weird in previous civ games. I appreciate the idea to have civ bonuses and themes not all tied to one era, but it left a bit of a strange taste at times, when it just didn't seem to come together thematically.

Germany (civ 6) with Free Imperial Cities + Barbarossa fits very good together. The Hansa also fits imperial cities, but less so with Barbarossa. The U-Boat doesn't fit at all. The name fits more or less, as Barbarossa is a strong figure for 19th and 20th century German nationalism, and imperial and hanse cities are still somewhat present (at least in people's minds) into Germany.

Japan (civ 6) with Meiji Restoration and Hojo, there's already something strange. Samurai falls in the middle, while Electronic Factories fall out of the picture again.

The english have also been strange at times, featuring medieval (or even non-english) units like the Longbowman, and English rulers (Elizabeth), mixed with features of the British Empire (e.g., Victoria, Workshop of the World, The Sun never Sets).

Hence, civ design-wise and for consistency, I think civ 7 > all others. No more modern civs with bonuses in antiquity to make them viable choices, and no more Aztecs with antiquity uniques, etc.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

No, they modelled civs as a small snapshot of an idea of a civ and turned them into a game faction. They didn’t work in layers, they expanded out a single layer in time and made you use your imagination for how that layer looks across time

But they did not just limit civs to one era in previous games.
Germany had a WWI era Uboat and a Medieval Industrial Zone in Civ 6. Japan had a Samurai and Industrial Factory building.

I personally always found that civs modeled to portray multiple eras of a region or nation felt a bit weird in previous civ games. I appreciate the idea to have civ bonuses and themes not all tied to one era, but it left a bit of a strange taste at times, when it just didn't seem to come together thematically.

Germany (civ 6) with Free Imperial Cities + Barbarossa fits very good together. The Hansa also fits imperial cities, but less so with Barbarossa. The U-Boat doesn't fit at all. The name fits more or less, as Barbarossa is a strong figure for 19th and 20th century German nationalism, and imperial and hanse cities are still somewhat present (at least in people's minds) into Germany.

Japan (civ 6) with Meiji Restoration and Hojo, there's already something strange. Samurai falls in the middle, while Electronic Factories fall out of the picture again.

The english have also been strange at times, featuring medieval (or even non-english) units like the Longbowman, and English rulers (Elizabeth), mixed with features of the British Empire (e.g., Victoria, Workshop of the World, The Sun never Sets).

Hence, civ design-wise and for consistency, I think civ 7 > all others. No more modern civs with bonuses in antiquity to make them viable choices, and no more Aztecs with antiquity uniques, etc.

I personally never minded that they went this direction. In past games it was one Germany and one Japan, so it makes sense that you would want unqiues from across time.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

This would be my wish as well. But as a first step, this would require crises that are impactful. I recently had the revolution crisis in a game. The cards didn't make a difference, and the crises actually played out until the end, and forced me to switch governments. But that's it. No revolution on the map, no uprising, no penalty. Just: stop being a plutocracy, you are now a revolutionary dictatorship and can only choose these two bonuses at celebrations. That's so... wrong on many levels.

1000% yes.

 

[socratic]

In past games it was one Germany and one Japan, so it makes sense that you would want unqiues from across time.

I also want to add that the "one Germany, one Japan" problem still exists. There is currently only one playable Germany and one playable Japan (both of which contain uniques that exist outside their respective time frames). Same can be said about Korea, Greece, Ethiopia, Egypt, etc. etc. Unlike Civ 6, you can now only play them for 1/3 of the game. Civ-switching may have done wonders for England, China, and India, but not so for much of anyone else.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I also want to add that the "one Germany, one Japan" problem still exists. There is currently only one playable Germany and one playable Japan (both of which contain uniques that exist outside their respective time frames). Same can be said about Korea, Greece, Ethiopia, Egypt, etc. etc. Unlike Civ 6, you can now only play them for 1/3 of the game. Civ-switching may have done wonders for England, China, and India, but not so for much of anyone else.

True. However, I believe that there is a 99% chance that the game will at least get another "Germany" and "Japan" down the line, most likely both in Exploration.

 

[socratic]

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.

For me, Civ has always been about a history-themed board game about building a 'great' civilization. Each of the victories are different example of 'greatness', whether that be through advancing humanity, developing a rich and influential culture, or bringing the world under one banner. I am playing a civilization first and foremost, the leaders are just set dressing. I don't think either of our interpretations and more right or wrong. The issue is that from Civs 1-6 both of our interpretations could exist within the same game, but not in this one. Civ 7 has alienated a huge margin (dare I say majority) of the franchise's fanbase because of how rigid its mechanics and narrative are. It's lost its flexibility.

