The culture swap would makes much more sense when it is based on your playstyle. For example, you spawn with a bunch of horse nearby and play aggressively invading neighbours in early game. It would make sense if in the next age you can choose to be mongols. Mongols here is a representative of the playstyle. It is so much easier and intuitive for people because you will easily recognize what they are known as.
Different upgrades for the same culture would be cool and also would feed into that alternative history aspect well. What if you're at the crossroads from the Frankish Empire to late 17th century France. You could decide between becoming a revolutionary republic, or stay a monarchy or become an Empire or something completely different, like a successful Parisian Commune. All have different playstyles and mechanics and bonuses.
I am actually on board with the idea to switch civs. Olmecs -> Aztecs -> Mexicans or Romans -> Venetia -> Italy or something like that. I always thought it was silly to start the game as Brazil or USA or Germany in 4000 BC. And it was always a bit silly to have submarines and go to space as Babylon. I think the biggest worry for me would be that there isn't a satisfying through line for a lot Civs. E.g. you want to play Egypt and then you can't really just continue playing Egypt through to modernity, despite being there the whole time. But I'm pretty sure, mods will emerge, that will give a ton of variety and or just let your play with one civ from 4000 bc to modernity and the only ting that changes between ages is the boni.
@@paulszki It should be something like Egypt --> Numerous choices from Islam's golden Age (Like Mamluks or Arabia)---> Modern Egypt That should be a choice so that we can have a continuity of we want. Like Rus --> Russian Empire ---> (Soviet Union or Russian Federation or Ukraine)
Instead of switching nations, it should be more of a cultural thing. Ancient Egyptian could become Arabic Egyptian with new leaders. And the transformation makes absolutely no sense. Egypt to Songhai to Buganda. That makes absolutely no sense. It's like going from Hittites to Kievan Rus to Portugal
I'm thinking the same thing, I don't mind this idea I just wish/hope the civ changes are logical. I don't wanna be playing Rome and then all of a sudden be able to turn Mongolian the next era
Civ has never made sense. It's the same as building Great Library or Eiffel Tower as Shaka Zulu or building Pyramides as Germany. It's weird, I admit it. But we'll get used to it
I think that's just a wrong way of thinking about it imo. You're not becoming that nation, your adopting the traits that made them. I've made a point before about letting the name evolve so that you don't just becoming Mongolia from Egypt, the names merge to form what is a fictitious nation sure, but one that feels like you keep your roots and develop into the characteristics of these other nations. Like going from Egypt to the Mongolgyption empire (Idk a good example, I don't work for firaxis lmao) and let your nation feel organic, as opposed to being the USA in the tribal era or being Shaka with nukes which always felt so weird and wrong to me and ruined any chance at immersion for me
Fr though what is the connection between these civs?? The only thing they have in common is that they're in Africa, that'd be like going from China to Korea to Japan just because they're located in East Asia
Yeah idk why Egypt becomes completely different African nations, there,are plenty of Egyptian nations throughout history, like the Fatimids and Mamluks for exploration, or the Sultanate of Egypt or the Republic of Egypt for modern.
They could make the civilizations evolve example Roman Empire , Byzantium and there you choose Greece or Italy or Gauls then Franks and then French makes it feel overwhelmingly more natural than Egypt Mongolia
I think as a player , this egypt to mongolia makes perfect sense, Its not about the nation names, Its about the benefits you get from your civ. They said that your starting civ will still influence your lategame so its like you are building your own civ. Also i think people are not talking enough about crisis. Crisis is what make this civ change meaningful, and they will happen at the end of each era. You need to adapt to them in order for your civ to "survive the test of time"
I think that would be a good solution for this problem. And idk if it was just my eyes playing tricks on me, but on the gameplay preview, when switching say Egypt to a new Culture, I think I saw staying as Egypt as one of the options for the switch, so this may already have been implemented. But again IDK
It is confirmed that you can just play an elongated game of a single age if you want to play only 1 civ for the whole game. That's how multi-player will be by default I believe as well to decrease game length/complexity.
@@user-ek2su5zo5q Early game, mid game, and late game are 100 years apart on default settings. I assume that's what they mean, and your nation typically changes a lot over the course of the game. For example, a democratic nation might become a dictatorship run on slavery, which I suppose you don't need to change governments to do so, but still. I can see what they mean, but like you said, the transition of early to mid game isn't really an era.
Having too many DLCs can be a problem, but as long as you are able to keep them forever, it's fine. I don't want to play a game where you have to pay every month to play it, for example.
Seeing Egypt transition into Mongolia and then the United States is gonna be weird. There needs to be logical continuity for this to work and it doesn't look like Civ 7 will pull that off.
Your Civ bonuses changing over time is a good idea and will probably be fun. Transforming into completely different cultures is just wack though. I wish you just became nomad Egypt instead of becoming Mongolia.
I find the means of seeing "Mongolia" is more intuitive than seeing "Nomad Hatshepsut" in determining what the player is expecting to encounter. Also, keep in mind that the Mongolian UU and UB are included in the choice, so it's not just "Nomad" but a specific nomadic empire.
I feel like the mamluks or something would fit a 'mounted egypt' well. I just really hope they at least have settings for the mechanic, cuz I'm worried about games being nonsensical thanks to the AI picking whatever
I agree. I think that Civilization VII will lose the special character of the civilizations, when it gets muddled by several different civilizations and loses the unique "brand" of each unique civilization.
I didn't like Humankind for this exact same reason. For me, what really got me into enjoying civ is the fact that I could make an alternate version of history where Aztecs/Maya/Maori/Mapuche/Iroquois etc are great empires spanning vast distances and being prosperous. I was always fascinated about these cultures since they were mostly just erased from the existance. And as a Ukrainian I feel a lot of sympathy to those civs because my country also had a tragic history and never had a chance to become a long lasting prosperous state (maybe Kievan Rus is an exception but I wouldn't call it long lasting) and was constantly stomped by empires. Because of this I don't really like playing England, Germany, China, France, etc. But now civ 7 is basically telling me that it needs to be more historically accurate so I can forget about making a prosperous Kree empire, but instead play Egypt as Benjamin Franklin and then switch to mongols. Makes much more sense this way. I got really disappointed that the main feature of civ 7 is this BS which is the most hated feature of Humankind, because I really like how the game looks visually and I love the way the cities would develop, looks a lot more put together. I believe that visual upgrade along with an actaully smart AI (and not just getting 3 settlers first turn) and normal multiplayer without all the pain and suffering that players have to go through to enjoy it until people quick or game starts desyncing, would have been enough to make Civ 7 a great game for me. But I won't be spending money on changing cultures again, I hope the devs still reconsider this decision. Otherwise, well, civ 6 is not going anywhere...
Humankind allowed you to keep the culture after the era it appeared, having the cultural unit become outdated but keeping the cultural building. You even got a fame score multiplier as a reward for challenging yourself that way, and it stacked every era you "transcended" that culture pick. I must say, the art made for the Knights for the North/South American cultures is absolutely goated
We will see, but so far the Civ 7 base game seem ok (natural disasters included for example) to be determined. Looks amazing, very nervous about the transitions to new civs and hopefully it’s totally different from humankind… only concern so far, but a huge one
I never played Humankind and I like the idea of the change Civ mechanic in theory... But I feel like changing your Civ at set intervals is kinda strange. Maybe if if it was optional based on what you do in early game, that could work. But if I want to play America in 3000BC all the way to modern age, I should be able to, that's part of the silly fun of Civ.
@@EnclaveAgent A lot of people keep complaining about Humankind's culture switch mechanics every era, but by no means even at release was any player actually forced to switch out of their already-selected culture from the era prior. There was always a Transcend mechanic where the cultural unit may have become outmoded over time, but the cultural district would continue to be available and an extra fame bonus would be rewarded
I understand. I don't mind the swaps, but instead of entire cultures, maybe what you did in one age will affect your civ choice culturally that in next age it will synergise. Eg. build pastures and go for cavalry will make your civ more into a cavalry focused Civ maybe with hippodromes as UB. But make them Mongols? Like in HK, feels a bit off.
