Classic Mode

[main rapids]

You probably don't have to worry... I think the plan is not to have a path similar to Han -> Ming -> Qing for every civ, but to have a new option "China", that is playable through all ages and is different from the Han, Ming, and Qing.

[coarse dirge]

#1000

[elfin fossil]

To the folks who argue some progress here is not worth it because of how unfinished the game already feels in other areas: your opinion is the same every civ game launch. The vanilla game always starts terrible for you and is amazing only after the two expansions, by which time civ 7 is going to be civ 6 and civ 8 will be the new thing to complain about. Some changes to the linearity of the game civs is worth it, at least to enough people that something should be done. Eager to see what options the dev have considered, but abandoning this now because of your negative energy is not the right path in my mind.

[rancid steppe]

I think trying to adapt the game for ageless civs is a step in the wrong direction. The evolving civilization is a key part of the game. The criticism it has faced doesn't engage with the gameplay itself. Its not a restart, its just the next direction you head in. I would be disappointed to see one of the most engaging and thoughtful mechanics to be de-emphasized rather than built upon.

I'm also confident that Ill continue to enjoy Civ 7 either way, so lets keep things in perspective.

[flint plover]

IMHO, the best solution would be focusing on publishing civs which historically fit with the current civs. I see a lot of Asia (Chinese and Indian history have the most accurate historical civ-chain), but where is Europe, or Africa?? Where are the Germans, or the Celts, or the Aztecs, or the ? Did we really need "Iceland" instead of "Vikings"? Really the Bulgarians instead of the Slavs or the mighty Byzantine Empire? Again, why Carthage and not the Phoenicians as a whole? Not to talk about the Republic of Pirates 😒
I think a little effort in releasing civs which enable a more historically "conscious" gameplay would satisfy those who ask for a classical mode (which honestly can't be adopted given the game mechanics).

Off topic, another thing I would suggest is converting the ancient wonders into "ruins" to be exploited as artifacts sources for archaeologists in the last age.

[thorn tendon]

Let’s focus on ideas for how to make this mode work well. What’s the point of coming here and complaining that you don’t want a certain feature? No one is forcing you to use it. For example, I don’t play hotseat, but I don’t whine that the developers plan to add it and are spending time and resources on it. I fully support people who enjoy playing that way being able to do so. Everyone should be able to play the way they like. Some things may be more important to certain players, but there’s a significant group for whom classic mode is very important, and from the very beginning of this discussion it has been downplayed, and some people still can’t seem to accept that.

and i completely disagree that civ-switching is one of the most engaging and thoughtful mechanics. For me, it’s the complete opposite.

[unkempt sphinx]

People are equally allowed to discuss what can make this mode work and also discuss what they think will not work; that's the point of a discussion. Don't come here complaining and dismissing someone talking about what they think won't work because you disagree with it or it hurts your feelings.

Be more positive and when someone discusses what they think won't work, counter it with points for why it would work instead of complaining about what they said.

[thorn tendon]

The discussion about whether this mode should be or not has been going on here from the start, and we keep going in circles. It’s a bit unproductive. It’s a very personal matter and mostly depends on preferences.

[nocturne forge]

Firaxis ended up listening to the most toxic post in the suggestions forum

[tough raft]

I think civ chains are cooler than static civs because they allow multiple civs width of depth for the mega civs, like China/India.
But i don't think they'll merge the 3 dynasties into one static civ called "China" as a compromise.

I reckon you'll either play Han the whole time, or Ming the whole time, or Qing the whole time, with their mutually exclusive civics and units and buildings and abilities.

So classic mode will have 3 "Chinas".

That is.. unless they offer an option where you can switch OR not switch.
Then one person could play Han>Ming>Qing while another person plays Rome>Rome>Rome, in the same game.

[daring heath]

Soo.. Reading the patch notes made me come back to this thread. How lovely reading the following sentence is, folks.

"Second - and this one’s been one of the most requested features from players - we're internally playtesting ways to play as one civ continuously through the ages, allowing you to choose a civilization from any Age and guide them throughout your journey through history."

Yes, hell yes! Now, instead of bashing this decision and asking for roll backs, let's focus on how to make this great so that people who asked for this feature could enjoy the game.

[analog apex]

As one of the people that wants Classic Mode, no, "historically conscious" series of Civs wouldnt please me at all. I want to pick a single Civ, from any Age, a build it to stand the Test of Time. I dont want to follow history, i dont want to switch into anything

Its not a problem of the offer of Civs to switch into, its the switching itself that is the problem

[mental relic]

Yeah the people that want Classic mode always say that they just “want to pick a single Civ, from any Age, a build it to stand the Test of Time”, but then comes the bargaining: what about the unique civic trees, need something for that; or the age “specificness” of the civ, some civs are unusable in other ages, because don’t have bonuses. Where is the end of that?

So if these people (like you as you said it) really would want to “pick a single Civ, from any Age, a build it to stand the Test of Time”, then they should only have those buffs from the “home age” and nothing in other ages just the generics. It could be a fun challenge, no?

But I think thats the problem, everybody wants everything, and the above wouldn’t be enough. Then the vision of the developers will die, because there is a vocal group who says this will save the player numbers (I don’t think so that after a calssic mode of any sort the numbers will magically shoot out)

[analog apex]

As we have been discussing, i would be fine with a generic civis tree based on the type of Civ (militaristic, economic, etc) and i dont think unique units are neccesary. I actually liked when Civs had power perriod where they had advantage over other Civ while other periods are disadvantage. It was much better than the normalizing we have today where everyone is the same all the time

So no, the only ones here that want everything for themselves are the ones asking to keep civ switching and not provide an OPTIONAL Classic Mode

The vision from the Developers failed,sorry to give you these news. The Civilization community rejected it

[fossil burrow]

Folks - these discussions are not helping the devs at all.

And comments like the above are not helpful @analog apex - you do not speak for the community. Plenty enjoy it. Plenty don’t.

Instead let's use what has actually been said, implying you can optionally play one civ through the ages with the current mechanics in civ 7 - and work out things we see as good and bad points from this.

[mental relic]

Why should there be generic civic trees for the type, there is a generic civic tree in every age, and every civ have unique civics in a specific age, its like the unique unit, hence there is a power period. It would be a fun challenge. I don’t have any problem with that if it’s optional, maybe I would also try it. But if we want a plus civic tree in exploration for the e.g. mayans, then we don’t want to choose a civ from any age to see if it can stand the test of time.

[analog apex]

I would be fine with a generic tree per Age, but i think it would be more interesting the option of a generic tree based on their type

[flint plover]

BUT we have three Rome! Rome, Constantinople, Moscow

Jokes aside, there is a mod on steam (or civmods can't remember) to keep a civ in the following eras (works only with antiquity and exploration civs of course). Did you try it?

[tough raft]

Enduring Empires? I've tried it a bit but not a full play through.
It is a good proof of concept but there's a lot to be desired.

Heritage mode feels too much like trying to make 3 civs in 1 (basically like "civ switching without civ switching"), and basic mode has a lot of duplicated steps (why are you researching the same civic tree 3 times? Why is it offering me traditions I already have - and not giving a second copy of it)

[patent olive]

With only two transitions, I could really see a "transcending" mechanic working well in 7. You’d only need to “transcend” (not switch) twice.

My question is, does it need to work backwards as well? Do we need to be able to start exploration/modern civs in antiquity, or is “transcending upwards” enough?

For example, with the Han in antiquity do we really need to start with the Ming too? I’d say no.

Because I think the ages mechanic will stay. To quote them: “...play as one civ continuously through the ages.”

[tough raft]

Some curiosities:

What ability does Maurya have in Explo/Modern? (there's no functioning pantheons anymore?)
Is Assyria broken in Explo/Modern? (free techs from conquering seems like a runaway mechanic if you have it for the whole game)
What happens when you run out of Great People (there's only 10 for the full game). Is 10 enough for a 3 age playthrough?
Are some antiquities civs too strong in later ages considering they are "outdated"? Burning Arrows?
Is there enough for people to do without 2 more civs? No unique quarters (or the same ones again, which you can't rebuild in the same settlements 3 times over), does the game need to fill this gap with more generic content for these civs to keep themselves occupied with the "void of options"?

I guess I'll need to see it to believe it 😄

[analog apex]

Every Civ needs to be able to be picked to start with. That is 100% required

[tough raft]

With the added requirements of being able to play Explo/Modern civs in Antiquties:

Can Inca work Mountains in Antiquities (or do they have to wait for Explo?) is it broken to give the extra mountain tiles a whole age early? The game logic seems to be "restricted" > "limited to selected civs" > "full access" for mountains (and for ocean for the future patch!)
What does Spain do in Antiquities? (no distant lands to take advantage of)
What happens to Mexico in Antiquities? Do they still have a unique government type?
How does Meiji Japan overbuild in Antiquities?

Do you want Civs to have "no powers" before their "main age"? Or just "as or when it works" but some civs get the short end of the stick? (powers that are largely useless, and some powers that are kinda busted if you get them earlier than intended)

[snow tulip]

Your list of questions is basically why I think that civ unique mechanics won't exist outside their intended age, and that other solutions will be given to give you mechanics in the other two eras, like the suggestion I made yesterday for how to do it. There are just too many problems to solve with porting civ unique mechanics to ages they weren't designed for, and it makes all future civ changes need a classic mode update

[analog apex]

I dont think current Civ mechancis can be enabled because some of them are very specific. They will have to be disabled or, again, they would have to resort to generic bonuses, that can also be based on the type of Civilization (militaristic, economic, etc). Maybe there are other alternatives too

[tough raft]

As long as people are satisfied with that. But I kinda doubt it, it's a bit like an 'on-ramp' for more and more requests "I want classic mode, but I want as much interesting content as civ-switch mode, can you give me unique abilities, civics, units and buildings in every age?" I can't see people flocking to classic mode if you're playing basically a "vanilla civ" off-age.

[analog apex]

I have been commenting and reading about Classic Mode since Civ 7 launched. I literally never saw anyone asking to have all that for every Civ on every Age

[tough raft]

That's reassuring I guess.
Maybe some generic civic trees and some generic quarters or improvements, something for civs to do "off age" will be enough to make the game still have enough stuff to keep players occupied.

I kinda like combining unique quarters together that have interesting synergies, that's basically not an option if you only get offered 1 unique quarter at 1 point in the game. But i guess i should view it as a totally different mode and not expect the same types of play patterns to be possible (stacking unique quarters, stacking traditions).

[analog apex]

I sure hope its a totally different mode, since the current game mode is one that we dont like. Thats why the suggestion to make only cosmetic changes wont work

[tough raft]

So civ 7 with everything exactly the same as is now, but no civ switching, and no civ abilities, units, buildings, outside your civ's "main age", would make the game something you like?

[analog apex]

Unique Units and Buildings on their own Age, like previous game, which creates periods of power and periods of weakness against the enemy (and that is much more interesting than everyone being the same at all times). Surfing those times, both the strong ones and the weak ones, to make your Civ stand the Test of Time is what the franchise is about. We are Civilization, not Humankind

[tough raft]

Using the civ 7 engine to make a classic mode does seem like a good way bring back a lot of players. The game has good mechanics beyond the civ switching mechanic.
Maybe it'll even be a gateway for people to try civ switching... ironically 😄

[analog apex]

I do like some changes Civ 7 has (not so much others). But current Civ 7 feels bad for a lot of us because of Civ Switching and Ages. I do admit Ages seem harder to remove which is why i am willing to test the game with just civ switching removed. I do hope Civ 8 has none of both of them be optional

I already tried Civ 7 with civ switching, i already know it feels terrible

[gritty night]

I genuinely think that in some cases, once people are playing civ 7 regularly, even if they opt the majority of the time for a new 'classic' mode, many will dip their toes into the civ switching version too, maybe not as their regular game mode, but here and there. It's just getting those people into the game in the first place when they're opposed to not having the option to retain their civ that has been the challenge.

[patent olive]

I can see how having access to all civs from the start would greatly improve content and DLC accessibility. That’s a big plus for me. It just seems far more resource-demanding though, and would probably take longer to implement than a system where you can only transcend upwards.

"We are Civilization, not Humankind."

See, that sentence right there is so revealing to me. You’re fighting an ideological war but it's against ghosts. We’re actually on the same side here, both trying to improve Civ 7’s gameplay experience.

If you’re so quick to fall back on that kind of dogmatic rhetoric the moment your ideas get a bit of pushback, the discussion becomes exhausting. I’ll say it again: nothing has to be eliminated for the other to exist. There are no two camps. And for sure no Civ vs. Humankind.

Just people in a discord channel brainstorming. We’re not Reddit. We don’t have to fight over narratives here.

[tired tundra]

I think the solution really is a kind of in between. The idea of the civ switching- along with historical fidelity - is that you face these crises as the end of each age, and they cause your empire to crumble, then re-emerge as a slightly different civilization, influenced by its past.