 

[Krikkit1]

The history never mattered to me, it's a nice teaching tool, but at the end of the day I know it's a game, which by definition has to be different from reality.
Obviously I like when Civs are lead by the appropriate leader, it teaches you something relevant.
And it makes sense when Civs are in the appropriate era, but it doesn't really matter in the long run.
But the game is in between a simulator, a narrative game and a sandbox, designed partially around the idea that you can play 'like' great empires from history.

Anyway, this is why the 3 era system doesn't appeal to me, not the other way around. When you play the game you're not actually going through what Rome went through to become France. You're doing something else entirely, and then a predetermined point, you just become something else entirely.

It's like Schrödinger's nonsense.
You switch empires but then you don't, because all the cities are still there in their old name. Time elapses but all that happens is everything is reset.
You switch because of a crisis but also because of natural progression. Which is it? And why?

It feels less like 3 rounds and more like you play 1 game of football and then switch football club. But take all the players with you. It's weird and it doesn't feel fluid.

I don't crave unique bonuses every era, I'm quite happy with a design like Civ5/4 where you can just pick new permanent policies to shape your empire.

So yeah and I don't subscribe to people criticising the past games for "having America in Antiquity" and "Maya in the Space Age". Who cares? Part of the fun was hearing Roman music remixed with Space Era sounds.
And it's just hypocritical because instead of that they just added a similarly historically inaccurate civ switch system and system where you can pick any leader for any Civ.

They really need to have some Narrative elements with that.

If you have unlocked certain civs
..by game play then have a gameplay quest where you can earn extra culture for their unique civic if you choose them next era
..by civ/leader then have a one of your civ/leader quests be one that can give you extra culture for their unique civic if you choose them next era

After you switch
Narrative elements that talk about/justify why you adopted these new uniques and ask if you want to keep your name* or change it (do the Byzantines want to be called Byzantines or Romans).. with bonuses for each

Narrative elements for settlements that don't match the new city list... randomly have them come up and offer to change the name or keep them the same (with bonuses for each)

Graphics of buildings should remain the civ under which they were built.... maybe a rename could change it..Narrative events if an old building is repaired.. or overbuilt, do we want to keep the style it was in?

These can apply for conquered settlements as well as ones that were founded by you under another name in previous ages

*and graphics

 

[socratic]

True. However, I believe that there is a 99% chance that the game will at least get another "Germany" and "Japan" down the line, most likely both in Exploration.

That's fair. I do think civ-switching will feel more natural once more civs are added. But at the same time I feel the game has failed to deliver if it requires you to buy a bunch of add-ons to do something you could do in every other iteration (that being to play as Japan or Germany or whatever through the whole game).

 

[Siptah]

For me, Civ has always been about a history-themed board game about building a 'great' civilization. Each of the victories are different example of 'greatness', whether that be through advancing humanity, developing a rich and influential culture, or bringing the world under one banner. I am playing a civilization first and foremost, the leaders are just set dressing. I don't think either of our interpretations and more right or wrong. The issue is that from Civs 1-6 both of our interpretations could exist within the same game, but not in this one. Civ 7 has alienated a huge margin (dare I say majority) of the franchise's fanbase because of how rigid its mechanics and narrative are. It's lost its flexibility.

Funnily enough, I would have agreed that the focus of the board game or competition is on civs a few years ago. But I think the switch from civs to leaders already happened in civ 6 (and maybe to lesser extent already in 5). But in 6, the way it is presented and was advertised, I felt the game is for sure more about leaders than civs - but both interpretations were still viable. I disliked the additional emphasis to leaders a lot, and back then wished that civ 7 would actually drop leaders completely. And now, well, I can see that a focus on leaders is at least necessary to have a constant opponent when civs are changing throughout the game.

That's fair. I do think civ-switching will feel more natural once more civs are added. But at the same time I feel the game has failed to deliver if it requires you to buy a bunch of add-ons to do something you could do in every other iteration (that being to play as Japan or Germany or whatever through the whole game).

Theoretically, you could make the point the other way round as well. Until now, the games forced you to play Rome or America from beginning to end, without any nod to post-colonial civs or civs that ceased to exist. Why restricting it to one of the two ways is necessary is questionable at least, but I don‘t think one is more necessary to have than the other per se just because we had it before or it is novel.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think HK did a huge disservice to Civ7, compromising civ switching mechanics, despite the implementation being completely different.