Yeah precisely. Civ game are 4x war game, not stupid "historical simulation". And I terms of historical accuracy, removing unit exp so that every unit are equally effective, and having an immortal leader are o so realistic eh? Utterly stupid excuses
The culture should be just one place, but with bonuses unique to that place, like Egypt getting to choose between military vs economy vs culture. From 3 powers unique to Egypt. not Egypt turning into the Mongols for some stupid reason like Rome into Byzantium into Italy, Asturias into Castile into Spain Han into Qing into China Yamato into Ashikaga into Japan And so on, playing around eith these or maybe giving alternative paths would be so fun
I know this might be a whatever feature but at the end of a game in civ 5 you could see how the civ borders changed throughout the game. They removed it in civ 6 which is something I liked.
There’s a difference between changing *cultures* and changing *nations*. The era system stuff is weird between Humankind and Civ because it doesn’t recognize that distinction. China has been around forever, but it has certainly gone through several marked cultural changes. Let the player choose to evolve or change their culture (and buffs/unique units) throughout the ages without having to pretend that everyone just decided that it was time to change the name of their nation for no reason.
I have about 3000 hours in Civ 6 and 2000 hours in Civ 5. I still strongly think Civ 5 is the best Civ game. Its simple, easy to understand. This changing your country per era feels terrible. If I wanted to go play Humankind I would just play Humankind. I say all this as a person who started playing Civilization back in 1992. I know some people will disagree with my opinion that is OK. When old players like me get worried, the current game Devs should take note. I have played every version of the game (1 - 6 and Revolutions on Xbox) and at this point in time, I don't think I would buy Civ 7.
What I think is funny is that creators like yourself are being honest about the concerns about civilization switching and disconnecting leaders from their cultures. Meanwhile, people like PotatoMcWhiskey are literally insulting and banning people for bringing it up. Lost all respect for him for that.
@@frankiecedeno3724 It's certainly possible that the guy was spamming chat. I wouldn't know. I just watched the recording of the live stream. That said, it was potato's first time addressing it so it's possible that potato gave him that really bullshit insult because he doesn't like the question and then the guy decided to spam the chat because he was pissed. That spamming might have been what got him banned but from what I can tell potato just doesn't want to address that particular issue with the game because it seems like he just wants to pretend people aren't concerned about it. The thing that annoyed me the most was he not only insulted the guy but then he told him to go ask the developers himself. Like bro, we don't have the special privilege of being flown into the studio to talk to the devs like he does because he has a little channel. It's super belittling.
@@yummmemonty7450 I would recommend watching the potato and spiffing Britt stream because maybe I'm misremembering it or maybe I missed something but that is the way I interpreted it at the time, and I got so pissed off I just turned off the stream.
I get why the devs don't want to lock people into an IRL culture progression (like Gauls to France, etc.). They want people to have a sandbox "theme park" where they can make anything happen. But the problem is that each of those civs have specific connotations and pre-conceptions that... just don't jive with the others. Would it be cool if I could have Egyptian horse lords in the Exploration Age? Sure. But if you swap me over to Mongolia with all the aesthetics that go with it, I lose my sense of identity from the previous third of the game. Same with my neighboring rivals. (Now, maybe the new culture is a very gradual change, we don't know yet.)
Art style ++ Diplomacy city states +++ Era culture changes - - - Any movement ++ City expansion +\- (needs to be a spread option, not only connected tiles should be upgradable) Leaders - - - Leaders facing each other - - - UI - - -
Millinnia never allowed you to change civs, that was Humankind (which I played for a few hours and uninstalled). Millinneia plays more like CIv 6 than 7.
Started with civ5? How precious. I started with civ 1 and have a clear memory of some epic playthroughs I experienced. When I started a militia unit could, albeit rarely, kill a battleship. Wow, it's come a ways.
The civ swapping thing isn't a big issue for me, honestly - what bugs me is the removal of workers. I feel like the actualy 'building and management' part of the game is being stripped out in favor of a focus on a narrative, which isn't the kind of game Civ players were really looking for. It might be fun, sure, but it isn't a 'Civ' game if I can't even chop trees.
I know civ games are very customizable so I would hope that you could put restrictions/disable civ swapping in the game setup. I think having a leader swap within the same civilization would be cool, like Qin Shi Huang to Wu Zetian to Kangxi to Mao Zedong. Or to include single era civs like Scythia or Australia you can just have leader swaps in general, like starting with Alexander the Great for America in the Ancient/Classical era before eventually getting to Abraham Lincoln since it would be more realistic to swap leaders within a civ than to swap civs.
i think the game is too built around the civ swapping to be able to disable it. but they did say you can just play a game that takes place within one era, so if that can be lengthened it'll kind of the same
Swapping cultures 3 times and having random leaders is great! That means that Firaxis can sell leader DLCs separately and do hardly any work. Plus, they can make Ancient age civ DLC, Modern age civ DLC...each civ only takes a third of the work, since it only lasts a third of the game, which means three times the profit! Sorry, I meant it's great for investors. Who cares about the players?
How do the civs take less work to create? If anything they take more work because they need to directly link to at least one other civ for the default age change path.
"Hardly any work" seems like a bit of a hyperbole to me. It might look it to you, but a lot goes in to make them. I guess compared to the main game, as well as price, it does seem like that, but that's based on generally being uninformed or just not wanting to spend money on additional stuff. Which is fair to be salty about stuff you're unable to buy, we've all been there.
@TommyCook-we9zj the civs need custom art, music, unique units, and special traits/abilities regardless of how long they are played for lol... If I play as a single civ the entire game, the length of the game does not change show much time went into creating the game or the civ I'm playing LOL
The main thing for me just like humankind, you can’t play true start maps because the civs just change to different nations. Why would they take the one thing that caused humankind to die and implement it?
O that is not the ONLY thing that cause humankind to fail. There are so many stupid system, such as the vicious implementation of cycles of pollution without any advance tech to mitigate it and more. But yeah this is one of the lousy feature that they choose to implement
To be honest, i loved that mechanic to switch civs in a new Age/Era in Humankind, but Humankind missed many things i loved at Civ. So im okay with that Point. For me the problem is that there are just 3 Ages and i dont hope that they feel good. Not to slow and not to Fast, aswell as the Transition of the ages which have to be smooth. I generely hope that the antiquity is a bit longer this Time, since i love it but think it ends to fast in Civ 6. That was some i loved in Humankind with the Settler mechanics but i guess we will see how it will turn out :) Thanks for your Videos :)
I see one specific (probably modded) gamerule where the Civ 7 model would be great: Real Earth map, + You can ONLY culture swap to a culture if you have at least one city in the appropriate geographic region. Games will be repetitive, yes, but it'll be a lot more immersive
I have a total of 8500 hours in all civ games(including spinnoffs), and this is exactly how I feel as well. no change they made before made me not want to buy the game, except for this one. People hated the city specialisation in civ6, but I was actually curious to see how that would play out, and honostly I like it. But doing away with the single civ? Why? Humanity did it, and failed, why repeat that? This is going to be the first civ, since the civ1 that I won't be buying the game, and that feels sad tbh, I only ever had that with the Heroes of might and magic franchise before.
@austindam4592 I don't like only 3 eras. I don't like that everyone changes eras at once. So if you're in a game having fun in an era and the ai or someone advances quickly your fun is just over? I always had a good laugh when someone enters an age I've already or almost completed. Now it's like a fairness thing or something.
@@jho4977 They have an excessive focus on the multiplayer audience, which creates a fixation on the balance issue. Rather than balancing over a whole game, they are trying to balance each era separately. In reality, their issue has always been a reluctance to give late-game civs (i.e. America) traits with larger effects which allow them to catch up. It's really not that difficult and rather than do that, they've chosen to alienate a large portion of their fanbase.
good thing you can still play the game that you like, instead of being forced to play civ 7 right! Thank you for your opinion, i will definitely buy civ 7, i am excited for navigable rivers, crisis and generals !. I really hope they improve the UI .
I think for people who play the game as an abstract board game, the civ swap wont bother them at all. To those who roleplay however it will probably be a big issue.
I'm a roleplay guy and never went for the US in any of my games for that reason. It didn't last for long enough to be called a civilisation. wtf is a american archer... or how can you have New York while York itself doesn't even exist ? It sounded stupid, a bit less now.
I think a leader swap would be better, example for Rome, Romulus to Augustus to Justinian to Constantine as an example and you can choose at every age which new leader you want.