What if whether you get to continue playing as your starting civ depends on how you do in the crisis? Like if a certain amount of things go wrong and you suffer during the crisis you have to switch, but if you come through relatively unscathed, then as a reward you continue into the next age as your current civ- with some kind of bonus for making it through?

[gritty night]

another possibility to the question of what to do about civilization uniques outside of their 'main' age is to have lightweight versions of the UA in the other ages which keep the same flavour but are weaker, some would just be easy to do, just reduce yields, but for those that are very age specific, like maurya and pantheons, maybe give a minor yield bonus to cities with maurya's original religion, or assyria, maybe gain a small science boost (not a whole tech) when capturing a city, for spain, just keep the 15% gold towards converting a town to a city and forget the doubling bonus on distant lands - it's more code, but it keeps the flavour.

I think the UA is the only thing that would be good to have some element of in other ages, even if just the flavour, whereas the UU, UB, UQ etc, i'm happy to only have in the civ's main 'age' - i also liked the fact that civs had their moments of strength and weakness that was different to each other

[tough raft]

Good idea, a universal always on unique ability would be a good compromise. With the main age ability being a one age special add on

I'm kinda curious what the "always on" Carthage ability would be 😄
Double down on the one city challenge?

[analog apex]

Its not dogmatic. Both franchises had different gameplay patterns. Civilization has always been, over its entire history, about getting a CIVILIZATION through history and make it stand the Test of Time. Humankind was about trying to recreate history without caring much about the "Civilization" (i dont use culture to avoid confusion) you play. Firaxis trying to mix both made a terrible mistake

Firaxis thought having a fixed and recognizable Leader would solve the issue Humankind had. It didnt

Now, getting away from that and going back to Classic Mode, it shouldnt take too much longer is the solution to off-Age Civilizations is a kind of generic tree/units/buildings/civ ability, because you would have to build those for every Age except Antiquity if you can only start with Antiquity Civs

Starting with only Antiquity Civs is not what those of us that are not playing because of switching want, and i think we are the target audience of this change. The target audience is not the ones who are already playing IMHO

[snow tulip]

The problem with this kind of approach is that it requires them to redesign every civ and gives a design constraint around them for the main gameplay experience of civ 7 that they need to fit into this archetype to facilitate classic mode. I don't think we're going to get a system that involves redesigning civs or adding design constraints on what civ mechanics are allowed to do, I think that is too problematic.

[gritty night]

@tough raft that would be quite fun, to just do a one city challenge, but you could alternatively do it as just gaining a second merchant when building one of them

@snow tulip it would be additional code, but i don't see it presenting any major design constraints to be fair. It is definitely possible to make a lightweight version of any civ design, so the devs could make civs as they currently do, even if it uses age specific mechanics - they just need to think of a lightweight flavour carry over. - whether such a solution is worth the extra dev time is a decision for firaxis

[snow tulip]

it's additional design and implementation work that then needs to continuously be updated any time the main civ gets updated, needs individual balancing work, etc. My line on this subject has always been that classic mode can't increase the scope of creating civs, because that both means an immense amount of work to get it working retroactively and it slows down all future civ implementations. I think the only way this concept works personally is with the use of generic bonuses in your off ages - you can design a discrete amount of those and it doesn't grow the cost of this feature as the game gets more civs

[tough raft]

Interestingly a civ power that works in any age is similar in its design requirements to a memento. They could literally just pilfer some of the mementos for civ abilities.

Like Rome could have the one that makes cities more expensive but + settlement cap

Thinking further on this, they could have a memento slot for each civ which only accepts mementos of 1 "colour", so you can play the same single civ in a few different ways.

Is 3 mementos the same as 2 mementos and a civ power?

[crude walrus]

I hope all they do is keep the previous civ cosmetic and cities name and that is. Using too much resources on an optional game mode is detrimental to the core mechanics of the game

Placating the ‘classic’ mode crowd is good enough for me. Maintaining what is essentially a scenario is expensive and shouldn’t be a priority when designing new content or updates. It not like the scenario in Civ 6 or Civ 5 are well maintained anyways…

[fringe hemlock]

I’ve been enjoying civ vii more and more with each update implemented. The first part of the latest message from the developers— promising “dramatic changes to the Legacy Paths and Victories in Civ VII… to open up the game and provide many new paths your empire can follow while achieving greatness and competing for victory”— sounds great to me. What concerns me is the idea that the devs are testing “ways to play as one civ continuously through the ages, allowing you to choose a civilization from any Age and guide them throughout your journey through history.”

What is described here would seem to be a fundamentally different game in many respects. I do not see how this could be realized in a satisfying way without pulling energy and resources away from the important work of “opening up the game” by building upon the structure that exists.
Why focus on making it possible to play as “Great Britain” in antiquity, rather than, idk, adding an Anglo-Saxon civilization? It seems that to attempt to balance all existing civs across all ages would almost inevitably compromise the power scaling of age transition and limit the creativity with which new civs and new features can be implemented.

I wanted to register my concerns in the hope that they might be heeded in whatever small way. I welcome other players’ perspectives on how this could be pulled off well, because I’m worried.

[ebon oak]

Agreed, I think that just keeping the cosmetic stuff only and still having you civ switch under the hood for gameplay purposes is really the only way to keep the intended Civ 7 gameplay. Still switch to Inca or Mongols or whichever gameplay bonus you want, but sure keep calling yourself Rome if that's what makes you happy.

[fringe hemlock]

In many cases they would effectively have to design two civs. For instance, they already ran into the problem that Bulgaria’s production from pillaging tradition made the modern age trivial, so they made that tradition into their civ ability, precisely so it could not transfer to modern. I can only imagine all the unforeseen problems that might arise from things like this. Will Mughals be able to buy wonders in antiquity, for instance? It’s dizzying to think about, it’s like designing a completely new game

[daring heath]

It will be optional as far as I understood from the patch notes. That said, you can still play with civ-switching (current status) if you like. But people like me who want a classic civ experience will have the option to start as Mayans and finish as Mayans. As long as it's optional it shouldn't hurt anyone, right? We set this up once in game start and we play the game as we like. I think this improvement would actually increase the sales and attract many of the old school civ fans into the game. I personally know 4-5 friends of mine who are instantly going to buy this game the moment this option is introduced. Everyone will be happy. No one's gonna be forced to play with a certain setting. Isn't this what makes the game playable eventually?

[crude walrus]

Creating and maintaining a parallel game mode is very expensive and resource intensive. Besides cosmetic changes, balancing civ’s ability and interaction across three ages require a lot of balancing and changes that need manpower. You don’t hear people raving about the Niles or Polish scenario in civ 6 do you?

Also the game is already playable

[daring heath]

Huh? I thought we have gone past that discussion? Are you still stuck in pre-announcement status? The decision has been taken, let's not reiterate the same debate again and again. Let's also not pretend like we are game development experts employed at Firaxis, and that we know the whole codebase by heart, even better than the devs who planned this and took the decision.

@fringe hemlock See my reply. Game development, milestone planning, etc. is their business. We are gamers.

[fringe hemlock]

See my point above. The only problem with what you are describing is that resources, manpower, and energy are not unlimited, re-balancing the game to allow “classic” style play that (and this is key) is actually fun and satisfying will be a huge effort, one that will necessarily take away from building upon the existing structure of civ vii. We are basically talking about the simultaneous development of two different games. My concern is that we will end up with two underdeveloped games that rather than one fully realized game. I totally understand why they are doing this and that many people have clamored for it, but I do wish they would have tried to win you and your friends over to their concept rather than compromising on the concept, which is worrisome for the reasons I’ve mentioned. Civ VI is an amazing game that functions in the way you describe. Imagine if between vanilla and rise and fall they had decided to implement an optional game mode that did involve forced civ switching at certain ages—to fully develop that mode into a fun experience would require a lot of work, and it would necessarily have taken energy, time, and resources away from the new elements introduced in rise and fall

[fringe hemlock]

Well, it is surely true that I’m not a game developer, but I think the principle that one has to prioritize certain aspects of a large project at the expense of others is one that applies in many careers. And of course, to say that this mode is a good idea implies that devs are capable of big mistakes, because this decision comes in response to backlash that characterized a fundamental design element of Civ VII as a mistake. I’m not even saying the devs are necessarily making a mistake here— if they can implement this mode in a way that satisfies people with your outlook without compromising the development of the core game, that is great— I’m just registering my concern

[high oar]

The problem there is... they were never going to win us over and "convert" us (for lack of a better way to say it) to accept civ switching. I played Humankind when it released, and I didn't like then. Yes, I have played Civ VII, and I don't like it here either. Based on the recent news, it seems that Firaxis has decided that it is worth the time and effort to try to give us at least some of what we have been asking for in a Classic Mode. That decision has been made. We now need to give ideas on how to implement it. There has been a lot of good discussion on ways to fill in the gaps, but we keep getting derailed by rehashing the question of if it should be done.

[ebon oak]

Just because something is optional doesn't mean it stops needing to be balanced for or be considered in design and development decisions. Creating a single-civ mode that actually affects gameplay and isn't just cosmetic, whether that's through things like needing to design civ abilities for each civ for ages they're not supposed to be in, or designing a civ's abilities for every age instead of just a single age with that age's objectives, or even just knowing there will be civs with no bonuses in a certain age, means that they will need to design and balance the entire game for both how it's supposed to be played and for single-civ mode. That's essentially requiring them to balanace and design around two distinct games going forward.

This is why "make it optional" is not the magic solution to every complaint about games that people seem to think it is. Options don't suddenly absolve a design element from requiring resources or impacting the rest of the game.

[daring heath]

We. Have. Gone. Past. That. Discussion.

Do you have a new idea that can enrich the classic mode, which is what this thread is about?

[fringe hemlock]

well, my suggestion is to do so in a way that does not compromise the development of the core game too much, as there are those of us who actually do like the current direction. And while I know there is a lot of opposition to civ switching, I think it is more likely that those of us who do enjoy it will continue to enjoy it than that people who hate it will come to enjoy a “classic mode” built out of a fundamentally different game. So the interests of current fans of Civ VII should not be dismissed in favor of the interests of possible fans of Civ VII classic mode. That’s all I’m saying. The same way many (like OP) asked for a classic mode when there wasn’t one, I am saying that I care much more about seeing the civ vii game expanded than seeing it re-developed into something closer to civ vi

[high oar]

I agree with you on that I want Classic Mode to have as minimal an impact on the current game as possible. I don't think it's possible to have no impact. But they must be confident that they can come up with something; otherwise, they wouldn't have announced it. We know nothing more than these couple of lines so far.

[ebon oak]

And you've missed my entire point. The point is that when proposing new ideas for how to implement single-civ mode, we need to take into consideration whether those idea proposals are going to impact the rest of the game and require Firaxis to, going forward, balance for two separate games or not.

It's why I suggest implementing single-civ mode in civ and city name list only, while still having you switch civs under the hood. That way it's only a cosmetic change, with minimal impact of the intended gameplay and the mechanics of civ switching. It wouldn't require dev resource to be diverted to designing for and balancing for entirely different gameplay, something that mechanical changes in a single-civ mode such as designing civ abilities for every age or carrying over civ abilities would require them to do.

[mental relic]

My dude, we just got into this discussion, as you and others said: a decision has been made. Now comes the hard part, these concerns that are the most important. You tell that just add optional classic mode and everything is done. Just imagine you play as XY civ which is crappy in antiquity because it doesn’t have any bonus and you get steamrolled by another civ who is from modern and has a broken bonus. Everyone will say that “this game is crap, it can’t be played”, the devs want to avoid this, so they start to develop virtually two games, and the classic mode in the civ 7 (i hate this classic mode name) sense will be crappy. It won’t be magically good, now that they announced that they are TESTING it

[white agate]

Surely releasing a half-hearted civ continuity mode would be worse than having no civ continuity?

I want both. I love antiquity civs and most of the time I'd like to play with one of those all the way through. But you know what, every now and again I might want to switch too.

I am hopeful that Firaxis will make it so that sticking with your civ will be a strategically interesting decision.

And look at the positives. There are a bunch of civs with abilities that would be very interesting out of age. I honestly think Qajar's settlement limit mechanics would have so many more ramifications early game that they definitely put it in the wrong era.

[daring heath]

Folks.. Firaxis is a big game studio. They have a dedicated department for this, don't you think? Please, please do not drag people into that dead discussion again and again. Let's not revive it. Have faith in the devs, and if you're so concerned about their effort and pay, let's actually sign up for beta tests if possible? I, for one, am completely ready to play the classic mode for hours to test, report bugs/glitches. You can also do that. Let's help them if this is now all about the development effort.

If there is a platform where we can sign up for testing of classic mode, I suggest this should be announced here. Since we asked for this feature primarily, we should sign up for its tests.

[fossil burrow]

The workshop will be announced on discord, and people will can then apply and be considered - this is not the only feature that the workshop is for. But this will all be confirmed in time.

