Why does new age bonuses require switching civs?

AffineConstant

Warlord
Joined
Sep 25, 2022
Messages
227
The title seems self explanatory.

The large scale disappointment in the "Civ switching" mechanic seems entirely based around, well, switching Civs twice in a game (after choosing one to begin with). Playing as Egypt then Songhai, or Britain to Japan? But choosing a new Civ bonus, one appropriate to each of three ages, seems to be entirely separable from switching what leader you have, or what your Civ is called.

In another version of Civ VII you choose your leader with a unique bonus and defined building set the entire game, then each age you choose which bonus to get for that age. The bonus for each age requiring you to change Civs and Leaders seem entirely arbitrary, why are they connected?
 
The 25 min video emphasizes that you’re switching the civs, not the leaders. I don’t know where people are getting the “you can also switch leaders from.” Shirk emphasizes that the continuity in leaders helps reinforce the feeling that you’re playing as and fighting against specific powers.
 
quoting relevant post
Yeah not sure what to make of that. The check boxes are “play as Egypt” “play as Aksum” and “play as Anima” with a bigger “Choose Songhai” at the bottom. Doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to let you, right before you advance an age, switch to a completely different antiquity Civ via checkbox before evolving to Songhai for the Discovery age. I have to imagine it’s a dev debug option left up to test out various pathing or something.

That, or there’s some weirdo vassalization/conquest mechanics that let you adopt culture you eat. But yeah im guessing it’s a debug thing, dunno.
 
I'm guessing in single player game, if both the AI and human satisfy the condition for Mongolia, then human's choice trumps the AI's choice in picking the civ for the next era. Wonder what happens in a Multiplayer game? Can there be multiple Mongolia? What if all players pick Mongolia as the next civ?
 
Those are requirements for choosing Songhai.

The player can *become Songhai civ* if:
>They are Egypt civ
OR
>They are Aksum civ
OR
>They are using Amina leader

We know being Egypt Civ unlocks Songhai and that a leader can unlock a specific civ thanks to this image:
I think this is the screen that should make people pause before screaming their discontent into the ether. We still don't know enough to be entirely sure but it doesn't look like a free for all when you switch "civs", it seems to me more like your choice of antiquity Civ matters, your choice of leader matters, and the way you have developed your Civ matters. This sounds promising, not immersion breaking.
 
Yeah not sure what to make of that. The check boxes are “play as Egypt” “play as Aksum” and “play as Anima” with a bigger “Choose Songhai” at the bottom. Doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense to let you, right before you advance an age, switch to a completely different antiquity Civ via checkbox before evolving to Songhai for the Discovery age. I have to imagine it’s a dev debug option left up to test out various pathing or something.

That, or there’s some weirdo vassalization/conquest mechanics that let you adopt culture you eat. But yeah im guessing it’s a debug thing, dunno.
Could be triggers to choose Songhai?
 
I like it:
  1. Changing civs means each civ have relevant bonuses for its age
  2. More customization of the path is cool and more permanent choices is cool as well. This should add replayability
  3. Switching civs is represented as emerging cultures and I'm totally on board with this. No civilization lived through history without changing its identity. Even India, China and Japan went through some significant transformations
 
What if all players pick Mongolia as the next civ?
In fact, this is not a problem. Then there will be a civil war. There are many examples in history when, so to speak, one civilization appears in the form of several states (often warring). For example, Korea: North and South.
 
But can you chose to remain Egypt ...

I want to play as Japanese all game, why switch ... its ancient civ to modern day (like Chinese also)
Doesn't seem possible? Humankind had that option but the reward for it was tied to the fame (sole win score) system.
Nothing we've seen so far suggests it's a possibility and honestly, it was not really used by Humankind players either, AFAIK.
 
Well, it does not make sense not to be able to stay same Civ.

As I said, Japan and China (even today modern civs) are civs from ancient era up-to-today .... where will the put Japan, in which era??
 
A lot of things I read about the game look very interesting but this mechanic looks terrible. I played exactly one match in Humankind and never went back because it killed the immersion completely. I think in the end I was France but did not have a single city with a French name. Civ always claimed that the challenge was to build a civilization to stand the test of time. Now it will be to build a civilization that will definitely fail and is succeeded by another one that will definitely fail that will be succeeded by another one to stand the test f time. This does not look like fun.
 
A lot of things I read about the game look very interesting but this mechanic looks terrible. I played exactly one match in Humankind and never went back because it killed the immersion completely. I think in the end I was France but did not have a single city with a French name. Civ always claimed that the challenge was to build a civilization to stand the test of time. Now it will be to build a civilization that will definitely fail and is succeeded by another one that will definitely fail that will be succeeded by another one to stand the test f time. This does not look like fun.

Basilisk-Civilization: a whole made up of different (sometimes hardly compatible) parts. :lol:
 
Those are requirements for choosing Songhai.

The player can *become Songhai civ* if:
>They are Egypt civ
OR
>They are Aksum civ
OR
>They are using Amina leader

We know being Egypt Civ unlocks Songhai and that a leader can unlock a specific civ thanks to this image:
This is much better. not as cheesy as Humankind. Firaxis is right about this. evolving a civ requires constrains where it leads to.
 
Well, it does not make sense not to be able to stay same Civ.

As I said, Japan and China (even today modern civs) are civs from ancient era up-to-today .... where will the put Japan, in which era??

I wonder if they will split some of those civs into multiple variations. Because obviously civs like China, Japan, England, etc... could fit into multiple eras. I could certainly see them have "England" as an Age of Exploration civ, and then also have "Great Britain" as a modern civ. You could have "Feudal Japan" as the Exploration civ (with Samurai), and then modern Japan (electronics factories) as the modern variation.

I'm assuming for civs like Germany, we'll get the Holy Roman Empire as their age of exploration option, and then Germany would be the modern variation. We can get Viking as the middle age civ, and then Sweden as the modern variation.

Given the expansion packs with the deluxe editions list 2 leaders and 4 civs, that leads me to believe they might opt slightly that way, where not every civ "needs" to have a leader mapped with them. So we might not necessarily have a modern Japan leader. And doing that, it should make it easier to release a ton of civ options, since they're really only limited by what bonuses they need to give them, if they don't need a leaderhead for each. It also opens the door potentially to some civs where we don't have details about their leaders - I know when discussing splitting India up, or about some civs like the Olmecs, where we know little about their actual rulers, they could come into the game as civs without a dedicated leader.
 
Top Bottom