My hope is that you’ll be able to do empire progression something along the lines of Carolingian -> Kingdom of France -> republic of France or Prussia -> German empire to German republic or a Roman -> Papal States -> Italian republic (not that these for cleanly into the assigned eras but it’s just to make the point) so that the player can still do a “France” or “Germany” or “Italy/Rome” run through the game
I’d love to play as Mexico for example, starting as the Olmecs, then Aztecs, then the Spanish, then Revolutionary-Modern Mexico. Or Ancient Egypt, Ptolemaic Egypt, Roman Egypt, Arab Egypt. Playing a Civ game as America for example always took me out of the experience, since you’re founding cities that were either founded by different European colonists. It would be awesome to play as a civilization, and as time progresses your leaders change accordingly.
I wish/hope they allow you to remain you're current civ/culture and you get different buffs if you switch. That way you can actually be more adaptable with your play style, but still stick with your civ if you want. For example, if you're Egypt in the Ancient Era you have a unique unit and a buff to Wonders or whatever. When you get to the next age you can either swap culture (say Classical Greek) where you get access to a different unit for the new age and a different buff, but lose the Wonder buff OR you stick with Egypt and get a buff to Gold production because your old unit is now effectively useless. If they did this, that would make the game way better imo because it makes each civ SO much more balanced and actually increase immersion. We'll just have to see.
I love the idea of soft resetting every era. Hopefully this will dampen the snowball effect that makes the late game less fun. Also, you know how you said the first 50/75/100 turns of every civ game feels the best? What if the era changes make turns 101-200 feel like another 1-100? Then the whole game feels great. They would need to delicately balance the resetting, though. If you got way ahead in the first age, you shouldn't be equalized to other civs at the start of age 2. You should still have an advantage, just not an overwhelming one. And with the leader/civilization change, what happens if you start as a science based civ and then turn into a militaristic one? And then a religious one in age 3? Either the age reset needs to be far-reaching enough that you can smoothly shift focuses, or specializing in a certain area shouldn't require you to play in a way that will hard lock other play styles as suboptimal in the future. Overall, I'm super excited! This looks like it's going to feel like a completely new game. And if any of the major changes aren't implemented well, we can always turn to mods to fix them
Thank you for actually pushing back on that design decision. Too many RUclipsrs are being soft about it and just taking it as it is, and I appreciate you speaking on behalf of the people who are skeptical. Honestly, I get it too - but the Leaders should change, not Civs. Have Leaders change depending on the Government you select. Monarchs shouldn't change at all for example, but Democracy should change every certain amount of towns or so, etc. I think that'd be cool. It's also possible they let you turn the Civ swap feature off, but it seems like such an integral part of the game that I doubt they'll really play into that at all.
For me the main problem Humankind had with the culture swapping was that there was nothing to anchor it to due to the speed of the shifts and the use of 'generic' AI leaders - most of the time it was impossible to tell who was who. I think Civ will avoid that due to it's use of specific leaders - Cleopatra is Cleopatra; she might be leading the French this era but you can still recognise her as the former Egyptian leader who tried to extort you fifty turns ago.
You should do some fact checking, prior to humandkind there was endless legend released in 2014. District and Ages were there. Then came Endless space, Endless space 2 then Humankind. In my book, Firaxis has been picking the great features from Amplitude for a while, and that’s fine. All the studios get inspiration from other great games.
The tragedy is that Amplitude has been relatively smaller than Firaxis for so long that the gaming populace generally doesn't give them credit for all the things that were ported from Amplitude IP's to Firaxis IP's
Don’t know how they thought the Humankind era mechanic was a good thing to implement.. I pick Romans because I’m a Roman fanboy and want to go till the end with it. That was one of the things that drove me off Humankind ( and the terribly slow pace of games in Humankind). Gonna try it because I follow the franchise since the beginning but I’m gonna keep civ 6 installed.
Wow I completely forgot about humankind I played it once and thought meh and never touched it again. I think I might try that out again instead of reinstalling civ 6 for my fix again
@@SebiSuper9mil to stop myself from playing it too much in a marathon I usually have the urge to have a good round like 2-3 times a year. I’m gonna try humankind next time tho.
Death stacks were civ 3 and 4 main features...in civ 1 and 2 if you put many units on same tile that would be an kinda stupid cause one kill from attacker kills your whole stack...so one unit per tile wasnt a gamechanger the hexes were....
Well, me being a old veteran of civ games, having played them all since the 1st one ( on my Amiga 500 ) and 50 years old now ... I'm somewhat skeptical about the coming changes - but then we almost always were about changes. Civilization is so much a important videogame series - probably one of the most important in the game world ... , makes the player follow humanity in the journey through history, and yeah no doubt, cultures evolve too, some endure, some have vanished, some replace others .... so, I understand why they're going with this direction, it makes sense. I just hope it works well, and it doesn't spoil the fun.
Playing with a goal each era you can really make each nation's unique traits high impact. Compare that to the classic Civ nations that have to be waterered down since the same bonuses need to work for the whole game. But my condolences to people that have a "I am nation X" headcanon.
I had the same exact experience with civ, I got pulled in by civ revolution. Some of the people's concerns with Civ 7 I suspect are actually going to work out such as the culture and era changes, but I think there's going to be other issues with the game most likely. I'm more worried about the city building and trading aspects of the game; however who knows maybe it's great.
I think we just need a little option box that says ''lock historical transitions'' or something, because they already have the prompt that says '' A historical choice !'' so it seems a easy fix imo
I love playing as England 75% of the time, when i played Humankind it would annoy me when the AI beat me to them, on harder difficulties there was always 1 Civilization left for me to pick
To me it seems easier to make it for streaming. Think of it this way. Beginning of your story (antiquity age). Middle of your story and end of your story (modern age). You are telling a story. A story of evolution that even you don’t know where you plan to go in yet. There will be remnants of your previous era in the next one but ultimately, it’s about capturing actual growth as a civ. rather than “I’m Egypt now and I’ll end the space race as Egypt’ you have something more engaging.
No the real story is your millennium long list of wars against your great rival Cleopatra of Egypt until you finally beat her in the industrial age for good, then Caesar starts on you for being too close to his borders even though he was your pal for centuries since the medieval age.
Civ 6 with the Civ 5 terrain mod is gorgeous. Combine it with the more units mod and visual style really comes together. Civ 7’s art style looks absolutely stunning, I can’t wait to build mega cities with that new style
I, personally, think the game is gonna be very fun and exciting, like no other civ game, the new mechanics are interesting and the graphics are beautiful.
I don't like the idea of switching nations either. I want one nation of my own to see it expand and grow. I wouldn't have minded if you keep the same nation but your leader bonuses change based on era.
Fear not! Changing civs is a progressive mechanic as well as a financial move. My first thought went to England, are we getting exploration age England or modern age? I think they will release one of them in a dlc as England or the United Kingdom. And if I can go Normans/Rome to England to United Kingdom I’ll be happy. I have faith they’ll make it work, they want to make money after all and Ed said the game defaults to historic paths
'Progressive' indeed... *somehow* all these studios had the same idea which they wanted to implement about the same time... its almost like someone told them to do it. Someone who has a big, Black... Rock.
@@eduardog3000 that I agree with, historic paths is a loose term lol I feel like if I’m gonna enjoy this game, I can’t expect to have my usual country accurate ww2 sims. Like you really won’t be able to care about what country your playing, they’re just gonna be a new set of bonuses and that’s all
First age: Germanic/Anglo-Saxons, Celts, or Romans Second age: Normans, English, Scottish Final age: British, American, Canadian, Australian This I say should be the rough “Anglo civ tree” if it’s semi-historical
For me the way it was presented I read it as totally removing any personality and individuality of civilisations and leaders reducing them to simple stat bags. As for the Eras - it sounds strange when you "your civilisation changes from Egypt to Mongolia" - but if you just conisder your civ like a stat bag then it doesnt matter - who cares if its called Egypt, France or Whoptiedooptieland The same blanding applies to the new leaders swapping. Whats the point of having real names now anyway? Now it seems it will be just "I'm playing the ancient wonder civ with the production bonus leader"
If in Civilation 7 there is still mods, there would be one that implements a good civ change system. Because this one seems somewhat bad. Also I like more having a lot more of eras, instead of this 3 eras that aren't historically eras, are enterally made up, because yes.