[fringe hemlock]

Well, i don’t know if we should consider the expression of confidence, especially in this context, to indicate anything in terms of whether the effort will succeed. And they did say they were going to look to the community for feedback. But other than that, yes, I agree, I don’t want the game re-done, I want it revised and expanded. I think that is a legible distinction and that the latter goal is the one that ought to be pursued

[high oar]

I'm definitely hoping to get into the workshop.

[mental relic]

I had (and have) faith in the devs thats why I believe that they can make civ 7 the best civ game without making it civ 6. But they made mistakes, and balancing two games is even bigger challenge. And no I don’t have the time to beta test beside the recreational gaming that I want and can to do in my freetime

[daring heath]

No one forces you to participate. You can keep playing the current game with civ-switching and leave this matter to us who are eager to spend time and effort into the features of classic mode.

[ebon oak]

You can have faith in something while still talking about what it actually takes to do that thing. And again, we're discussing the implementation, not the decision. Dismissing the design considerations that need to be taken into account when implementing something as potentially big of a change as creating essentially a separate game just for an optional mode is not helpful to a discussion. We have proposed ways to implement a classic mode with minimal impact on the rest of the game. What do you propose? How do you suggest they implement single-civ mode in a way that would have minimal impact on designing and balancing for the other parts of the game?

[trim echo]

I mean, I suggest they dont make classic mode at all- that would have the least impact on the main game lol

[mental relic]

Oh please… I can be cynical too. No one forces you to play civ 7, you can keep playing civ 6 without civ switching.
I have concerns for the game I like, you doesn’t even like it

[daring heath]

Thanks for getting back to the topic.

First off, I'm personally hyped to test the classic mode as devs release in the coming days. Signing up for the beta is the best thing we can do. For now it's kinda speculating whether or not they'll do it the way we think they would do it. We don't have any insider information. Who knows how they enable the feature, right? Let's see this first. Let's not get toxic from the get-go. Devs heard our call and decided to do this in a way, so let's see that way. Will there be penalties if I refuse to switch? No idea. Will there be bonuses? No idea. Let's see these first.

@mental relic I'm not replying to you anymore mate, sorry. We have had that discussion too, "Go play Humankind", or "Go play Civ6", not bringing anything. We are done.

[high oar]

1. So, I would add some sort of slider in the advanced setup menu that looks at the Civ you're playing through the whole game, but also makes it possible to choose any Civ from any Age. This would also lock all AI Civs to not switching but also open the AI to play any Civ from any Age.

2. I would use Bradykin's suggestion on how to have the game generate the "Off Era" trees so that they are only semi-generic. (Read their posts for clarification.)

3. During setup, if the player wants Leaders to be limited to playing their Historical Civs then they could use teh Advanced setup to choose their oponents. If they left it to Random then either a historical bias could be added to leaders so that they are more likely to choose their historical civ, but still open to choosing others if their civ is already taken.

4. I would do away with the time jump between age transitions.

[ebon oak]

You didn't answer my question of how you would implement a single-civ mode? What do you suggest they do? If you want to actually stay on topic, like I have, and have a constructive discussion, then actually having ideas and proposing how they implement what you say you want is a good way to do that.

[mental relic]

Okay then let them hear our call: there shouldn’t be any bonuses to refuse to switch, that would be insane, to optimize the game to an optional game mode.
And to this day I didn’t care about the discussion about the classic mode, but now that they testing something like that I have concerns so I care.

[white agate]

I wonder if statements are overblowm about how much harder it would be to design civs with or without civ switching.

There are some outlier abilities which interact with age-specific systems, but the in depth civs designed by the devs in 7 are ironically mostly full of abilities which are good in any era. I think if anything it's ironic that the edition with civs that would be the most interesting in any era is the edition which prevented that...

And the legacy path reworks probably mean a lot of the era specific civ abilities will need to change anyway... Regardless of civ switching.

[fringe hemlock]

I guess the easiest way to do it would be to make a “generic” civ for each age with maybe a choice among a few stock, relatively weak bonuses focused on one of the legacy paths. No uniques or anything. When you are in your chosen civ’s “proper” age, you get your bonuses and uniques. When you are not in that age, you play the ‘generic civ’ (which is still designated as your chosen civ and has all the city names, etc)

[high oar]

I would also make the crisis a bit more dynamic... maybe add some randomness to when it starts... That and getting rid of the time jump might be good additions to both classic mode and the standard game

[fossil burrow]

Another reminder please to speak to eachother with respect ^^

[fringe hemlock]

for instance i could play carthage in antiquity, then “transition” to the generic economic exploration civ ability, still designated as “carthage” and with all the city names etc. Or if i choose great britain in no-switching mode, i could play the generic antiquity and exploration economic civs, designated as “great britain” with the capital in London etc, then get my actual bonuses and uniques as great britain in the modern age

[high oar]

Yeap... Bradykin has some funky math that I only understand on the surfaces that has the game generate those trees for the "Off Eras" instead of requireing the Devs to spend the time trying to fill in the gaps manually and then be forced to balance around them for the rest of the Dev Life Cycle of Civ VII.

[fringe hemlock]

I think it could be even easier than that, like the generic civ doesn’t need to have a unique civic tree at all; you only get your tree and the unique aspects of your civ in your “proper” era. And in no-switch mode, everyone would be playing that way, so there’d be inherent balance. Honestly, between momentos and leader abilities, you wouldn’t even to need to have generic civ abilities, but it could be a nice thing to add a bit more flavor of your chosen civ.

[high oar]

If it's too generic or just doesn't exist at all, then it might not work, or could get stale pretty quick.

[white agate]

I don't think generic civs cut it because of how many civs would be interesting to play out of era. Assyria, Carthage, Hawaii, Qajar, Mughals - just for a few. And there's how much more interesting it would make the antiquity/modern civs with terrain biases.

Civ7 is ironically the edition where civs have the most abilities that would be fun throughout the game thanks to the in depth civs. The devs can make civ continuity into a big positive for the game if they leverage that!

[fringe hemlock]

It’s just a slightly more extreme version of how things were in civ 6— civs were at their most powerful during a particular phase/era of the game, when they had their uniques online, and were somewhat generic outside of that. The only difference is that they had abilities that were balanced for the continuous-style game. Rather than spend time redoing all of the civ abilities so that they work in every era, they could just confine the abilities to the civ’s “proper” era and let you choose like “military antiquity focus” or “modern cultural focus.” You’d still have your traditions and ageless uniques in the era after your civ’s proper era.

[high oar]

A lot really depends on how they implement it and how much time and resources they choose to invest in it. We won't know the answer to either of those questions until we see it.

[gritty night]

I think it's worth mentioning that it's important that Firaxis implement any sort of 'classic' style gameplay in the right way - if they do I think it could bode well for Civ 7's long term health and longevity as a game. If it is done half heartedly then it might not satisfy the people they're aiming to bring back anyway, at which point it's wasted resources and energy all round. So in a sense it makes more sense for Firaxis to invest more resources into it at this early stage (now they've made the decision) to get it right - then with hopefully a developing playerbase, Firaxis can turn their attention towards the core of the game. I get why people are concerned it's diverting resources away from what they want - but surely it's better to do that now, with the aim of making the game healthier/more successful in the long term, and we therefore all get more out of the game long term. (I'm sure Firaxis would not have made this decision unless they saw that as a probable outcome to their efforts)

[patent olive]

you’d need to scale civ abilities & unique civic trees across all ages (like leader abilities already do).

that’s at least doable in my eyes since it doesn’t require new assets. just a big balance pass.

you’d basically need 2 more unique civic trees for every civ (like antiquity russia and exploration russia for example), and scale their civ ability up or down. civics&abilities that are heavily tied to the original age would obviously be trickier to balance.

but i can see the potential. starting in tundra antiquity as russia? or making pirate republic abilities work in modern? easy? no. but doable. and not too costly either. no extra art assets required, these can go into new civs.

[strong crypt]

Quick note that I've bumped up slowmode on this thread - it's gained a lot of traction and with that, a lot of back and forth discussion.

While we can still chat about what an implementation of one civ through the Ages would look like, I just want to make sure the discussion is productive, especially at 1000+ comments so far. At the end of the day, our goal with these feedback threads and comments is to have something digestible to provide to the dev team!

Once we have news about how to apply to workshop, will make sure it's gets shared here as it is very relevant to the discussion

[hot gyro]

~~Thank goodness ~~

[distant prawn]

After thinking about civ switching for a while, I think what would work for most players is a setting "Playthrough mode" with two options: "Ageless civilizations" (all picked civs persist through all ages for all players and the AI) and "Rise & Fall" (current behavior). The setting can be chosen before selecting civilizations.

Another thing that needs to be addressed imo is the loading time between ages, and the number of screens the player needs to go through between ages. I hope both the time and the number of screens will be significantly reduced.

EDIT: "Ageless Civilizations" seems too confusing, maybe "Stones to Stars" is better?

[main rapids]

While I am not disagreeing with your idea, I think whatever the devs have in mind will be playing one civ through all the ages. So while they are proposing not having to switch civs, I don't see anything to indicate they won't have ages. Just you won't have to change civs for the next age.
Instead, they've given us continuity as a setting so we still have age transistions but they are less jarring. And collapse is coming for people who feel like the age transitions aren't jarring enough.
But will that be ok with you? If the Age transition is more of a "name only" change? Some things still change, like you get new tech and culture trees. But with continuity on you keep your units, with the new change allowing you to play one civ beginning to end you skip over civ switching. So not much left in the age transistion anyway. It will just be a label.
Wow slowmode is 10 minutes?
Anyway, you can turn crises off as well.

[thorn tendon]

There should also be no crisis, because if we don't change civilization/our civilization doesn't collapse, then something like this loses its meaning. It shouldn't be a problem to turn it off.

[distant prawn]

Or, we could have a different narrative event at the end of the age stating that the civilization was able to survive during the crisis and will continue to exist in the next age.

[high oar]

The crisis can already be turned off.

[fossil burrow]

Though you could still have the crisis as you overcome it and keep going as the civ in this scenario

[fringe hemlock]

I am curious about what it means to “get it right” though, because, while I understand that many people detest civ switching, I don’t see how the complaint has anything to do with the quality of civ vii as a game. Many people simply hate the idea of it, some have not even tried Civ VII for that reason. Now, I think the game has flaws and aspects that need to be deepened, but none of this, to my mind, emanates from the fact that civ switching is part of the game. So addressing complaints about switching is tricky as their concrete basis is hard to identify. My sense is that the answer needs to be an option that works within the core features of civ vii, so that it benefits from and fuels the improvement of those features (i.e. giving civs a way to “switch” without switching cosmetically). Otherwise we are talking about a fundamentally different game, which, even if pulled off relatively well, will not necessarily be embraced by the people who hate civ switching. I suppose my point is that I think focusing on deepening and improving the actual core gameplay of Civ VII is what will actually draw and retain players, rather than appealing to complaints that, while entirely the prerogative of those who make them, are somewhat amorphous and inscrutable; expanding and deepening the game should, in my opinion, be a much higher priority than designing and balancing a new civic tree for the Ancient United States, etc.

[gritty night]

I don't think the complaint typically about civ switching is about the quality of the game, so much as people's ability to enjoy the game and feel immersed in it.

I can only speak from a personal point of view - I think Civ 7 has a lot of decent ideas, a lot of new concepts that are interesting and clearly have attracted a lot of fans - that's great. At first I thought it needed some major refining in areas, but that it had the potential to be the best civ game I've played. As I continued playing it though, I found my ability to be immersed in the game was drastically impacted by the civ swapping and kept losing interest - for me the game loses its momentum every age transition with that decision. No matter how many times I've tried to go back, I hit the same wall. (I started trying one age campaigns and preferred that, so it's definitely the civ swapping element of the ages). I want to enjoy Civ 7 as much as you and all the other civ 7 fans, but at present I don't.

As for how to get it right with keeping your civ - there is no one simple answer, and everyone who wants a civ classic style will have differing ideas on the best way to do that. Ultimately that's what the workshop will be for, to offer feedback that Firaxis can consider, and then they will decide how best to implement it, and how many resources they should put into that.

I said earlier that I think there is too much all or nothing on both sides of the debate. Firaxis have made this decision, and implementing a half hearted solution will not solve anything. It will just waste the dev's time and offer the game no benefit. I guess the key word is compromise - players need to meet in the middle to make this a success. I still think Civ 7 has massive potential, with the right decision choices going forward. Frankly it's amazing that Firaxis takes on board feedback from all sides as much as they do.

[thorn tendon]

For me the main problem is civ-switching because it breaks immersion and kills roleplay. I think it’s important to understand that Civ has always attracted a lot of different types of players and that’s always been one of its biggest strengths. With Civ 7 they went with a design that just doesn’t work for some of those player types, like people who enjoy roleplay, sandbox-style play, or min-maxing to win as early as possible. The current system just doesn’t click for them and for different reasons depending on the player. That’s bad because it means a lot of the players who used to love the series aren’t really interested anymore. In my opinion Civ games should allow for as much variety and flexibility as possible so everyone can enjoy the game in their own way instead of being so restrictive that it takes the fun away from some groups of players.

