Yet Another Civ-Switching Idea

[Vitruvian Guar]

Also leave an option for a player not to unlock anything. But instead of immediate loss, they get to stay their previous civ, which means that in the new age they do not receive any bonuses and uniques.

 

[Olleus]

Also leave an option for a player not to unlock anything. But instead of immediate loss, they get to stay their previous civ, which means that in the new age they do not receive any bonuses and uniques.

That seems like condemning them to a slow death. Better to tell the player they've lost now, than make them waste 10h+ in a near hopeless situation.

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

That seems like condemning them to a slow death. Better to tell the player they've lost now, than make them waste 10h+ in a near hopeless situation.

I don't know, seems like potentially an interesting challenge. But yes, that would require some balancing in order not to be completely hopeless.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Spent 6 hours on a game then have to delete the save file because I only got 2 out of 3 required castles and now my Normans die to magic civilisation killing powers instead of becoming French. Indeed...

 

[Olleus]

Spent 6 hours on a game then have to delete the save file because I only got 2 out of 3 required castles and now my Normans die to magic civilisation killing powers instead of becoming French. Indeed...

Yeah, git gud. You can lose the game if a barbarian wonders into your capital in the early game when it's not defended, and you can lose the game if someone launches a spaceship to Mars a single turn before you do. The game already has arbitrary "win" conditions, why not add no-less-arbitrary "lose" conditions too? An additional source of tension in the middle game seems fun to me. Of course I realise that's not for everyone, which is why I was thinking of this as a mod more than anything else.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Yeah, git gud. You can lose the game if a barbarian wonders into your capital in the early game when it's not defended, and you can lose the game if someone launches a spaceship to Mars a single turn before you do. The game already has arbitrary "win" conditions, why not add no-less-arbitrary "lose" conditions too? An additional source of tension in the middle game seems fun to me. Of course I realise that's not for everyone, which is why I was thinking of this as a mod more than anything else.

Civilization is a game about abstracting human history. "Barbarians" have destroyed and set back nations in the past and someone winning the game via winning the space race/colonizing Mars is an abstraction of their civilization completely surpassing others in scienfitic achievement .

The arbitrary lose conditions you propose on the other hand have no basis as either an abstraction of reality/history and are simply punishing game mechanics for no apparent reason other than to justify civ swapping. I can't see many wanting to waste hours of their lives having their historical 4x save files ruined because they or the AI didn't happen to build enough stables to magically transform into the Mongols or didn't build enough ports to be the English and the Civ God's just happened to decide to smite their civilization from existence because of it. The idea might work in a mod but that's me being generous

 

[Black Gate]

The very first line to open this thread was:

This is something that I think might be within the moddable sphere and is a layer on top of the Civ7 system (as we understand it) rather than a replacement of it

Are we not discussing the potential of a future mod? There's no way Firaxis would add something to kill your game at the end of an age and potential hinder someone new's experience, that's the entire reason the regional unlocks exist. Nor would they change such a game defining mechanic with only twenty weeks left to launch.

 

[aieeegrunt]

If you do well enough with the Era Crises you should have the option to pick a set of Era traits for the next era, but keep your civilization

I mean your civ surmounted the crises, why would people abandon their culture?

 

[TheGrayFox]

The very first line to open this thread was:

Are we not discussing the potential of a future mod? There's no way Firaxis would add something to kill your game at the end of an age and potential hinder someone new's experience, that's the entire reason the regional unlocks exist. Nor would they change such a game defining mechanic with only twenty weeks left to launch.

I absolutely understand that OP was talking hypothetically and presenting this as an idea for a potential mod but he's running the idea before us as a community for input. OP is in the drawing board stages and some are simply giving constructive criticism.

I'll admit i have absolutely no interest in civ swapping as designed but as an observer, I think the idea that other dude gave about getting the civ you were closest to fulfilling the requirement of would be better design for a mod than arbitrary lose conditions and game overs.

 

[Olleus]

If you do well enough with the Era Crises you should have the option to pick a set of Era traits for the next era, but keep your civilization

I mean your civ surmounted the crises, why would people abandon their culture?

Picking new bonuses is synonymous to picking a new civilization in game play terms. Surviving the crisis *is* the condition for picking a new civilization - picking new stuff is the reward for surviving it. The only way to lose the crisis AFAIK, is to lose the game during the few dozen turns during which the crisis is played out. We've already had one recent thread derailed by that, with enough pages discussing the interpretations of this mechanics, I'd rather this one wasn't derailed too.

Of course I'm interesting in feedback on this idea - that's why I posted it on this forum. But the opinion of people who are dead against civ-swapping in the first place is irrelevant here, for much the same reason that I don't ask vegans for advice on how steak should be cooked.

 

[Krikkit1]

If you do well enough with the Era Crises you should have the option to pick a set of Era traits for the next era, but keep your civilization

I mean your civ surmounted the crises, why would people abandon their culture?

The way for this to happen is for them to give you control over your Name. so when the Romans decide they want The Normans (or Spanish or Mongol) uniques for the next era... they get to choose the name of their new civ/city list. (basically a simple change it or keep it the same (with the ability to customize)

 

[aieeegrunt]

Picking new bonuses is synonymous to picking a new civilization in game play terms. Surviving the crisis *is* the condition for picking a new civilization - picking new stuff is the reward for surviving it. The only way to lose the crisis AFAIK, is to lose the game during the few dozen turns during which the crisis is played out. We've already had one recent thread derailed by that, with enough pages discussing the interpretations of this mechanics, I'd rather this one wasn't derailed too.

Of course I'm interesting in feedback on this idea - that's why I posted it on this forum. But the opinion of people who are dead against civ-swapping in the first place is irrelevant here, for much the same reason that I don't ask vegans for advice on how steak should be cooked.

Wasn’t aware of that, sorry

The way for this to happen is for them to give you control over your Name. so when the Romans decide they want The Normans (or Spanish or Mongol) uniques for the next era... they get to choose the name of their new civ/city list. (basically a simple change it or keep it the same (with the ability to customize)

This is a pretty simple change.

I’m still on the fence on the whole soft reset every era, I’ll need to see how much it actually nerfs you.

If my Rome survives the crises, and Legions stand triumphant from Hadrian’s wall to Mesopotamia, having a Bippity Boppity Boo now you are Lombards grunting in the ruins at each other that is a huge turnoff