Been playing Civ since the originally version on my 486 and before that playing the Avalon Hill board game of same name that I've had for a very long time now, so huge fan. That era system reminds me of a different Avalon Hill game called 'History of the World' where you swapped civilizations as time marched on. It worked, but that game is a different animal. 4/5 are my favorites overall, 3 my least favorite, 6 was ok, but I never liked it as much as 4 or 5, and you definitely need the expansions for 5 as you pointed out. I'm not too excited for 7, and if it has extra microtransactions as listed below, it may be the first Civ game I skip.
I think it is interesting we keep the leader for the whole game but switch civs. them being separated has kinda been tested with different leader personalities in civ 6. While I do not necessarily love the change I think it could be good or bad depending on how its balanced.
I’m cautiously optimistic about the ages and leader change, I honestly like the idea but humankind didn’t execute it well so I’m a bit worried. I’m holding off any real judgement until we see more hands on play of it. I think everyone is thinking it’s gonna be a hard shift from say Egypt to Mongolia and you’ll have to completely change how your currently playing to adapt to the new civ but from what I’ve heard it sounds like it’ll be a bit more soft than that like you start as Egypt and since you have a lot of horses in your empire and maybe some horse rider units Mongolia is one of your options if you wanted to focus more on warfare, but you also focused on some wonders so maybe china is an option to focus more on the building of wonders instead of warfare, maybe your also fairly rich so you could get masa musa for trade and wealth. I feel/hope it will be more focusing you down a line your already going down with your civ to build apron your empire, but again we only know the basics of the ages and leader changes
I could. And I really like that idea. Start as the Celts roaming around in Northern Europe, transition to England in the age of exploration, then finish up as America. The would work for me. Especially if the game would be different depending on whether you chose Boudicca, Churchill, or Abe Lincoln starting in 4,000 BC. I'd play a campaign as all three leaders just to find out.
It makes sense if the cultures were historically connected to these more modern iterations of a country like what someone said franks to the French and so on. It’s way to jarring to see an Egypt to America swap or say French to Japanese. The concept is good but it needs to be grounded if not provide the option to a more grounded culture swap with settings or something if you so choose
I was jumping at confirming my pre-order until I saw the gameplay showcase with the Civilization changes for each era. That totally breaks the immersion for me and was one of the biggest gripes I had with Humankind. Everything else (Except for removing workers and simplifying certain systems) looks great to me. I'm just super disappointed that they took this direction.
Yep totally agree… every nation has its roots and each nation could have had their own progression through historical routes I.e Boudicca could have been Englands first leader then someone like Alfred the Great and then a post modern leader or even a choice of different leaders to choose for each era as long as they had a link to the nation you wanted to play. I played Human kind twice to give it a go and never bothered again. I’m not sure if I’ll spend my money on Civ 7. I’ll have to wait and see… God dammit I’ll probably buy it but it better be worth it!
Imagine starting off as America as a Native American Indian leader then having a choice for the next era as George 1 from England, Francis 1 of France or George Washington. Sounds better to me and the modern era could be Trump or Biden 😂
I personally love the concept if they make the evolution feel natural. Like, the big point that was mentioned was going Gaul to Mongolia. Instead of just becoming Mongolia, the name of your nation should evolve to match it, like the Mongaulic empire (bad example, I'm not a firaxis dev lmao). Develop the name as the nation develops, whether it's through some AI system or they're handpicked names, it would give some real depth, as opposed to just switching, make it feel like the evolution it's trying to be
Personally, I think the Ages and Civ swap will be a great idea IF they allow you to toggle an option that forces AI civs to also progress along their historical routes. If I have no control over this, I expect it will be difficult for me to enjoy the game. But I'm not opposed to the idea of cultures changing. And I expect there will be times I want to toggle historical routes off and just have the AI go wild and see what happens. I think something people are missing is that the swap isn't just you unlock a tech that puts you in a new age and you swap out with another culture. There seems to be a period of strife towards the end of the age that you have to struggle through, and that period of change is meant to be the catalyst for the culture change. At least, I'm assuming that is the intention. And that helps this move make more sense as huge periods of strife such as the Sea Peoples invasion --which I think I heard in another video is represented at the end of the Antiquity age-- destroyed some cultures and forced others to adapt. So frankly, I would just like to get more information or get my hands on the game before I judge too harshly.
I'm really piss of their monetise system… “Pay base price get this, pay 1.5x the base price and get 2 more leaders and 4 civs, pay 2x the base price and get 2 more…” and bla, bla, bla I can almost see it like it is in front of me, the base game will be more barren than the sahara, I tell you…
I see Drew Durnil post Civ 7 Video... I watch it. Hell, If I see Drew Durnil post Civ 5 video.... I watch it. Civ is just too good when it comes from you Drew!
the culture swap would be better if it was localized so Gaul > Franks > Revolutionary France or something like that
Yes 👍
The culture swap would makes much more sense when it is based on your playstyle.
For example, you spawn with a bunch of horse nearby and play aggressively invading neighbours in early game. It would make sense if in the next age you can choose to be mongols.
Mongols here is a representative of the playstyle. It is so much easier and intuitive for people because you will easily recognize what they are known as.
Different upgrades for the same culture would be cool and also would feed into that alternative history aspect well. What if you're at the crossroads from the Frankish Empire to late 17th century France. You could decide between becoming a revolutionary republic, or stay a monarchy or become an Empire or something completely different, like a successful Parisian Commune. All have different playstyles and mechanics and bonuses.
Culture swap is both localized and based on playstyle
That is how it will work
I would rather have had the same nation throughout the game but switch leaders now and then.
I am actually on board with the idea to switch civs. Olmecs -> Aztecs -> Mexicans or Romans -> Venetia -> Italy or something like that. I always thought it was silly to start the game as Brazil or USA or Germany in 4000 BC. And it was always a bit silly to have submarines and go to space as Babylon.
I think the biggest worry for me would be that there isn't a satisfying through line for a lot Civs. E.g. you want to play Egypt and then you can't really just continue playing Egypt through to modernity, despite being there the whole time.
But I'm pretty sure, mods will emerge, that will give a ton of variety and or just let your play with one civ from 4000 bc to modernity and the only ting that changes between ages is the boni.
@@paulszki out of the top of my head ancient egypt > mamluks > republic of egypt
you can come up with something the same for china or india
@paulszki i don't think it's silly. I feel like the games whole purpose is supposed to be a what i, not a direct recreation of historical events.
@@paulszki It should be something like Egypt --> Numerous choices from Islam's golden Age (Like Mamluks or Arabia)---> Modern Egypt
That should be a choice so that we can have a continuity of we want. Like
Rus --> Russian Empire ---> (Soviet Union or Russian Federation or Ukraine)
@@OnionKing-cm4qh you do know that egypt never went away right? If you start as egypt you are egypt,,,,,humankind is that way
Instead of switching nations, it should be more of a cultural thing. Ancient Egyptian could become Arabic Egyptian with new leaders. And the transformation makes absolutely no sense. Egypt to Songhai to Buganda. That makes absolutely no sense. It's like going from Hittites to Kievan Rus to Portugal
I'm thinking the same thing, I don't mind this idea I just wish/hope the civ changes are logical. I don't wanna be playing Rome and then all of a sudden be able to turn Mongolian the next era
Civ has never made sense. It's the same as building Great Library or Eiffel Tower as Shaka Zulu or building Pyramides as Germany.
It's weird, I admit it. But we'll get used to it
I think that's just a wrong way of thinking about it imo. You're not becoming that nation, your adopting the traits that made them. I've made a point before about letting the name evolve so that you don't just becoming Mongolia from Egypt, the names merge to form what is a fictitious nation sure, but one that feels like you keep your roots and develop into the characteristics of these other nations. Like going from Egypt to the Mongolgyption empire (Idk a good example, I don't work for firaxis lmao) and let your nation feel organic, as opposed to being the USA in the tribal era or being Shaka with nukes which always felt so weird and wrong to me and ruined any chance at immersion for me
Fr though what is the connection between these civs?? The only thing they have in common is that they're in Africa, that'd be like going from China to Korea to Japan just because they're located in East Asia
Yeah idk why Egypt becomes completely different African nations, there,are plenty of Egyptian nations throughout history, like the Fatimids and Mamluks for exploration, or the Sultanate of Egypt or the Republic of Egypt for modern.