[nocturne forge]

Civ’s idea of how not every civilization is the same after a few hundred years is probably best represented in Civ Rev funny enough.

You start with a basic ability at the beginning and then later down the eras you earn more abilities based on your civ, while still keeping the same larp.

Now make the abilities more unique and that’s the formula for a potential future game that wants to keep the same idea of Civ-switching.

[white agate]

Also Colonization's continental congress. I think that would have been an amazing model to add abilities to your civ and keep them flavourful, if that was a replacement for recruiting great people (obviously making that quite a rare event)

[fringe hemlock]

Yes, this is partially my point, that the problem is not about the quality of the game; it is conceptual or almost cosmetic, it is about how some people prefer to imagine their role as the player. My feeling with regard to “immersion” and “roleplaying” is exactly the opposite, I find the simulation of history in Civ VI and its predecessors way less “immersive”— one still has to use one’s imagination to convert a Civ 7 playthrough into a plausible “story,” but it presents fewer absurdities than earlier games. I guess whereas I find compelling the idea of guiding a society/culture through dramatic changes, others would like tools to help them imagine the story of a society/culture that doesn’t change. I don’t think the effort to provide those tools should be “half hearted” by any means, but I think it should be approached with clarity of purpose and with a focus on things that will make the game better for all players.

To be honest, I was kind of hoping against hope that they would manage to reverse the tide of opinion on Civ switching so that it could return in 8. Seems pretty unlikely now, but I want the vision to at least get its due this time around

[main rapids]

It's difficult to eliminate things. They eliminated the ability to play the same civ start to finish and look at the controversy it caused. Hopefully we'll get it back and most of the community will come back.
But as for Civ 8, who knows. Now that we have civ switching they won't be able to eliminate that either.
What I would like to see for Civ 8 would be the option to switch to another civ once you completed a certain set of requirements, not just change at the age transition. Feels weird that there is a crises and everybody switches to something new at the same time.
Oh, and having the ability to switch would mean you don't have to switch either. Should be a choice, not a requirement.
Also like to see a globe for Civ 8... but that's off topic for the thread.

[faint schooner]

CLASSIC MODE IDEA
(I will put like that just to diferenciate from the people complaining or discussing):

I’d design it as a National Legacy Tree 🌲 that evolves based on player actions.

Each civilization would have branches tied to its core identity.

In the case of Spain, the legacy would focus on maritime trade and global expansion: by establishing trade routes between continents or founding cities in distant lands, Spain would accumulate Legacy Points that unlock progressive bonuses:

• Increased gold from international routes.

• Extra production in cities on distant lands.

• Naval mobility or strength boosts.

This way, the civilization keeps its economic and expansionist identity without being limited to a single era.

[analog apex]

If you have a product that is being demanded by very few people, and by spending some resources on it, you can expand the amount of demand, it surely is a good decision to spend those resources

I think some people are not understanding the part that Civ 7 is not doing well

If a Classic Mode can revitalize Civilization's popularity, it will benefit everyone

[thorn tendon]

I think in CIV 8, adding a mechanic where you could change your civilization under some rare or hard-to-get conditions would be really interesting. All AI civs would stay the same (so no confusion) and by default the player is just one civ too, but if things are going really badly they could switch their civilization, changing their bonuses and stuff. Or if they’re doing super well and hit certain achievements that fit another civ (like building some wonders, having certain resources, etc.) they could switch too. There’s a lot of possibilities and it would be really cool and optional.

[main rapids]

Yeah I get that too. Some people who like the game don't see a problem because they already like the game. But a lot of people are not playing Civ 7 and that's a problem for the devs, since they would like to get paid.
Also I would think that if people liked the game as is they would want the studio to do well. And for that to happen they need to bring more players back into the fold.

[ebon oak]

Again please avoid speaking in generalizations and pretending you speak for the entire community.

[fossil burrow]

Folks don’t start talking about civ 8 please, really not helpful.

The devs need to use this thread for useful info. On the proposed changes before workshop goes live.

[fossil burrow]

Reminder of this message

Player base commentary is not helpful.

[main rapids]

I don't think Crashdummy was trying to speak for the community, but making an observation that there aren't a lot of people playing Civ 7, or at least not as many as Firaxis would have liked/expected.
Though Meache is right, those types of comments are not helpful. Nor are comments about what Firaxis can a cannot do with their resources for that matter. We should focus on ways to implement ideas that would improve the game and make it better for everybody.
And apologies, because I realize I'm making a comment about the player base after Meache said not to. Just trying to set the record straight. I'll put it away now.

[fossil burrow]

im coming for you

[fringe hemlock]

Don’t get me wrong, I understand the logic. And it is probably true that a good number who dismissed the game will give it another try when this feature, whatever form it takes, is rolled out. Will people buy it just for that feature? It is kind of an expensive game, so I imagine many would wait until they hear from someone who already owns it that it is actually good. And I suspect— could be wrong, but I suspect— that some of disappointment with civ switching, among people who actually tried the game, is really about stuff like map generation, the poor implementation of religion, the unidimensionality of the legacy paths and paucity of legacy choices, lack of playable civs per era, UI, etc (and I know these are all things that the devs have some awareness of). In fact, something I’d like to see is more narrative events in exploration and modern that relate to previous civ choices. I am not against this at all as an optional mode to facilitate a certain kind of story— after all, we are promised the ability to “build something you believe in,” and what some people believe in is a 4000 year empire— but I do think that efforts should be directed to improving the game overall, and I suspect that it’s those improvements that will actually matter the most in terms of gaining and retaining players.

[unkempt flicker]

YES!

[thorn tendon]

It would be great if adding a classic mode was tied to introducing (new) better maps in this TSL

[fringe hemlock]

@main rapids I get it; i just want the aspects of the game that i like to be cultivated and expanded and have their chance as well. In reading that message from the devs, it occurred to me that those who dislike civ switching made their voices heard and were heeded, so I am just doing the same thing. I may well be in a small minority, in which case it doesn’t matter, but I’m not really interested in playing classic mode, I see it as a step backwards, whereas I have been looking forward to seeing the game expand and deepen. the idea that time will be spent on this is exciting to some but a disappointment to me, just as the announcement of civ switching was exciting to me and a disappointment to others. To be clear, I’m not saying that I don’t understand the decision to incorporate one of the most requested features or that I actually want to deprive people of an option that they feel is key to their enjoyment of the game, I just want to speak up as someone who likes civ switching, in the hope that the further development of that concept won’t be neglected

[analog apex]

Going back to suggestions, from my POV, dont go things like "you keep your Civ name but you have to choose a culture that changes your bonuses" because that would be keeping the game as it is but without changing your Civ name. When we say we dont like civ switching, we are not talking about just the Civ name

Find a way to keep the concept of the Civ we pick across the whole game, the Rome in Exploration and Modern should feel like Rome, not like Normans, Britain or any other current Civ in those Ages. Same with Antiquity America

[main rapids]

That makes sense. A civ is more than just the city names.
But what qualities make the civ feel like a civ then? That is, what give it a unique identity different from other civs?

[fringe hemlock]

that would basically be adding byzantium, the HRE, modern italy and/or the papal states. And an equal amount of work. This is kind of what I mean about things that could benefit all players. Do we really need fantasy civs for “antiquity america” before we have actual historical civs? For “antiquity america” We have mississipian, greece, rome… what would the difference be between those civs and “antiquity america” beyond the name? We’re talking about a fantasy.

[white agate]

Honestly, the civ designs in 7 have so much depth that almost every one of them has significant gameplay that would work outside of its assigned age. I think we should look at this from a positive angle. How awesome would it be to take cool abilities currently locked to one era and unlock them in another.

[analog apex]

That is why i want generic stuff to be based on civilization types, so you can get a feeling of them. For example, you can have militaristic tree, with economic ability and stuff like that, and by mixing those you attempt to capture the feel of civilizations outside of their designed Age. And since you dont have to make one for each Civilization, it wouldnt be impossible. I cant tell you exactly which combination would be proper for each Civ, but that would be the idea

[main rapids]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. We don't have militaristic trees right now. Are you saying different tech and culture trees help establish a Civ's identity?
I did want to know what characteristics make it feel like you are playing as a particular civ. If that's too general, might try thinking of a specific example. But I'm not asking for details. So for example, if you said the culture tree makes that civ feel unique, that's enough. You wouldn't have to say what's in the tree.
Or for another example, from my personal experience, in Civ 6, a lot of what made civs feel unique was who was leading the civ. So the Egyptian felt like the Egyptians because Cleopatra is leading them, and that's who I interact with. Mongols feel like Mongols because Genghis Khan leads them, etc... and each leader had a particular play style. So Cleopatra would try to build wonders and Khan would try to conquer his neighbors. And then there were the unique units. That also helped but the unique units weren't present for the whole game of course.
In Civ 7, a lot of that is gone. Leaders still act a particular way but they're not tied to any one civ. So they still act differently but don't help establish that identity. Does it feel like you are playing as the Greeks or against the Greeks (AI controlled, or another player in MP) if Harriet Tubman is leading them?
Mixing and matching leaders helps strategy, because you can mix and match special abilities. But it comes at a cost, you lose identity.
Now that's not to say you can't identify with a civ in Civ 7, though people who don't like Civ switching probably have trouble identifying with the civ they are playing as, or civs they are playing against. For me, the unique looking units in Civ 7 helps me identify with that Civ. Note I said unique looking, not unique units. Civs have unique units but all units look different, and like they belong with that civ. And I just view leaders as a marker, so I can track opponents across ages.

[thorn tendon]

Yeah, the fact that leaders aren’t tied to one civilization is a huge problem. I hate it when I’m playing against the AI and suddenly discover that my opponent is Frederick King of Prussia, leading Egypt - it sucks. I don’t even know if I should think of that civ as Egypt or as Prussia. The game being so focused on leaders instead of civilizations doesn’t help eithe, it’s really easy to lose track of who’s who, and the whole experience just feels confusing.

[main rapids]

Hmm, ran out of characters. And then we're still in slowmode.
Anyway, I'm not trying to get you or anybody to see things my way. I just threw that out as an example as to what I am looking for. I'm trying to understand how you and other people who don't like civ switching see it, and to understand how to get that feeling back for you (the feeling like you are playing as a particular civ).

[thorn tendon]

I think the mentioned consistency between the leader and the civilization is a really important aspect here. Other aspects that definitely help build a civilization’s identity are the visual elements, city names, and similar details. A certain distinctiveness between playing different civilizations is also important. I think that feeling can also be built through a collection of small details that together create the right sense of immersion.

[fringe hemlock]

The way leaders work in civ vii is more “theatrical”, as deep sorcery said they represent players. They are kind of like the dog or the thimble in monopoly, except they have special abilities (and more personality). I’m learning that my own sense of game immersion differs from that of many but when I play monopoly I am roleplaying as a landlord, not the thimble. Ibn Battuta is my fav civ 7 leader but I don’t roleplay as him, he’s like the thimble to me. In any case I think designing a leader for every civ in the game is a big ask.

[rancid steppe]

If Im understanding your perspective correctly - its not the gameplay but the presentation?

[tough raft]

The fact leaders are seperated from civs literally means they can make more civs faster. So it's crazy to me that people want less civs, just so they all have a matching leader.

Isn't the civ like.. way more important than the leader?

[tough raft]

Can "civ chains" and "single civs" coexist in the Classic System? Or would we prefer to see each Civ in a "chain" just be played as its own standalone civ?

Would it be fun for a single civ called "CHINA" to exist that has all 3 ages worth of content under one roof? I'm thinking of a bit of a "review" of the unlocks tab to allow more game modes (including but not limited to classic)

[lofty summit]

My take :

• Add an age to fill the gap between Antiquity and Exploration. This gap his too big and exploration age have a too long period.
• Give crisis a real meaning with a research tree that grow each age dynamically based on how you resolved them (bad/good/average ways). Like a red string from the beginning to the ends from which we keep some bonus/malus about previous civs we chose and new ones based on crisis we faced.
• Having enough civs for each for each age based on History , so player can chose between cross civs or playing the same one just at differebt times.
• Having plenty of cross ages narrative events to find between combinaison and that give a feeling about to create our civ history from the beginning to the end, Creating choes from our past decisions.
• Adding a cosmetic timeline which show us narrative events, things we unlock, past crisis, etc... that give us a sens of great story with our choices, sucess and defeats.
• Expanding skills trees with more leaders attribute.

Maybe some gameplay design from RPG game may be used to give us the meaning of our causes and consequences on CIV-like game.