The objection is not that it wasn’t implemented well enough

It’s that it was implemented at all.

True. However, I believe that there is a 99% chance that the game will at least get another "Germany" and "Japan" down the line, most likely both in Exploration.

Which we will have to pay extra for.

I’m getting a third of a civ. Is the DLC a thirr of the price?

For me, Civ has always been about a history-themed board game about building a 'great' civilization. Each of the victories are different example of 'greatness', whether that be through advancing humanity, developing a rich and influential culture, or bringing the world under one banner. I am playing a civilization first and foremost, the leaders are just set dressing. I don't think either of our interpretations and more right or wrong. The issue is that from Civs 1-6 both of our interpretations could exist within the same game, but not in this one. Civ 7 has alienated a huge margin (dare I say majority) of the franchise's fanbase because of how rigid its mechanics and narrative are. It's lost its flexibility.

This is pretty spot on

A historical role player crafting his own narrative and a number crunching min maxer could both enjoy Civ1 through 6.

The former went completely under the bus for civ switching and era resets, and the latter plays the game twice, realizes it’s on rails, quickly finds the game a Solved Problem, and loses interest.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

A historical role player crafting his own narrative and a number crunching min maxer could both enjoy Civ1 through 6.

The former went completely under the bus for civ switching and era resets, and the latter plays the game twice, realizes it’s on rails, quickly finds the game a Solved Problem, and loses interest.

Shuckee-Gee, I have never considered myself a 'min-maxer' of any kind, but I have already 'solved' most of the Legacy Pathways in Civ VII and now find myself playing much of the game on Auto-Pilot. That includes playing almost the same way for any Leader-Civ combination, because Leaders and Civs simply aren't that much different when it comes to the Legacy paths. Ho Hum. It's a good thing a bunch of new and interesting games are coming out later this year (Anno 117, EU V, Farthest Frontier) or my gaming time would soon drop to nar zero hours per week.

 

[King Flevance]

^ Me over here liking Humankind still.

Though I never wanted Civ to adopt the mechanic even before Humankind released and people were talking about it being implemented. I remember discussions of America only being playable as a colony founded by Britain where you would have to choose to play as America from Britain.

Personally, HK's civ switching works for me because of the generic template of the game. The civs are the flavor in a pretty generic system. Oddly, I think Civ has too much charm in its classic system to pull this off. It feels like a step down. I don't even think adding more civs will help it feel any different to me. I am not sure if anything will "help" this feel better. I have just accepted civ switching to be what it is. I am most excited to see things like diplomacy, crises, legacies, etc. Be addressed. I understand the importance of addressing age transitions because of how poor reception has been but there is a lot of stuff plugged in here. I am hoping we see a big update next month or in October to really give us all some stuff to talk about and dissect.

 

[Crashdummy]

^ Me over here liking Humankind still.

Though I never wanted Civ to adopt the mechanic even before Humankind released and people were talking about it being implemented. I remember discussions of America only being playable as a colony founded by Britain where you would have to choose to play as America from Britain.

Personally, HK's civ switching works for me because of the generic template of the game. The civs are the flavor in a pretty generic system. Oddly, I think Civ has too much charm in its classic system to pull this off. It feels like a step down. I don't even think adding more civs will help it feel any different to me. I am not sure if anything will "help" this feel better. I have just accepted civ switching to be what it is. I am most excited to see things like diplomacy, crises, legacies, etc. Be addressed. I understand the importance of addressing age transitions because of how poor reception has been but there is a lot of stuff plugged in here. I am hoping we see a big update next month or in October to really give us all some stuff to talk about and dissect.

As someone that is in the group that wants Classic Mode, i can guarantee that adding more civs and some kind of "historical path" for each Civ will do nothing to solve the issue

The issue is changing civs, not to which civ you change

 

[aieeegrunt]

As someone that is in the group that wants Classic Mode, i can guarantee that adding more civs and some kind of "historical path" for each Civ will do nothing to solve the issue

The issue is changing civs, not to which civ you change

The era reset is at least as big. You get a major “last ten turns” problem where you know the axe is coming, so you start gaming it in all sorts of narrative butchering ways.

 

[Gorbles]

The era reset is at least as big. You get a major “last ten turns” problem where you know the axe is coming, so you start gaming it in all sorts of narrative butchering ways.

Unlike Age points in VI?