They could make the civilizations evolve
example Roman Empire , Byzantium and there you choose Greece or Italy
or Gauls then Franks and then French makes it feel overwhelmingly more natural than Egypt Mongolia
Exactly
Precisely
I think as a player , this egypt to mongolia makes perfect sense, Its not about the nation names, Its about the benefits you get from your civ. They said that your starting civ will still influence your lategame so its like you are building your own civ. Also i think people are not talking enough about crisis. Crisis is what make this civ change meaningful, and they will happen at the end of each era. You need to adapt to them in order for your civ to "survive the test of time"
@@alexandrul.9910 youre why we cant have good games
I really really hope they give an option for staying the same civ for the whole game INCLUDING that for the AI as something like a mode
I think that would be a good solution for this problem.
And idk if it was just my eyes playing tricks on me, but on the gameplay preview, when switching say Egypt to a new Culture, I think I saw staying as Egypt as one of the options for the switch, so this may already have been implemented. But again IDK
@@XG417 They need to have this feature otherwise they lose a massive chunk of the playerbase
It is confirmed that you can just play an elongated game of a single age if you want to play only 1 civ for the whole game. That's how multi-player will be by default I believe as well to decrease game length/complexity.
Source ?
@@malmasterson3890
@@malmasterson3890 But can you play ONLY as 1 civ for all 3 ages?
Stellaris does the "eras" system well. You can gradually develop and shift culture to affect gameplay, but every nation still has an identity.
can you elaborate on this? stellaris doesn't really have defined "eras"
@@user-ek2su5zo5q Early game, mid game, and late game are 100 years apart on default settings. I assume that's what they mean, and your nation typically changes a lot over the course of the game. For example, a democratic nation might become a dictatorship run on slavery, which I suppose you don't need to change governments to do so, but still. I can see what they mean, but like you said, the transition of early to mid game isn't really an era.
All the micro transactions is what worries me
Just wait for packages
@TommyCook-we9zj sounds about right. Worrying for the modding community this is going to suck. The game looks great but that does not look good.
@@jacksonfuller1995 they did the same for Civ V and Civ VI. Didn’t stop the modders. 😊
Yeah
Having too many DLCs can be a problem, but as long as you are able to keep them forever, it's fine. I don't want to play a game where you have to pay every month to play it, for example.
The ONLY reason why I completely skipped Humankind... was the civswapping thing.
Seeing Egypt transition into Mongolia and then the United States is gonna be weird. There needs to be logical continuity for this to work and it doesn't look like Civ 7 will pull that off.
Your Civ bonuses changing over time is a good idea and will probably be fun. Transforming into completely different cultures is just wack though. I wish you just became nomad Egypt instead of becoming Mongolia.
I find the means of seeing "Mongolia" is more intuitive than seeing "Nomad Hatshepsut" in determining what the player is expecting to encounter. Also, keep in mind that the Mongolian UU and UB are included in the choice, so it's not just "Nomad" but a specific nomadic empire.
yes, this!
I feel like the mamluks or something would fit a 'mounted egypt' well. I just really hope they at least have settings for the mechanic, cuz I'm worried about games being nonsensical thanks to the AI picking whatever
I agree. I think that Civilization VII will lose the special character of the civilizations, when it gets muddled by several different civilizations and loses the unique "brand" of each unique civilization.
I didn't like Humankind for this exact same reason. For me, what really got me into enjoying civ is the fact that I could make an alternate version of history where Aztecs/Maya/Maori/Mapuche/Iroquois etc are great empires spanning vast distances and being prosperous. I was always fascinated about these cultures since they were mostly just erased from the existance. And as a Ukrainian I feel a lot of sympathy to those civs because my country also had a tragic history and never had a chance to become a long lasting prosperous state (maybe Kievan Rus is an exception but I wouldn't call it long lasting) and was constantly stomped by empires. Because of this I don't really like playing England, Germany, China, France, etc. But now civ 7 is basically telling me that it needs to be more historically accurate so I can forget about making a prosperous Kree empire, but instead play Egypt as Benjamin Franklin and then switch to mongols. Makes much more sense this way.
I got really disappointed that the main feature of civ 7 is this BS which is the most hated feature of Humankind, because I really like how the game looks visually and I love the way the cities would develop, looks a lot more put together. I believe that visual upgrade along with an actaully smart AI (and not just getting 3 settlers first turn) and normal multiplayer without all the pain and suffering that players have to go through to enjoy it until people quick or game starts desyncing, would have been enough to make Civ 7 a great game for me. But I won't be spending money on changing cultures again, I hope the devs still reconsider this decision. Otherwise, well, civ 6 is not going anywhere...
Humankind allowed you to keep the culture after the era it appeared, having the cultural unit become outdated but keeping the cultural building. You even got a fame score multiplier as a reward for challenging yourself that way, and it stacked every era you "transcended" that culture pick.
I must say, the art made for the Knights for the North/South American cultures is absolutely goated
The barbarian/city state diplomacy (and the diplomatic play in general) is just a stright upgrade though.
its also exactly what humankind did
@@zacharybecker8228 its as if humankind has features that should be added to civ years ago and its a step in the right direction... shocking
Eh, they should have just made barbarian clans official.
it was humankind thing tho and i hated it there. we'll see if it's balanced and becomes a good or annoying thing
The whole game is giving me major Red flags.....
All of Take two interactive is bloody red flag!
We will see, but so far the Civ 7 base game seem ok (natural disasters included for example) to be determined.
Looks amazing, very nervous about the transitions to new civs and hopefully it’s totally different from humankind… only concern so far, but a huge one
I never played Humankind and I like the idea of the change Civ mechanic in theory... But I feel like changing your Civ at set intervals is kinda strange. Maybe if if it was optional based on what you do in early game, that could work. But if I want to play America in 3000BC all the way to modern age, I should be able to, that's part of the silly fun of Civ.
@@EnclaveAgent A lot of people keep complaining about Humankind's culture switch mechanics every era, but by no means even at release was any player actually forced to switch out of their already-selected culture from the era prior. There was always a Transcend mechanic where the cultural unit may have become outmoded over time, but the cultural district would continue to be available and an extra fame bonus would be rewarded
I understand. I don't mind the swaps, but instead of entire cultures, maybe what you did in one age will affect your civ choice culturally that in next age it will synergise. Eg. build pastures and go for cavalry will make your civ more into a cavalry focused Civ maybe with hippodromes as UB. But make them Mongols? Like in HK, feels a bit off.
Yeah precisely. Civ game are 4x war game, not stupid "historical simulation". And I terms of historical accuracy, removing unit exp so that every unit are equally effective, and having an immortal leader are o so realistic eh?
Utterly stupid excuses
@@tylerphuoc2653LOL. Transcend is stupid and offers so little that you are basically handicapping yourself. Don't try to defend the indefensible
@tylerphuoc2653 you were forced to if you wanted to win cause of meta
Looks like the "borrowed" humandkind's mechanic of culture and civilization progression
EXACTLY
They did the same thing in 6 with districts. Borrowing it from Endless Legend.
Which was the thing I hated most about that game😭
i dont think this is necessarily bad, civ can do what humankind failed to make interesting
lmao, my first thought after drew described it
The culture should be just one place, but with bonuses unique to that place, like Egypt getting to choose between military vs economy vs culture. From 3 powers unique to Egypt.
not Egypt turning into the Mongols for some stupid reason
like Rome into Byzantium into Italy,
Asturias into Castile into Spain
Han into Qing into China
Yamato into Ashikaga into Japan
And so on, playing around eith these or maybe giving alternative paths would be so fun
I know this might be a whatever feature but at the end of a game in civ 5 you could see how the civ borders changed throughout the game. They removed it in civ 6 which is something I liked.
theres a mod for it on steam
There’s a difference between changing *cultures* and changing *nations*. The era system stuff is weird between Humankind and Civ because it doesn’t recognize that distinction. China has been around forever, but it has certainly gone through several marked cultural changes. Let the player choose to evolve or change their culture (and buffs/unique units) throughout the ages without having to pretend that everyone just decided that it was time to change the name of their nation for no reason.