[gritty night]

I wouldn't want them to merge civ chains into one classic variant like China or India. I'm quite happy with the variation and being able to roleplay as any single dynasty or Indian state and lead them throughout the ages. Not to mention that it would lead to inconsistent classic civ designs if you merged some but others had no chain.

Most chains are not direct civ continuations anyway, which would defeat the point of a classic merge, even India for example, where the Chola are a Tamil empire with only marginal overlapping territory to the Indian States on either side of the chain. Tonga to Hawaii is much more tenuous in not sharing any direct territory for example.

[fossil burrow]

@analog apex please speak to people with respect - if you refer to others ideas as nonsense etc you’re going to end up losing the right to post here.

[daring heath]

I disagree. Spamming civs isn't the solution here. There are already tons of fan-made mods that introduce civs like Germania, Franconia, Scythia, etc. You can subscribe and play with these civs already. But this doesn't cut it, because it's not just about throwing out civs out there without leaders.

It's the civ identity that matters because this is a game you simulate a civilization and its leader. Hariet Tubman leading Greece is not ideal, not gonna lie. Where is Pericles? Where is Alexander? Where is Tomisticles? Where is all that? You have Greece but no leader, this is like the first ever in Civ franchise. Detaching civs from their leaders is something does not resonate with many people. I believe we should have the option to toggle on/off leader-civ binding. If I fight the Greek civ, I don't want to see some leader that is completely irrelevant to Greece and everything about it. Sometimes I even forget who some leader was leading because oh well, they are not even tied to their respective civs anymore, let me check the flag/banner to understand that. I never had this feeling in any civ before civ7. If I had denonuced Pericles in Civ6, I knew I was going to go on a war with Greece soon. This binding we lost in Civ7. Now Napoleon leads Mayans, give me a break. 🙂 When I see Napoleon I expect France, not Mayans.

[tough raft]

I could accept the argument that every leader should have their corresponding civ (although personally i like having as much diversity as possible. Civs and leaders can cover more of the globe if they don't perfectly overlap. Jose is my favourite leader, and maybe he wouldn't exist if they didn't take this approach, because Philippines wasn't on their base roster), but the other way around makes no sense.

Just don't play those civs if you only want valid civ/leader pairings. Or as you suggested, download mods that offer missing pairings.

4 civs per DLC is not spam.
There are 3 ages in this game.
4 is 1.3 civs per age, only a little more than 1.

What would be a more reasonable number? 1 civ per pack? That kinda ignores the fact this game has civ switching and ages. Even if they add classic mode, that won't change.

[clever light]

My feedback for the devs on the item teased in the 1.3 update, is I am more than content to have the option to pick, say, America at game start (Antiquity) with the current open leader choice, and not get any of my Civ bonuses until the Modern Age (or Pick Egypt in Antiquity, and not have any unique bonuses in Explo and Modern). Or mid-game I can choose to switch still if I so desire, and even switch back to America in the modern age. I wouldn't have a separate game mode, but happy with an advanced option to enable/disable civ switching for player and AI. This allows for a more traditional feel of play while not being a completely separate experience.

I would prefer to not see the development of 'generic bonuses' in other ages or specific civ content for every single era (e.g. America having their own unique bonuses per age), nor do I see a need/necessity to always have 3 distinct versions of each civ you can link a playthrough to (both of which sound like resource heavy developments). The unique content for the civs per age in the current game is **outstanding **and far beyond what previous editions have provided, and I believe resources are better dedicated to creating more civs in the current fashion and developing the age structures and legacy/victory paths/maps to continue to develop the overall gameplay experience.

I would also love to ensure console players can also still be involved in any testing or workshop stuff. Even if we cannot necessarily access a 'testing branch', I hope we can sitll input into whatever feedback process occurs.

[daring heath]

If you bring Iceland without any notable Nordic leader, it's bland and soulless which is my point. You can introduce all the civs in the universe if you want, this won't cut it because most of them won't have half of their identities, as they dont bring civs with leaders in Civ7. Many players still stick to those who have leader to have the identity and immersion. What's the point in roleplaying Iceland with Ibn Battuta? Or Pachachuti with Abbasids? One may call that variation or a bad comedy, depends on the taste, I guess. I have no problem with having variation in new leaders and the civs they ruled. Bring Iceland but do not leave it out with a leader, which is how Greece is implemented currently. It's there as a civ, but who leads it? Ghengiz Khan.. facepalm

BTW it's not just about me picking my own civ/leader, it's also about the AI. Currently AI may do a comical civ-switching, pick completely irrelevant civ-leaders during gameplay and it breaks the immersion sadly. If you put Napoleon and Charlamagne both, for instance, there is a race condition on Normans and I guess one of the leaders has to pick something else, which is usually a comical choice like Songhai (irrelevant to both leaders). Charlamagne AI goes for Norman, Napoleon AI goes with Songhai or other way around, but there are many funny civ selections made by AI during the transition.

Classic mode will enable France being played in all ages, so Napoleon will be able to control French in all of the ages as it should have been. Prussia will have Fred, Russia will have Catherine, and so on. This has always been this way in all of the civ games. Decoupling leaders from their civs.. was a drastic deviation in design, which did not land for many players (not saying all, I know we have players who love that). Hopefully this is going to be solved in time as they bring more leaders and not just civs alone.

[tough raft]

If they continue with the 2 civs + 1 leader model, the disparity will not improve over time. It will get bigger. Unless they avoid making civs that aren't part of existing "chains"?

But hopefully if they offer some option to restrict AI to pick "valid pairs" that would be a satisfactory compromise, without denying new content to those of us who want it.
A classic mode that offers all content however just has to ask the player to accept not all civs/leaders have valid pairings, and I'm sure plenty of people will be happy with that option.

[fossil burrow]

🙂 I think the only requirements will be owning civ 7 and being part of this server / following the rules (but this will all be confirmed)

[analog apex]

I'm sorry, didnt realize that i called someones ideas nonsense (dont even remember the message to be honest). Will try to pay more attention next time

[analog apex]

I have to reply again to this one.

My point is that instead of going completely generic trees, unique abilities, etc for each age to give to the Civs that will be played outside their original intended Age, they can spend more rsources and do trees, unique abilities etc for each age for each Civilization "type" (Militaristic, Economic, Diplomatic, Religious, etc) and the, by combining those, you can try to keep the "feel" of each Civ outside their original age

@tough raft In my opinion, each Civ is different. Han and Ming are different Civs, they should not be "grouped". You should be able to play each one during the whole game. I would prefer to have a full China as a single Civ, but i dont think we can get that at this point

[white agate]

Having Han, Ming and Qing isn't that much weirder than having Rome, Byzantium and Spain. (It does feel a little weirder, but not by much). I dunno if they really need to re-blob civs.

[tough raft]

I think that's a good approach, as long as the lack of leaders for every single civ is an acceptable loss. Which for me it absolutely is.

I'd rather have 3 china civs and 1 leader (which doesn't even map 1 to 1 with any of the 3) than 1 China and 1 leader

[white agate]

I love leader mixing and matching. As someone who identifies with the civ they are playing and not the leader, I can't say I've ever noticed the incongruity of mismatches. And it's awesome that it allows civs with poorly attested leaders, or interesting leaders who led minor or no polities.

I get that it's often tied up with classic mode, but that's probably because classic mode means so many things to so many different people.

[gritty night]

In other games I much preferred having a civ+leader match, but it's not a dealbreaker for me for civ 7 - the biggest immersion breaker for me is the civ switching.

I can suspend annoyance for Pachacuti leading the Normans if he is consistently leading them across all ages. At that point it's a minor annoyance, because the identity of my opponent has become a fixed civ through all ages again, rather than Pachacuti leading 3 different civs, where the civs feel like unimportant footnotes and that Pachacuti is the only thing that really matters.

I would rather they keep to the current DLC model of greater variation in civs than trying to worry about making a leader to match every civ.

[dawn zephyr]

That’s the thing, this system allows for so many more unique Civs to be displayed.

[analog apex]

I prefer Leaders that make sense with the Civ they are leading, but that ship has sailed. That's a discussion for future Civilization games that goes beyond the current scope IMHO. For Civ 7, Leaders and Civ will have to keep being detached. I dont consider that a dealbreaker either

[tough raft]

I think there's still some hope. But with some conditions.

They could do leader pools, like leaders that have a pretty non controversial pairing, and then the "rogue agents" and you can untick them if it's immersion breaking.
I think if people are willing to turn off certain content to make the game work for them that will be a way to please both camps at once.

Is not physically possible to make all content work for all though. That's just not what the civ/leader model in 7 was designed to do.

I tried to make a historical mode mod and this was kinda what I resorted to, limited leader pools. I only scrapped it because the leader/civ randomiser is pretty much impossible to tinker with, but leader pools could very much solve the "jarring" issues mentioned, i reckon...

[gritty night]

This could work, I like it as a compromise, even if only grouping leaders by region (or by age, or both - though probably not enough leader diversity for that approach at this point).

[thorn tendon]

The biggest issue with separating leaders from civs is the AI. It’s fine that players can pick whatever they want, but seeing completely random leaders leading random civs just kills the immersion and kinda ruins the experience. Removing civ-switching already helps with keeping things consistent, but to really fix it there should also be an option where AI only uses historical leaders. It’s something that needs to be handled on a few levels. If that option means having a smaller leader pool because some don’t fit any civ, that’s fine for me.

[main rapids]

Lots of good comments, and I think we're making progress.
Earlier when I said we might get something like "China for all ages", that's only one possible solution. The point I was trying to make is that when the devs said they would be playtesting ideas to play as one Civ continuously through the ages, what they did not mean is that we would get more Civs to "fill in the gaps" so you could have more chains similar to the Han-Ming-Qing chain. I'm confident that however they implement it, continuously means you won't have to switch to a different but similar civ. It will be the same Civ.
But being able to play as one civ continuously is not the same as being able to play as every civ continuously. We haven't been promised that, though they haven't said it's not an option either.
And that still leaves a lot of different ways to implement it.
**1. Could be the blob.**Take Civs from different ages to create one Civ for all ages. Civs like China and India have most of the pieces already there, though other civs would need some assets created. Also I think it would be best if the Civ's special ability remained constant through all ages.
**2. Could be only a select group.**For instance maybe the devs change Egypt so that it can be played through all ages, but they don't make the same change for Iceland. If you want to play as Iceland you'll have to switch to it at some point.
**3. Could be every existing Civ.**This option is probably the most work, but that doesn't mean it's not possible. And I do think that if they go with this option we'll need a lot more leaders. Being able to play as Iceland from start to finish is going to be an issue if there isn't a leader that's anywhere close to being from that culture.
And I think there should be a switch at setup that restricts the AI to choosing only continuous civs if you want.

[analog apex]

I would be heavily disappointed if its 1 or 2. When i read their statement i always assume option 3. I dont think it involves more leaders, i do think it involces a compromise, either we still get Leaders detached from Civs, or only the Civs that currently have available Leaders can be used. For Civ 7 i am fine at this point with Leaders detached form Civs, but i hope they revise this for future games

[daring heath]

For Iceland, it could be one of the Lothbroks? Wasn't Iceland some sort of Viking colony at the begining? But yeah doing this for every civ will be some work.

[dawn zephyr]

I prefer to mix and match civs and leaders, makes for much more interesting and fun gameplay.

[high oar]

In a single player game you can set your opponent leaders and their civs... If classic mode locs your civ for the game, it should do the same for the AI. The other option would be to create some sort of mathematical bias in the leaders so that on Random settings they will be more likely to pick a historical civ. That actually might already be in the game if you look at the way the raandom civs are currently generated.

[amber spruce]

It’s also just funny to be able to say that Ada Lovelace is the Great Khan of the Bulgars or Harriet Tubman is the Reichsfuhrer of Mexico.

[dry depot]

Yes this is already in the game, the leaders are biased to pick civs they are closest affiliated with

[dawn zephyr]

Exactly!! Role playing can go so much further than just being historically accurate. Lots of fun to be had either way.

[gritty night]

I'd be very surprised if it was only certain civs they allowed you to carry through the ages. It would be a very strange choice in my opinion to offer some civs for a classic playthrough but bar the classic crowd from playing others in that format. I can't imagine many would be happy with that so it wouldn't benefit the game much in my view. This is what I mean by if they want to make this decision a success they have to do it right. Excluding civs from classic playthroughs would not solve the problem and probably only heighten frustrations of why can't I play my favourite civ, why is that one excluded, etc.

I think if they are doing a classic mode then it needs to be one that allows you to take any civilization from any age and play them from antiquity to modern without exception. Be that Carthage, Chola or America. You don't necessarily need a respective leader to match each civ - it would be a nice bonus, but it's far less important.