I have about 3000 hours in Civ 6 and 2000 hours in Civ 5. I still strongly think Civ 5 is the best Civ game. Its simple, easy to understand. This changing your country per era feels terrible. If I wanted to go play Humankind I would just play Humankind. I say all this as a person who started playing Civilization back in 1992. I know some people will disagree with my opinion that is OK. When old players like me get worried, the current game Devs should take note. I have played every version of the game (1 - 6 and Revolutions on Xbox) and at this point in time, I don't think I would buy Civ 7.
What I think is funny is that creators like yourself are being honest about the concerns about civilization switching and disconnecting leaders from their cultures. Meanwhile, people like PotatoMcWhiskey are literally insulting and banning people for bringing it up. Lost all respect for him for that.
Wait seriously potato did what?
Wasn’t it literally one guy who was spamming anyway?
@@frankiecedeno3724 It's certainly possible that the guy was spamming chat. I wouldn't know. I just watched the recording of the live stream. That said, it was potato's first time addressing it so it's possible that potato gave him that really bullshit insult because he doesn't like the question and then the guy decided to spam the chat because he was pissed. That spamming might have been what got him banned but from what I can tell potato just doesn't want to address that particular issue with the game because it seems like he just wants to pretend people aren't concerned about it.
The thing that annoyed me the most was he not only insulted the guy but then he told him to go ask the developers himself. Like bro, we don't have the special privilege of being flown into the studio to talk to the devs like he does because he has a little channel. It's super belittling.
@@yummmemonty7450 I would recommend watching the potato and spiffing Britt stream because maybe I'm misremembering it or maybe I missed something but that is the way I interpreted it at the time, and I got so pissed off I just turned off the stream.
@@usnairframer that’s how he always bans shitheads, was it the first stream you’ve ever seen?
I get why the devs don't want to lock people into an IRL culture progression (like Gauls to France, etc.). They want people to have a sandbox "theme park" where they can make anything happen. But the problem is that each of those civs have specific connotations and pre-conceptions that... just don't jive with the others. Would it be cool if I could have Egyptian horse lords in the Exploration Age? Sure. But if you swap me over to Mongolia with all the aesthetics that go with it, I lose my sense of identity from the previous third of the game. Same with my neighboring rivals. (Now, maybe the new culture is a very gradual change, we don't know yet.)
Art style ++
Diplomacy city states +++
Era culture changes - - -
Any movement ++
City expansion +\- (needs to be a spread option, not only connected tiles should be upgradable)
Leaders - - -
Leaders facing each other - - -
UI - - -
It might give you an option like germanic tribes → Holy Roman Empire → Germany, or something that isn't bizarre like Egypt → Germany
That would not be woke and culturally relativistic enough.
@@NietzscheanMan woke? you think this is woke??
nah , ancient civilization will only be that, there is no such thing as a Germanic civ in ancient era,
@@alexandrul.9910
And from what HRE evolved? Martians?
Honestly the most exciting thing about this is the introduction of navigable rivers (and hopefully river combat and pontoon bridges), and towns.,
Civ 7 is SLOP
Millinnia never allowed you to change civs, that was Humankind (which I played for a few hours and uninstalled). Millinneia plays more like CIv 6 than 7.
I agree with you... I think it's going to drive people away
Started with civ5? How precious. I started with civ 1 and have a clear memory of some epic playthroughs I experienced. When I started a militia unit could, albeit rarely, kill a battleship. Wow, it's come a ways.
Thanks for your Honest take on this (unlike some of the other youtubers), much appreciated!
The civ swapping thing isn't a big issue for me, honestly - what bugs me is the removal of workers. I feel like the actualy 'building and management' part of the game is being stripped out in favor of a focus on a narrative, which isn't the kind of game Civ players were really looking for. It might be fun, sure, but it isn't a 'Civ' game if I can't even chop trees.
I agree with this.
You'd love The Forest if cutting trees is that important to you
Yeah I definitely agree. I liked the builders.
So ypu are ok with only able to choose a select # of civs to start with instead of the full range?
Wait, so I wont be able to run around with goon squad of builders, placing railroads everywhere and pissing of my friends? Hmm.
I know civ games are very customizable so I would hope that you could put restrictions/disable civ swapping in the game setup. I think having a leader swap within the same civilization would be cool, like Qin Shi Huang to Wu Zetian to Kangxi to Mao Zedong. Or to include single era civs like Scythia or Australia you can just have leader swaps in general, like starting with Alexander the Great for America in the Ancient/Classical era before eventually getting to Abraham Lincoln since it would be more realistic to swap leaders within a civ than to swap civs.
i think the game is too built around the civ swapping to be able to disable it. but they did say you can just play a game that takes place within one era, so if that can be lengthened it'll kind of the same
Civ 7 was name of a paper game inmade when I was young
Swapping cultures 3 times and having random leaders is great! That means that Firaxis can sell leader DLCs separately and do hardly any work. Plus, they can make Ancient age civ DLC, Modern age civ DLC...each civ only takes a third of the work, since it only lasts a third of the game, which means three times the profit! Sorry, I meant it's great for investors. Who cares about the players?
How do the civs take less work to create? If anything they take more work because they need to directly link to at least one other civ for the default age change path.
I bet you never bought any DLC for Civ 6 then, eh?
"Hardly any work" seems like a bit of a hyperbole to me. It might look it to you, but a lot goes in to make them. I guess compared to the main game, as well as price, it does seem like that, but that's based on generally being uninformed or just not wanting to spend money on additional stuff. Which is fair to be salty about stuff you're unable to buy, we've all been there.
@TommyCook-we9zj the civs need custom art, music, unique units, and special traits/abilities regardless of how long they are played for lol...
If I play as a single civ the entire game, the length of the game does not change show much time went into creating the game or the civ I'm playing LOL
Hahah youre right
The main thing for me just like humankind, you can’t play true start maps because the civs just change to different nations. Why would they take the one thing that caused humankind to die and implement it?
O that is not the ONLY thing that cause humankind to fail. There are so many stupid system, such as the vicious implementation of cycles of pollution without any advance tech to mitigate it and more.
But yeah this is one of the lousy feature that they choose to implement
Millennia didn't have civ swaping but had a cool age up mechanic where you can have crises and golden ages..
ive been watching for over a year and i never knew about this channel glad i finally found out about it
To be honest, i loved that mechanic to switch civs in a new Age/Era in Humankind, but Humankind missed many things i loved at Civ. So im okay with that Point. For me the problem is that there are just 3 Ages and i dont hope that they feel good. Not to slow and not to Fast, aswell as the Transition of the ages which have to be smooth. I generely hope that the antiquity is a bit longer this Time, since i love it but think it ends to fast in Civ 6. That was some i loved in Humankind with the Settler mechanics but i guess we will see how it will turn out :) Thanks for your Videos :)
I see one specific (probably modded) gamerule where the Civ 7 model would be great:
Real Earth map, +
You can ONLY culture swap to a culture if you have at least one city in the appropriate geographic region.
Games will be repetitive, yes, but it'll be a lot more immersive
I have around 4000 hours in all the Civ games. The era system makes this game a non-buy for me.
I have a total of 8500 hours in all civ games(including spinnoffs), and this is exactly how I feel as well. no change they made before made me not want to buy the game, except for this one. People hated the city specialisation in civ6, but I was actually curious to see how that would play out, and honostly I like it. But doing away with the single civ? Why? Humanity did it, and failed, why repeat that? This is going to be the first civ, since the civ1 that I won't be buying the game, and that feels sad tbh, I only ever had that with the Heroes of might and magic franchise before.
@austindam4592 I don't like only 3 eras. I don't like that everyone changes eras at once. So if you're in a game having fun in an era and the ai or someone advances quickly your fun is just over? I always had a good laugh when someone enters an age I've already or almost completed. Now it's like a fairness thing or something.
@@jho4977 They have an excessive focus on the multiplayer audience, which creates a fixation on the balance issue. Rather than balancing over a whole game, they are trying to balance each era separately.
In reality, their issue has always been a reluctance to give late-game civs (i.e. America) traits with larger effects which allow them to catch up. It's really not that difficult and rather than do that, they've chosen to alienate a large portion of their fanbase.
good thing you can still play the game that you like, instead of being forced to play civ 7 right! Thank you for your opinion, i will definitely buy civ 7, i am excited for navigable rivers, crisis and generals !. I really hope they improve the UI .
@@alexandrul.9910 Good for you.
I think for people who play the game as an abstract board game, the civ swap wont bother them at all. To those who roleplay however it will probably be a big issue.
Not really, you are simply roleplaying generations of people. That's the thing about roleplay, nothing says you can't be flexible.
We have no idea of how it will actually play or feel, it's way too early to call it a big issue.
I am the latter, and I don't know if I could end a game as United States with no American cities, and a capital of Memphis
@@AlbertJanVaartjes it's a big issue. ben franklin should not be leading egypt
I'm a roleplay guy and never went for the US in any of my games for that reason. It didn't last for long enough to be called a civilisation. wtf is a american archer... or how can you have New York while York itself doesn't even exist ? It sounded stupid, a bit less now.
-is given free early access to a game
-still critises it
based asf
I think a leader swap would be better, example for Rome, Romulus to Augustus to Justinian to Constantine as an example and you can choose at every age which new leader you want.
oh cool you went too! I been watching all the videos of people who went, I wish I could play it so bad
My hope is that you’ll be able to do empire progression something along the lines of Carolingian -> Kingdom of France -> republic of France or Prussia -> German empire to German republic or a Roman -> Papal States -> Italian republic (not that these for cleanly into the assigned eras but it’s just to make the point) so that the player can still do a “France” or “Germany” or “Italy/Rome” run through the game
I’d love to play as Mexico for example, starting as the Olmecs, then Aztecs, then the Spanish, then Revolutionary-Modern Mexico. Or Ancient Egypt, Ptolemaic Egypt, Roman Egypt, Arab Egypt. Playing a Civ game as America for example always took me out of the experience, since you’re founding cities that were either founded by different European colonists. It would be awesome to play as a civilization, and as time progresses your leaders change accordingly.
I wish/hope they allow you to remain you're current civ/culture and you get different buffs if you switch. That way you can actually be more adaptable with your play style, but still stick with your civ if you want.
For example, if you're Egypt in the Ancient Era you have a unique unit and a buff to Wonders or whatever. When you get to the next age you can either swap culture (say Classical Greek) where you get access to a different unit for the new age and a different buff, but lose the Wonder buff OR you stick with Egypt and get a buff to Gold production because your old unit is now effectively useless.
If they did this, that would make the game way better imo because it makes each civ SO much more balanced and actually increase immersion.
We'll just have to see.
I love the idea of soft resetting every era. Hopefully this will dampen the snowball effect that makes the late game less fun.
Also, you know how you said the first 50/75/100 turns of every civ game feels the best? What if the era changes make turns 101-200 feel like another 1-100? Then the whole game feels great.
They would need to delicately balance the resetting, though. If you got way ahead in the first age, you shouldn't be equalized to other civs at the start of age 2. You should still have an advantage, just not an overwhelming one. And with the leader/civilization change, what happens if you start as a science based civ and then turn into a militaristic one? And then a religious one in age 3? Either the age reset needs to be far-reaching enough that you can smoothly shift focuses, or specializing in a certain area shouldn't require you to play in a way that will hard lock other play styles as suboptimal in the future.
Overall, I'm super excited! This looks like it's going to feel like a completely new game. And if any of the major changes aren't implemented well, we can always turn to mods to fix them
Thank you for actually pushing back on that design decision. Too many RUclipsrs are being soft about it and just taking it as it is, and I appreciate you speaking on behalf of the people who are skeptical.
Honestly, I get it too - but the Leaders should change, not Civs. Have Leaders change depending on the Government you select. Monarchs shouldn't change at all for example, but Democracy should change every certain amount of towns or so, etc. I think that'd be cool.
It's also possible they let you turn the Civ swap feature off, but it seems like such an integral part of the game that I doubt they'll really play into that at all.
For me the main problem Humankind had with the culture swapping was that there was nothing to anchor it to due to the speed of the shifts and the use of 'generic' AI leaders - most of the time it was impossible to tell who was who. I think Civ will avoid that due to it's use of specific leaders - Cleopatra is Cleopatra; she might be leading the French this era but you can still recognise her as the former Egyptian leader who tried to extort you fifty turns ago.
You should do some fact checking, prior to humandkind there was endless legend released in 2014. District and Ages were there. Then came Endless space, Endless space 2 then Humankind. In my book, Firaxis has been picking the great features from Amplitude for a while, and that’s fine. All the studios get inspiration from other great games.
The tragedy is that Amplitude has been relatively smaller than Firaxis for so long that the gaming populace generally doesn't give them credit for all the things that were ported from Amplitude IP's to Firaxis IP's
I agree, I think Ed Beach has been very good and I trust him too. He is always there in the marketing to explain and stand by the team's work.
All I need is Freeciv and Unciv, haven't played a mainline civ since Civ IV, and boy I'm glad I got out, Open Source FTW
Respect for actually giving your opinion and not being blinded by gushing over the team for inviting you like some other civ you tubers lol
Don’t know how they thought the Humankind era mechanic was a good thing to implement.. I pick Romans because I’m a Roman fanboy and want to go till the end with it. That was one of the things that drove me off Humankind ( and the terribly slow pace of games in Humankind). Gonna try it because I follow the franchise since the beginning but I’m gonna keep civ 6 installed.
humankind is not slow paced at all
Wow I completely forgot about humankind I played it once and thought meh and never touched it again. I think I might try that out again instead of reinstalling civ 6 for my fix again
humankind’s just alright, but the eras are what makes it boring
There’s no soul to any of the other civs, they might as well be replaceable
Why uninstall Civ 6? Doesn’t harm you to have it.
@@SebiSuper9mil to stop myself from playing it too much in a marathon I usually have the urge to have a good round like 2-3 times a year. I’m gonna try humankind next time tho.
Death stacks were civ 3 and 4 main features...in civ 1 and 2 if you put many units on same tile that would be an kinda stupid cause one kill from attacker kills your whole stack...so one unit per tile wasnt a gamechanger the hexes were....
Drew video idea - Do a compare and contrast of Ara: History Untold and Civ VII when they both are out.
Well, me being a old veteran of civ games, having played them all since the 1st one ( on my Amiga 500 ) and 50 years old now ... I'm somewhat skeptical about the coming changes - but then we almost always were about changes. Civilization is so much a important videogame series - probably one of the most important in the game world ... , makes the player follow humanity in the journey through history, and yeah no doubt, cultures evolve too, some endure, some have vanished, some replace others .... so, I understand why they're going with this direction, it makes sense. I just hope it works well, and it doesn't spoil the fun.
Playing with a goal each era you can really make each nation's unique traits high impact. Compare that to the classic Civ nations that have to be waterered down since the same bonuses need to work for the whole game. But my condolences to people that have a "I am nation X" headcanon.
I had the same exact experience with civ, I got pulled in by civ revolution. Some of the people's concerns with Civ 7 I suspect are actually going to work out such as the culture and era changes, but I think there's going to be other issues with the game most likely. I'm more worried about the city building and trading aspects of the game; however who knows maybe it's great.
I think the Era/Culture changes should happen WHEN your Civ starts to falter/rot/become obsolete, not as a preset thing.
Yo honestly can't wait good or bad
I think we just need a little option box that says ''lock historical transitions'' or something, because they already have the prompt that says '' A historical choice !'' so it seems a easy fix imo
I love playing as England 75% of the time, when i played Humankind it would annoy me when the AI beat me to them, on harder difficulties there was always 1 Civilization left for me to pick
To me it seems easier to make it for streaming. Think of it this way. Beginning of your story (antiquity age). Middle of your story and end of your story (modern age). You are telling a story. A story of evolution that even you don’t know where you plan to go in yet. There will be remnants of your previous era in the next one but ultimately, it’s about capturing actual growth as a civ. rather than “I’m Egypt now and I’ll end the space race as Egypt’ you have something more engaging.
It’s not “growth”, it’s a sudden transformation into a completely different civ.
No the real story is your millennium long list of wars against your great rival Cleopatra of Egypt until you finally beat her in the industrial age for good, then Caesar starts on you for being too close to his borders even though he was your pal for centuries since the medieval age.
Civ 6 with the Civ 5 terrain mod is gorgeous. Combine it with the more units mod and visual style really comes together.
Civ 7’s art style looks absolutely stunning, I can’t wait to build mega cities with that new style
I, personally, think the game is gonna be very fun and exciting, like no other civ game, the new mechanics are interesting and the graphics are beautiful.