[main rapids]

Seems like #3 is the popular option. And I too would like to be able to start the game (and keep) Civs like France, Mexico, or Japan. But if the devs go that way (or something like it), doesn't that create some redundancies? Sure, I can understand wanting to play Russia or America through all the ages. But do we also need to be able to do that with Maurya India and Chola and Mughal India? Is it not enough if we didn't have those too?
I'm also surprised by the number of people who said they wouldn't need a leader attached to the civ (though not everybody was onboard with that). I feel like people might be saying that to compromise. Like they understand changing the game so you could play as any civ would be a lot of work so they're OK with it if they can't have dedicated leaders too. But I'm concerned that if we don't get more leaders, people might be happy for a little while and then start the fight over again to get an associated leader for every civ in game. So if they go the #3 route, might be better to plan on making a lot more leaders just to be safe.
Also I have a bit of a different view of the dlc collections, which are 2 leaders and 4 civs (or a ratio of 2 civs released for every leader). You get a few other things like wonders too. Any leader that comes out, you can play as them through the whole game. Any civ that comes out, you can only play that Civ (currently) for 1/3 of the game. This is just because how the game is structured. Every time you play a full game you use one leader but you use three civs. So the game needs more Civs than leaders. Another way to look at it is when I start a game, I have 26 leaders to choose from but only 14 Civs to choose from. As we get the ability to play one Civ through all ages, we could see the dlc release ratio change as well (fewer Civs, more leaders).

[main rapids]

Thanks for explaining, I think I understand what you were trying to say now.
And, if I understand, you're saying you don't need a unique culture tree for every continuous Civ for every age, but a generic culture tree for any Civ that didn't already have one wouldn't be sufficient. And the compromise you were suggesting was to base the unique culture tree on the attributes.
The problem I see with that is each leader has 2 attributes, and we already have 7 attributes (Cultural, Diplomatic, Economic, Expansionist, Militaristic, Scientific, and Wildcard). That's 21 possible combinations, so still a lot of different unique culture trees for every age.

[analog apex]

We are "ok" with not having Leaders attached to the Civs because If you dont want to play detached Leaders, you have the tools to avoid it by hand picking both for both yourself and the AI enemies. Its not perfect, but it can be done

And yes, in my opinion every Civ should be playable, any other alternative will nto feel good, again, my opinion

The problem with the Civs in the DLCs, i think they feel bad because the Civs are only present currently only 1/3 rd of the game, so theyr value is seen as kind of diminished. Again, thats what i think is the problem (i have the game uninstalled and i wont install it without a way to play full Civs, so i can only infer this issue)

[white agate]

I suspect having a reasonable variety of trees would be a net positive for making a mode like that interesting and replayable? Not downplaying that it's a lot of work, but at least the number of art assets would be minimal?

[main rapids]

Do the unique culture trees use a lot of art assets? I mean I don't think the tree itself uses any art assets, or not much. There are nodes the let you unlock a building or wonder, and that building would be a 3D model in game, but those already exist, and the unique culture trees are just a way to unlock them early. There's also the unique quarters, made from two unique buildings, but not every Civ has a unique quarter, right?

[white agate]

Depends a little bit what's in the trees I guess. But you could make them so it's minimal art work required for sure which would lower FXSs overhead substantially I imagine

[gritty night]

This is presuming that we treat Maurya India, chola India or Mughal India as being the same civilization which I think is erroneous. In terms of the maurya to chola, this is an Indian empire and a Tamil empire that simply inhabit (mostly different parts of) modern day India. That’s literally the only connection. They each had their own culture and societies and identity. To just treat them both as ‘India’ is doing both cultures/empires a disservice. The same with the Mughals. There is no need to try to combine empires that are distinct simply because they share a roughly similar geographic location. I understand why chains work in that context but trying to blend them as a generic India does them a disservice. I actually love that we get broader cultural representations like this.

If we were talking about an exploration age kingdom of France, or kingdom of England (which we don’t have, the Norman’s are distinct from both) with modern France/Great Britain, or a modern Spain existing along with exploration Spain I can understand why some might say it’s okay to combine them. That situation doesn’t exist yet though. I think only the Chinese dynasties could be argued as maybe ruling over the same ‘state’, but even they have their own unique identities contextual to their time period.

[analog apex]

I think its the minimum effort required to have a sustainable mode in the long run. Spending this effor to creating those threes and abilties based on attributes will pay off in the long run when you can make future Civs with a certain replayability and not being too repetitive

[high oar]

If the trees are dynmaic based on the Civs government type I think that would give you enough variety for the off earas... another way would be to make static semi generic trees for each government type, and then let the player choose which one to use at each age transition. For instance if I'm playing Carthage... I could chose a military tree, or if is I wanted to get a little odd I could choose a scientific or economic tree

[white agate]

I like that idea... Though Mexico throws a spanner in the works...

[thorn tendon]

It doesn’t work very well, I keep seeing weird leader and civ combos during the game. Even if you set it up manually, once the era changes everything can easily break and you end up with some funny random mixes.

[main rapids]

Well I think the minimum effort would be to have no unique culture trees for Civs outside their original Age.
Also some of what I said is morphing as the story gets retold. "Blob" was not my nomenclature but I started using after others did. So what I had originally envisioned when I said we could have a separate Civ called "China" that was not Han-Ming-Qing, I did not mean to imply that China would be Han-Ming-Qing mashed together, but a separate Civ, that could be played start to finish, and that was different from Han, different from Ming, different from Qing. So it would be an additional new civ added to the game, not just a combination of existing Civs. Though I did think that it could save some work by stealing things like art assets from those existing Civs.
As for leaders attached to Civs, we really don't have the tools to force the AI to pick combinations of Civs/Leaders we find suitable because for some Civs they don't have an associated leader. And we're saying we want all Civs to be playable from start to finish so that implies we would need more leaders too in order to implement this version of Classic mode.
Again, that's not a reason for not doing it that way. But I'm trying to help define what is required to implement the change.

[dry depot]

I think the problem there would be someone else took the civ they would play as. If Benjamin Franklin can’t get America, because Harriet Tubman has it, he then defaults to Great Britain or France as lower level options. But if Ada is in the game, she has a high bias for GB that beats him, and if Lafayette is there, his bias beats him for France, so Benjamin is rolling a random civ.

Oh also the two Napoleons don’t seem to have biases

[daring heath]

Classic mode should fix this for some leaders. if you start as french/lafayette, benjamin/US, you'll play your entire game with them staying in their original civs since there wont be civ-switching. if you, however, add napoleon on top of these, then you'll have to assign him something yourself in the begining, like giving him prussia or russia which is still making more sense than him having Mayans or Mongols. basically, within the classic mode this problem will be less apparent. mayans will stay mayans through all ages so you can manually assign pacachuti in the beginning, that will seal the deal. we have ibn battuta/abbasids, that's done as well, and mongols/khan. no random switching in the middle of the game to something else and break the immersion. eventually as the time passes we'll have civs per leader i believe. like at some point we should have holy roman empire so you can assign charlamagne to it. i think there is even a mod that introduces HRE as a civ. there is also the leaderless greece for now, which wont last long. at some point I expect alexander or tomisticles kind of leader so greece can be manually set to its native leader from the beginning and that will be it. doing this in iterations will complete the roster.

[trim echo]

Bias is based off slot order first iirc. Also,, unless their update broke settings, nappy should have rome>persia for antiquity bias (as example)

[fringe hemlock]

just want to say that I don’t share at all the feeling that civs need to have a perfectly matched leader— I’d like to see many more civs added to the game, and I wouldn’t want the idea that “every civ needs an associated leader” to impede that. I think it’s cool that civs like Qajar and the Mughals have a place in Civ 7, and I’d be sad to see civs like that excluded from future expansions because leaders like Jahangir or Abbas Mirza might not be as popular or as recognizable as e.g. Blackbeard.

I dislike too the thought that future leaders might be chosen based on whether they “check the box” of a certain civ, rather than how interesting or iconic they are in general… this is less of a problem with the addition of more civs, of course.

It’s not that I object to the inclusion of Alexander or anything, he makes tons of sense as a leader, but not because “Greece needs a leader”; Alexander could plausibly lead many more civs than Greece. Or someone like Aristotle— yes he would “fit Greece,” but that’s not why he is interesting as a leader, his influence extends far beyond that. In terms of current leaders, Ibn Battuta is a good example. The appeal of Ibn Battuta is hardly that he is an “Arab leader” or even Muslim leader and certainly not the “designated leader of the Abbasids”— the point, to me, is that he is the consummate traveller and could be at home as a leader in many different societies, just as he actually historically was. Someone mentioned Ibn Battuta paired with Iceland as if this were an absurd joke, but it’s not so crazy; if not Ibn Battuta himself, Muslim travelers, ambassadors, and religious advisors were present among the Varangian vikings at least, like famously Ibn Fadlan.

Anyway, I think the inclusive approach in choosing leaders as representatives of human history rather than the history of one civilization is good. The promise of ‘classic mode’ as stated is to let people play one civ in all ages, not to impose this one-civ-one-leader paradigm

[white agate]

I love leader mixing and matching as much as I dislike civ switching personally.

But given the work in making new leader models, and the existence of civs like Mississippians who don't have well attested leaders... I think the ship has sailed for anyone wanting a strict 1-1 correspondance.

[daring heath]

Classic mode inherently imposes one-leader to one-civ. Once you set that up, you cannot change it. That means, if I set Ibn Battuta to Abbasids from the beginning, that means for the entirity of the game, I'll meet Ibn Battuta to deal with Abbasids, which is how some members of the community including myself love it due to immersion and authenticity. Vikings meeting Muslims in Mediterrenean sea can be a nice historical anecdote but it's irrelevant, since many mercenearies met or hired by other empires, it doesn't mean they automatically become them or their leaders can just roleplay them. Vikings are Vikings, Abbasids are Abbasids. Ibn Battuta was not a Norseman. Lothbroks were not Abbasids. Different civilizations, different leaders. And mark my words, we'll get a Nordic leader eventually. We had them in Civ5 and Civ6. 🙂

More civs, more leaders is always good. Relevant civs, relevant leaders is better. I don't mind in which order they come up, I just play the civs with their native leaders in my games. If classic mode comes as it is mentioned, it will be perfect because Ibn Battuta will always stay as Abbasids in all ages, which is how literally every other civ game previously was. I loved civilization franchise for what it offered for the past decades. And I am glad it is going back to its roots, enabling immersive roleplay.

[main rapids]

Came across this article this morning (though it's from Oct 28th).
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/civilization-7-will-bring-back-the-ability-to-play-as-one-civ-for-the-whole-game-bypassing-the-divisive-age-system
And it made me look closer at the notes from the Oct 27th check in.
I was focused on "play as one civ continuously", and that to me didn't say whether or not it meant every civ. But the next part of the sentence, "allowing you to choose a civilization from any Age" would seem to indicate that it's every civ. So looks like option #3. That's good news I guess.
I was just trying to speculate what form the new feature might take. We won't know until the workshop opens up, and even then they might try out different variations, which I suppose is the point of the workshop.
This paragraph from the RockPaperShotgun indicates to me that the workshop won't get started till after the holidays. Though I exect them to start taking applications before that (not sure how much earlier though):

[main rapids]

While I would prefer having a associated leader with each Civ, when they became disassociated in Civ 7, I learned identify with the Civ I was playing as because all the units looked unique. So hopefully that feature carries over when Civs become playable throughout the Ages.

[trim echo]

I saw a post on reddit at lunch that sounded interesting relating to classic mode- basically, the crises difficulties are raised slightly, but players could receive rewards on how successful they navigate them. One of the best rewards would be a choice to continue playing as the current civ into the next era and not switch- to stand the test of time, as they say. I do play with crises (I know some dont), and tbh I often wonder what the point is of them w/ how they operate and what comes of them. Often time there's little joy for curing the sick tiles or driving off invading powers outside of it being a contriving annoyance lol

I'm still against a "true classic mode", especially this early on in the games development, but I do see people want something like it back. I feel like it'd be a disservice to brazenly abandon one of the games apparent original goals, and instead, if a classic mode must be implemented it may be good to look at the systems already in place and how they could be used to make a more fully cohesive game; to not split the game among camps or game-modes...

I know some people here have wanted civs to be around from the dawn of time, but then also some speak of immersion. This leans more towards an immersion point while still using the systems already in game

Anyway, link below
https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1oksnr8/make_the_crisies_a_challenge_and_continuous_play/

[main rapids]

I would like it if we had the option of keeping the civ or switching to another civ.

[gritty night]

I would personally be fine with this and think this is how they should have implemented civ switching in the first place. I also think it’s more realistic as there are civs in history that have endured through multiple game ‘ages’, mayans existed from BC to Spanish conquest, medieval kingdom of France to modern France, etc.

I think it would also make the crises relevant as currently I can mostly ignore them/not even care and be absolutely fine. I wonder how well the AI would work in such a situation though, how often they would be able to ‘survive’ the crisis.

It does still pose the problem of what to do with the civ in subsequent ages - uniques, traditions, etc. If keeping your civ is integrated into the crisis as a reward, should there be tangible benefits carried over or generic stuff as has been discussed?