I hope but going by their track record for Civ 5 and 6, the game is probably going to suck on release, until DLC comes
Dont forget to preorder and buy all deluxe editions and flavor packs
Civ Rev was mention POG!
I’m with you. Hearing about the civ swapping makes me way less hyped about the game. Not loving what I’m hearing so far.
I don't like the idea of switching nations either. I want one nation of my own to see it expand and grow. I wouldn't have minded if you keep the same nation but your leader bonuses change based on era.
One of the main reasons why I don’t like HumanKind is the nation swapping, that and the wonky borders.
Fear not! Changing civs is a progressive mechanic as well as a financial move. My first thought went to England, are we getting exploration age England or modern age? I think they will release one of them in a dlc as England or the United Kingdom. And if I can go Normans/Rome to England to United Kingdom I’ll be happy. I have faith they’ll make it work, they want to make money after all and Ed said the game defaults to historic paths
'Progressive' indeed... *somehow* all these studios had the same idea which they wanted to implement about the same time... its almost like someone told them to do it. Someone who has a big, Black... Rock.
@@sleepyalfagaming they'll make money charging for leader passes and giving the bare minimum for the basic game...
“the game defaults to historic paths” The default for Egypt is Egypt > Songhai > Buganda. 3 completely unrelated civilizations.
@@eduardog3000 that I agree with, historic paths is a loose term lol I feel like if I’m gonna enjoy this game, I can’t expect to have my usual country accurate ww2 sims. Like you really won’t be able to care about what country your playing, they’re just gonna be a new set of bonuses and that’s all
First age: Germanic/Anglo-Saxons, Celts, or Romans
Second age: Normans, English, Scottish
Final age: British, American, Canadian, Australian
This I say should be the rough “Anglo civ tree” if it’s semi-historical
Hatshepsut as leader of Mongolia is just too much of a disconnect for me.
I feel like Ed is going to have to fix Carls mess.
For me the way it was presented I read it as totally removing any personality and individuality of civilisations and leaders reducing them to simple stat bags.
As for the Eras - it sounds strange when you "your civilisation changes from Egypt to Mongolia" - but if you just conisder your civ like a stat bag then it doesnt matter - who cares if its called Egypt, France or Whoptiedooptieland
The same blanding applies to the new leaders swapping.
Whats the point of having real names now anyway?
Now it seems it will be just "I'm playing the ancient wonder civ with the production bonus leader"
If in Civilation 7 there is still mods, there would be one that implements a good civ change system. Because this one seems somewhat bad.
Also I like more having a lot more of eras, instead of this 3 eras that aren't historically eras, are enterally made up, because yes.
The only thing that can save Civ 7 is a mod that completely removes the ages system, including Civ switching.
pls never delete the old civ vids i still watch them
Been playing Civ since the originally version on my 486 and before that playing the Avalon Hill board game of same name that I've had for a very long time now, so huge fan.
That era system reminds me of a different Avalon Hill game called 'History of the World' where you swapped civilizations as time marched on. It worked, but that game is a different animal. 4/5 are my favorites overall, 3 my least favorite, 6 was ok, but I never liked it as much as 4 or 5, and you definitely need the expansions for 5 as you pointed out.
I'm not too excited for 7, and if it has extra microtransactions as listed below, it may be the first Civ game I skip.
I think it is interesting we keep the leader for the whole game but switch civs. them being separated has kinda been tested with different leader personalities in civ 6. While I do not necessarily love the change I think it could be good or bad depending on how its balanced.
Are ocean tiles neutral now, where you can navigate freely or are we still going to be blocked by borders?
I’m cautiously optimistic about the ages and leader change, I honestly like the idea but humankind didn’t execute it well so I’m a bit worried. I’m holding off any real judgement until we see more hands on play of it. I think everyone is thinking it’s gonna be a hard shift from say Egypt to Mongolia and you’ll have to completely change how your currently playing to adapt to the new civ but from what I’ve heard it sounds like it’ll be a bit more soft than that like you start as Egypt and since you have a lot of horses in your empire and maybe some horse rider units Mongolia is one of your options if you wanted to focus more on warfare, but you also focused on some wonders so maybe china is an option to focus more on the building of wonders instead of warfare, maybe your also fairly rich so you could get masa musa for trade and wealth. I feel/hope it will be more focusing you down a line your already going down with your civ to build apron your empire, but again we only know the basics of the ages and leader changes
Can you imagine being England in the Age of Exploration, founding the 13 colonies and playing the United States in the modern era?
I could. And I really like that idea. Start as the Celts roaming around in Northern Europe, transition to England in the age of exploration, then finish up as America. The would work for me. Especially if the game would be different depending on whether you chose Boudicca, Churchill, or Abe Lincoln starting in 4,000 BC. I'd play a campaign as all three leaders just to find out.
There are so many questions on how good civil 7 will be, but the real question is why is drew holding a pen
It makes sense if the cultures were historically connected to these more modern iterations of a country like what someone said franks to the French and so on. It’s way to jarring to see an Egypt to America swap or say French to Japanese. The concept is good but it needs to be grounded if not provide the option to a more grounded culture swap with settings or something if you so choose
Civ 3 conquest still my all time favorite!
My man has not changed the shirt since the trailer
Totally agree. At this point i'm thinking i'll be playing just one era per game.
To be fair though, you didn't actually experience the culture transition as you only played 1 era
I was jumping at confirming my pre-order until I saw the gameplay showcase with the Civilization changes for each era. That totally breaks the immersion for me and was one of the biggest gripes I had with Humankind. Everything else (Except for removing workers and simplifying certain systems) looks great to me. I'm just super disappointed that they took this direction.
IKR, this is the only thing that killed humankind for me. civ7 should not tread this path
Yep totally agree… every nation has its roots and each nation could have had their own progression through historical routes I.e Boudicca could have been Englands first leader then someone like Alfred the Great and then a post modern leader or even a choice of different leaders to choose for each era as long as they had a link to the nation you wanted to play. I played Human kind twice to give it a go and never bothered again. I’m not sure if I’ll spend my money on Civ 7. I’ll have to wait and see… God dammit I’ll probably buy it but it better be worth it!
Imagine starting off as America as a Native American Indian leader then having a choice for the next era as George 1 from England, Francis 1 of France or George Washington. Sounds better to me and the modern era could be Trump or Biden 😂
Execs on mechanization, automation and AI: 9:49
very excited to play eu5 and civ7 next year
I personally love the concept if they make the evolution feel natural. Like, the big point that was mentioned was going Gaul to Mongolia. Instead of just becoming Mongolia, the name of your nation should evolve to match it, like the Mongaulic empire (bad example, I'm not a firaxis dev lmao). Develop the name as the nation develops, whether it's through some AI system or they're handpicked names, it would give some real depth, as opposed to just switching, make it feel like the evolution it's trying to be
Personally, I think the Ages and Civ swap will be a great idea IF they allow you to toggle an option that forces AI civs to also progress along their historical routes. If I have no control over this, I expect it will be difficult for me to enjoy the game. But I'm not opposed to the idea of cultures changing. And I expect there will be times I want to toggle historical routes off and just have the AI go wild and see what happens.
I think something people are missing is that the swap isn't just you unlock a tech that puts you in a new age and you swap out with another culture. There seems to be a period of strife towards the end of the age that you have to struggle through, and that period of change is meant to be the catalyst for the culture change. At least, I'm assuming that is the intention. And that helps this move make more sense as huge periods of strife such as the Sea Peoples invasion --which I think I heard in another video is represented at the end of the Antiquity age-- destroyed some cultures and forced others to adapt.
So frankly, I would just like to get more information or get my hands on the game before I judge too harshly.
Is that John Cena as Mao? LOL
I'm really piss of their monetise system… “Pay base price get this, pay 1.5x the base price and get 2 more leaders and 4 civs, pay 2x the base price and get 2 more…” and bla, bla, bla I can almost see it like it is in front of me, the base game will be more barren than the sahara, I tell you…
Yeah, as much as I love the Civ series, this Ubisoft-level of paid DLC makes me think I can wait a year or so before I actually buy the game
Glad I finally get to play Rome and America on the same play through.
I see Drew Durnil post Civ 7 Video... I watch it. Hell, If I see Drew Durnil post Civ 5 video.... I watch it. Civ is just too good when it comes from you Drew!