I doubt many people calling for classic mode would be satisfied by a mechanic that in some circumstances still forces a civ swap though.

[main rapids]

Well, that could probably be an option in setup whether or not the crises has that effect (force a civ swap) so you could disable it and continue to play as the same civ no matter how you did in the crises.

[trim echo]

I'll be a bit slow to respond to msgs b.c Halloween but I'll do my best.. wanted to get this out when I had a moment, may have errors, happy to clarify/correct

I don't think crises and switching should be separated. If you have crises on, then it makes sense imo a player should be rewarded how you deal with them.

As I said earlier though, I totally get that some people don't like crises- and if you turn them off, then I think you should be able to choose stay/switch at the end of age, that makes sense.

I feel like a lot of dissatisfaction with crises is how random and kinda pointless they can feel, maybe this could change things and encourage players to more fully engage with systems in the game that they would otherwise semi-passively engage with before

[mystic kayak]

If i could have a decent way to play with the same civilization from start to end i think it could really make me come back to the game because it could fix the immersion issue i have.

[mystic kayak]

If they'd just done new leaders instead of new civs per ages it would have made more sense

[daring heath]

There is going to be a workshop soon, sign up once that's announced if you are interested in classic mode, so that we give rational and valuable feedback to the devs, and this gets implemented.

[white agate]

I get where that reddit post shared above is coming from. Honestly, I think the challenge aspect might be more important for civ switching though. The game series with the best (or at least not complained about) version of civ switching IMO are Paradox's titles. And I think what sets them aside is that civ switching is a long term goal that you aim for and have to put serious work in to achieve. The trouble with taking a challenge approach like that to Civ-switching in Civ is partly that there has to be a good chance that you fail. But also you'd want to make later civs dramatically better than the earlier ones to incentivise you and the connotations of that are gross.

I wouldn't like switching tied to the crisis personally. I find the AI usually gets hit by the crises way worse than the player, and it's way more common for crises to make a fun game uncompetitive than for them to actually affect the player negatively. I try them when Firaxis have given options related to them, but honestly they are mostly a permanently-off feature for me.

[unkempt flicker]

Ok, I've seen this argument done before. How exactly does Civ switching ruin immersion? When you get down to it, it's just a board game. You don't get immersed in Monopoly, is all I'm saying

[analog apex]

This is a bad idea. We want a game where no one changes, not us, not our enemies, for everyone to have the same Civ from start to finish. We dont want it as a reward from crisis, which most of us disabled when we played because they are a pretext to justify the civ switching

Fixed time crisis makes as little sense as civ switching or ages resets, which is none

Civ 7 goal was rejected by a big part of the franchise players, and you guys will need to understand that. We dont want to play with Civ 7 original vision, to us, that vision is a failure and its not fun

So the best course of action is to keep that vision for those of you that like it, and give us a different mode without those mechanics for those of us that dont like it

[fossil burrow]

Again folks, please speak on your own opinion, not on behalf of the community, or others.

and try to stick to talking about the mode itself and how it can work

[tough raft]

Really they just need to solve "how can we have a civ run over multiple ages in a way that makes sense"

If they solve that i could very easily see 3 modes:

Classic Mode
Switch Mode
Hybrid Mode (both)

But i think classic mode is probably the right place to start. A combined mode would be fun though (and would be a way to let the 2 camps play together), even if it's not for you and your franchise player buddies.

[analog apex]

Sure, i would be ok with more options, if they want to also include a hybrid option, thats fine for me even if i wont be playing it

But its not what Classic Mode should be IMHO. That wouldnt please me (and i think i wouldnt be alone)

I think their focus should first be on making a real Classic Mode work, without any switching, and if as a consequence of solving that other modes get enabled, thats fine, as long as you can opt out of it.

Also, the "opt out" im my opinion should be done before the game starts, so that we get less immersion breaking menus interrupting the gameplay. Based on what some people said, I am guessing we will have to still have the Ages change since such changes are too rooted in the game, so the civ switching part should ideally be removed from it

[tough raft]

It can just be a sticky menu option so you don't have to change it every time.

The other people you're representing can maybe post for themselves. You're not a lawyer for a class action, you're one dude. Your opinion isn't magically more important because you use the all powerful "we".

[analog apex]

The we i typed in the message you replied to (in contrast to the message i wrote before in which i did wrongly assumed other people's opinions and Meache clarified i shouldnt do) was "we as players", just like the we in your message above mine in "how can we have a civ run over multiple ages in a way that makes sense"

I kept all the opinions in singular opinion of mine in the message you quoted. So thanks for the clarification i am not a lawyer, but it wasnt pertinent on this ocasion.

[high oar]

I'm in the yes to classic mode camp and I've spelled out what I would like a few times, so I'm not going to repost it. At this point I'm waiting until the workshop opens so I can see what the Devs have in mind.

[main rapids]

Once there is a classic mode in place, you can get different hybrid versions pretty easily just by turning different switches on and off. And they should all be "sticky", so once you set them up the way you want, no need to keep flipping switches.
This is also why I mentioned earlier that classic mode won't be just a single switch, and probably won't be called classic mode.
So for example, some of the switches could include:
Civ Switching, with the settings of All (all civs switch), Some (you can keep your same civ or switch, same for AI), or None (where you and all opponents stick with the same civs throughout the game).
Crises matter, and set to On or Off, so when it's on, how you do in the crises determines whether you switch or not. And when it's off, you still have crises but they don't force you to switch no matter how you do.
Use associated leader, when set to "on" force the AI to pick a leader associated with that Civ if available.

[fringe hemlock]

Obviously it’s no problem for me if people want to play in a one civ-one leader way (as I understand it, there already is a bias in AI civ selection, like Ada will tend to choose Britain in Modern, etc). My point is about how this preference could influence leader and civ design in the future, and my suggestion is that it shouldn’t. That doesn’t prevent there being a Scandinavian or Nordic leader, it’s just about how they are chosen and why.

For the record btw, Ibn Battuta was not an Abbasid leader, he didn’t even live during the heyday of the Abbasids, who long degraded to figurehead caliphs by his lifetime, with the power in former Abbasid lands being with mostly Turkic sultanates and mongol khanates; his native Tangier was never really ‘Abbasid’ anyway. (it’d be taking a big historical license to conflate the Mamluk sultanate, which ceremonially recognized the Abbasid caliphs, and the pre-Mongol sovereign Abbasid caliphate centered at Baghdad). In any case Ibn Battuta travelled and was involved in matters of state in societies all across the world— for example he was a qadi in the Maldives, whose culture would be better matched to Chola than to Abbasid in the game.

To bring all that back to the point, I think it’s pretty clear that Ibn Battuta was not chosen to pair with the Abbasid civ, I think he was chosen because he is an interesting historical figure, and the representation of his world travels in his ability brings something unique to the game. Jose Rizal and Machiavelli are other examples of cool, iconic leaders whose abilities explore interesting design space without “perfectly matched” civs. Ofc I think the rosters of both civs and leaders should be reflective of the diversity of human cultures, but the one-to-one thing, if it becomes part of how new civs and leaders are planned, actually limits that

[daring heath]

Mate I appreciate the historical background about Ibn Battutas identity or ethnicity but this is really not the point. Ibn Battuta's native civ is Abbasid in the game. You like him playing non-Abbasid civ? Fine, I don't. And classic mode will enable me to play Abbasids with Ibn Battuta all through the ages, which I am grateful for. And yes, I don't mind devs working on other leaders, I like seeing new leaders no doubt. I like it more when they are with their native civs, that's it. I pair them in my games.

[main rapids]

I get your point that for some leaders, there's not a clear link to which civ that leader may be associated with. And I do think it's a good thing to open up the field and allow leaders that don't have have an association (though I do hope we get the Philippines as a playable Civ).
And the AI does have a preference for linking Civs and leaders when possible. One game I was playing, I was going to chose to play as the Americans (for the first time) in Modern, but picked another Civ just because the AI controlled Ben Franklin and I wanted him to have the Americans.
But likewise, just like some people find civ switching immersion breaking, I find Ben Franklin leading a Mongol horde to be a little disconcerting.

[fringe hemlock]

Well, my point is that his native civ is not Abbasid. That might be marked as a “Historic” or “Geographic Choice” in the game, I think the stated reasoning is his travels in formerly Abbasid lands, but Abbasid is not his ‘native civ’ in reality. Ofc I understand the sentiment that an Arabic speaker in a thobe fits the part of the Abbasid leader better than Benjamin Franklin does, but it is kind of similar to Ben Franklin or Harriet Tubman leading Great Britain.

@main rapids I agree about the Philippines, and the Republic of Florence would be a good civ as well. Adding more civs is something I would imagine almost anyone could agree is good, and with the addition of more civs it becomes likelier that each leader will have a “matching” civ. So if people want every leader to eventually have a “matching” civ, that seems like less of a problem. But I am definitely not in favor of the reverse idea, that “every single civ must have a paired leader because then some won’t want to play the civ”; that would put a pointless restriction on the inclusion of future civs. And if future leaders are chosen with an eye to making existing civs “playable” for those who refuse to play a civ without a matching leader, I’d find that approach far inferior to the current one of considering who could bring an interesting playstyle or iconic personality to the roster in general. The two aren’t even necessarily mutually exclusive, like I said about Alexander or Aristotle above, just a matter of priorities

[fossil burrow]

@daring heath ? What’s funny

[daring heath]

Reading "his native civ is not Abbasid." - Sense of humor is a subjective thing after all.

[fossil burrow]

I mean it’s been explained why. So not sure again what’s funny about it 😓 - just making sure we’re all remaining polite - part of the workshop will be how your behaviour is on the server after all.

[main rapids]

If we're discussing what Classic mode would look like, in previous Civ games, you didn't switch Civs during the game. But you also didn't mix and match leaders.
Players will be getting the ability to play as a single Civ through all ages, and I don't want to speak for others, but they may also want to play as a particular leader when playing as a particular civ. Might be setting up an expectation here. So I think it might be a good idea and plan on releasing more leaders in the future so that there are more "logic matches".
I mean I could argue the flip side and say since you can use any leader with any Civ, we don't need any more leaders. And new dlc can just be more Civs. But I think players do want more leaders. And when they get classic mode there might be an expectation to fill in the holes.

[fringe hemlock]

Oh I totally want more leaders. But I prefer the “who is iconic, who brings an interesting playstyle,” etc approach to the “filling holes” approach. And I also think it could limit which civs are included if they are thought of as “holes” that must eventually be filled with leaders. Like I said, it isn’t always mutually exclusive either. And this is just my view.

[main rapids]

I mean I think there are a lot of people to choose from. So you can probably find someone who meets both criteria, fills a hole and is iconic.
And to me, adding leaders seems like less work than adding civs (though still a lot of work), so more leaders would be a plus.
But the way the game is setup (using 3 civs per game, eventually will be 4 civs per game) we need a lot of civs too. On the other hand, if we get classic mode and it looks like we will, maybe won't need as many new civs.

[fossil burrow]

Will still need them for the ‘base’ game / version remember. So doubt that will change

[analog apex]

That would be great, lets hope we can get something like that

[main rapids]

https://tenor.com/view/moreismore-client-creativity-gif-21463618

[analog apex]

Although i would prefer to play with relevant Civ-Leaders (relevant doesnt mean that they need to be precise in time, i conside Ibn Battuta relevant for Abbasids, maybe others dont) i also understand where we come from. If these were ideas for a new game, i would push for that for sure, but since we already have a game, with Leaders and Civs released that might not have relevant combinations, i would consider matching leader-civs on a lower priority over other "Classic Mode" features. That being said, if its possible it would be welcome

[fringe hemlock]

I believe even the in game description states that the Abbasids fell to the Mongol conquests, which happened before Ibn Battuta was born. And the Mongols did indeed end the Abbasid caliphate as a sovereign political entity. Abbasid descendants continued to hold a ceremonial caliphate, under the “protection” of the Mamluk sultans who actually ruled, but no historian calls the Mamluk state “Abbasid,” it is the Mamluk Sultanate or (sometimes Cairo Sultanate).

I apologize for slight digression from the topic just clarifying

[high oar]

I love the way your name is glowing.

[tough raft]

Thanks for being so polite and sharing your thoughts in such a respectful way.

[paper radish]

I never thought Id see somebody say this on a civ discord

[strong crypt]

*If you've participated in this thread, I'm looking at you. *
I implore everyone in this thread to apply to be in the Firaxis Feature Workshop -- we'll be testing a way to stay as one Civ continuously through the Ages! Survey will close Nov 17, so get your app in before then!

Survey is here.
FAQ is here.

[main rapids]

Did we want to keep the conversation going? Or are people waiting for the workshop?
I think prior to the workshop, we can help by defining the problem and proposing what a solution might look like. I think the devs have heard the community and have told us they're willing to work on this, so they probably have a good idea of the issue.
The question I asked earlier had to do with what a solution looks like. What makes it feel like you're playing as a single Civ throughout the ages.
It's pretty clear that just keeping the city names is not enough. Associated leaders would be a "nice to have" but not required. For me personally, I would like to have the units of the Civ look unique to that Civ through all ages.
What else makes it feel like playing as a single Civ?

[unkempt flicker]

As long as it doesn't seem like an admission of defeat.

[main rapids]

Hi Sar,
I applied minutes before you posted this. I hope I get selected but I understand there are a limited number of slots. So fingers crossed.

[clever light]

Bummer on exclusion of console player from the workshop but 🤷 it is what it is and figured as much. Would have hoped for a way to input. Happy that playing as one civ is emphasised more as 'optional' gives me faith this wont be a full rollback of the civ7 vision.

[paper orbit]

The reason for that is that it is simply much harder to do something like this on consoles due to the verification processes of console manufacturers and other factors.

At least that's what I'm guessing. (You said "figured as much", so maybe you already knew and im smartassing for no reason 😬 )

[humble rapids]

I assume it's purely because they can only give out game keys of alpha builds to steam players, so not much they can do in that case

[white agate]

I guess at least we PC and Steam Deck users would be able to help test console compatibility. Though I doubt that's their priority with the feature workshop.

I suspect it's possible to get a Civ Continuity mode which has interesting gameplay and doesn't overrule civ switching... It's definitely a change I really want to see!

And regardless, I'd been praising Paradox for how much better their community engagement has been than Firaxis lately. It's very good to see that Firaxis isn't letting them just steal a march on them.

[tough raft]

I may clash with some people on this thread every now and then but I hope there's a good mixture of people accepted into the workshop. May the odds be ever in your favour 😄

[high oar]

I signed up. I hope I get picked. There are a lot of good ideas in this thread.

[analog apex]

I think we all said what had to be said. The conversation will become interesting again when we know what the workshop will be launch with. And no, just keeping names is very far from enough

What else makes it feel like playing a single game? Its hard to pinpoint because there are way too many intertwined concepts, but there should be a full continuity of your Civilization since you fund it untill you decide to stop. I dont like gaps where i lose track and control of my Civilization for example. I want to be the one that leads my Civilization through ALL of its history, without missing gaps

I dont want stuff magically happening without an input made by me. I dont like Units upgrading just because time passed. I canm understand that happening if i decided on a research and spent effort on it, but not just because another player did well and the game advanced

And i can keep citing examples, but the post is already long enough

[main rapids]

Yes post is long but I was hoping you'd do something like a summary (which you did). I figure with the workshop we'd have more people joining the Discord and this thread might get a lot of attention. People probably aren't going to read the whole thing.
I also don't like gaps, prefer to play it out. That's something I left out. Classic mode Civ wouldn't have Age transitions. We've been focusing on the Civ switching recently. And really all we've been told they are working towards so far is being able to play one civ continuously through all ages. But sounds like we're still going to have ages and age transitions.

[analog apex]

Yeah not having Age transitions or resets is the ideal. That being said, i was told many times here and in other places that such a thing would be close to impossible. Apparently some modders discovered that the game is broken in three mini games, literally. The map is remade on each transition for example, or something like that

[paper orbit]

It's not impossible. It just requires a lot of work 🙂

[main rapids]

Well many of us thought playing one Civ from start to finish of the game was a lot of work, and it probably is. But we're getting that.
I'm speculating, but I think the map is not remade exactly. Probably the existing map is used as an input and new resources are added in.
But having the Ages does split the game into 3 shorter games, even though improvements have been made. Continuous mode lets you keep your units. In the future you won't have to switch Civs, what's left?
As you mentioned, the tech and culture trees start over, and units all get a free upgrade. So to remove or reduce the impact of the age transitions further, I think we would need one long continuous tech and culture tree. I'm not sure how the unique culture trees would be handled, but let's see how the devs handle it when we can play as one Civ through all ages.
This change would be more than just work, it would be unbalancing. You'd be able to have units from different ages on the same playing field. I'm not saying that would prevent us from getting this feature, just pointing out that it affects the gameplay. Civs 1-6 were all like that.
But it will probably mean another switch (also not a big deal, make it sticky). Because some people will want to play with the long tech and culture trees (and no free unit upgrades), and others will want to keep the reset.
Still, playing as one Civ continuously is a good step towards Classic Mode. But not there yet.
Keep fighting the good fight. Any step along the road will help bring more players back to the game.

[plush cosmos]

While I like the civ switching I think some kind of civ persistence may be necessary for the game to make sense especially if they plan to have a 4th age.

We already have a GB, America, France, Mexico, etc. so what civs do they plan to add in the next age? They can’t exactly not have those super popular civs in the last age as then there will be nobody to play as.

If it were up to me I’d have a system where you pick a civ at the start of antiquity like you do but you can only pick those civs. But upon moving to the next age you get the option to change civs or continue with what you are . This may mean some civs may need rebalancing to be suitable in future ages or it can be an incentive to switch civs in general. This can solve the issue and maintain some history accuracy as long as you can’t pick Spain for example in antiquity but can remain as them in modern if you like give or take a few disadvantages. Perhaps maintaining your civ will only be possible if you get a golden age of some kind and this means you can also unlock certain bonuses?

Feel free to elaborate with thumbs down as I can see very little wrong with this. You are benefiting players who want to maintain the same civ and giving an advantage to players who want to change

[main rapids]

Sounds like a good idea to me.
Also I don't understand why anyone would give it a thumb down. It's not like having this would prevent anyone from playing the way they were before.

[analog apex]

Every Civ needs to be able to be picked, not just some

Why the thumbs down? Because I have already seen several people that like Civ switching come with these "solutions" that dont solve anything and are just a way to try to "appease" the backlash

Among other things, being able to pick every Civ to start and finish is 100% required

Also, I dont want a quest to maintain the Civ, the whole mode should be that you keep the Civ, with 100% certainty. why dont you propose changing the Civ should be the one that requires a quest/golden age/whatever restriction to keeping the Civ

[main rapids]

Hang on, we could have both.
If we get the ability to play all Civs start to finish, and it looks like we will. Could also have a different mode where only some Civs (the Antiquity Civs) were available at the start, then in Exploration you could keep your Civ or change. Going from Exploration to Modern you'd have the same choice. Any Civ you were playing as in Exploration you could keep.
It would just be a switch in settings.

[analog apex]

As long as we have one where you can pick everyone, and can keep your Civ without restrictions, i dont really care how many other "combinations" of settings you can do

I am not in the "keep options liked by other people" business, but i also dont want others coming to "suggest" restrictions to the mode I (and some others) have been asking for over 6 months

The poster i replied to said and i quote "you can ONLY pick those civs", there was no option to pick any civ

[main rapids]

I don't think Rich meant to imply that you couldn't have a mode where you could play as any civ, and keep that civ through the whole game. Just like when you suggested you wanted to eliminate civ switching, you didn't want to take away the civ switching from people who liked to do that. What you were proposing was a separate mode.
And Rich's idea could also be a separate mode. It's really not different from having leader pools in Civ 6. Except this would be a Civ pool instead of a leader pool.
But just because leader pools exist doesn't mean you have to use them. You're still free to choose any leader in Civ 6, and I would think it would work the same way for Civ 7.

[dawn zephyr]

I just don’t see the appeal of losing your unique unit after like 120 turns of play.

[main rapids]

We don't know how the devs plan to implement playing one Civ for the whole game yet. It's possible you would get a different unique unit in each age, even if you kept the same Civ.
And if you didn't get a unique unit for each age, you'd still have the option to Civ switch if having a unique unit was more important to you.

[ebon oak]

you really don't need continuing civs for them to add a Cold War age, because there's plenty of other civs in that era that can be used. Canada, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, the Netherlands, Sweden, Poland, Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, Turkey, Nigeria, Ghana, any number of other decolonized African countries, India, PRC, Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia, just off the top of my head that wouldn't be a similar civ in a new era. And if they did really need to do that, then they could just do the same thing they've done with Achaemenid and Qajar Persia and have specifying names. Like if they had a Cold War era Egypt they could just rename the antiquity civ to Pharaonic Egypt.

[analog apex]

I dont know, when i askd for a Classic Mode, i always clarified it was a new mode

If he was talking about a new mode, then thats fine, but i still dont think he meant a new mode besides "Classic Mode", i think he meant if it was his decision, he would made Classic Mode like that

Anyway, i gave my opinion

[white agate]

I doubt it'll be the case - the devs putting what sounds like a lot of effort into classic mode hopefully means it will be an interesting gameplay choice, as opposed to - you get one full age and the rest playing with a blank slate.

Honestly I'd like it to be a legitimate choice you make witb tradeoffs involved, I expect every now and again I'd want to switch, even though I am on the civ continuity train...

Then again from your name I guess you've seen the future and know we're all wrong, and we get a malus if we stick with a civ.

[plush cosmos]

I don’t see how having for example GB in antiquity age will work unless the developers are willing to rework all the civs or have a system like in civ 6 where some of them are irrelevant until they reach their age. But then that goes against the entire vision of the game where they said they wanted empires at their peak.

What kind of policies will GB have in antiquity, what will their unique units and districts be, and maybe less important but what is their art going to look like? The civ specific art is one of the great parts of this game that make it unique and having generic looking buildings will just ruin that aesthetic.

Honestly the only way I can see this working is they have a system where you can persist as your civ into the next age rather than have a future civ in the earlier age. In fact a system like that may even be necessary and well received as now we won’t need to buy DLC for GB in the future age if it turns out they decide to release it under a different name.

Edit: I may have misread the thread slightly as my idea would be for the main game and not a separate game mode. If it were to be a separate game mode then chances are it’s just gonna be a gathering storm type DLC in the future

[snow tulip]

When we see the workshop we will know their ideas. The idea I think is viable, the only one I can think of, is to use the civ's government type to create a unique tree. That would keep the amount of outside your main age work limited and give civs some amount of differentiation in those non main ages still.

[dawn zephyr]

It’s a curse sometimes seeing the future😮‍💨

[main rapids]

If you weren't thinking of a separate mode, probably would be better off creating a new thread. Though I can understand people might not get the focus of this thread, because it's so long. That's why I was trying to summarize where we were.
The devs have said that they will be testing ways to choose a Civ from any Age and guide them through history.
So I would think that would include GB. But you're right, what policies GB would have in Antiquity is one of the things that need to be figured out so that a Classic mode could be implemented. And I don't know if anybody has talked about policies before. So that was a good catch. We have talked about other things like units and culture trees.
My point was that if we get the ability to play one civ through all ages, and we already have the ability to switch Civs, then what you are asking for we get for free (or almost free). Because what you are asking for is classic mode (play any civ start to finish) with limited choices. So in Antiquity, you would only be able to pick from Civs that were already in Antiquity, but then you could play that Civ (or switch) for the rest of the game. In Exploration you could only pick from Civs that were already in Exploration, or keep one of the Civs you had in Antiquity.
And people who wanted to play Civs like GB in Antiquity could still do that. None of these ideas are mutually exclusive.

[plush cosmos]

I get what you mean. The thing is from the text you posted below it sounds more like something they plan to add to the base game rather than an additional mode. That’s the way I read it at least

[unkempt flicker]

If they do add it, it should not be CALLED Classic Mode. That's an admission of defeat.

[plush cosmos]

While I don’t want them to add it as a mode it can also serve as a notice that they are willing to listen to their players feedback even if it requires a major structural change to the game

[analog apex]

They can call it whatever they want as long as they make it. And if it fits what I am expecting, i will be calling it Classic Mode, doesnt matter how they name it

That being said, calling it Classic Mode would be a great adveertisement to try to bring people back, so....

[white agate]

I don't think it should be called classic mode either since I think a lot of people associate that term with features beyond just making civ switching optional...

[unkempt flicker]

Yeah, call it something like, "Endurance Mode"

[main rapids]

https://tenor.com/view/sandman-netflix-dream-sandman-gif-26483907
Call it Endless mode. Because your Civ doesn't end just because the Age does.
I don't think it will be called a mode at all. Just like continuity isn't a called a mode. Just a setting you can chose at start up.

[main rapids]

Or maybe Enduring Mode. Maybe that will be what the setting is called (just like Continuity and Regroup are setting names.)

[nocturne forge]

Quite a mode where your Empires are Enduring amirite

[unkempt sphinx]

Call it quits

[main rapids]

You shouldn't quit when your goal is in sight.

[white agate]

Eternal?

[ebon oak]

if they do include it they should call it something neutral and explanatory, like "Single Civ Mode" or "Continuous Civ Mode"

[wicked wind]

"Choose any civ and keep them forever" is by definition the classic mode most people wanted, but I have much more interest in the other mode being spoken about which is "take a civ from any given age into the next age if criteria are met". This would require them bulking up the number of Civs for sure - in particular there should be a ton more in antiquity. To some other poster's points, I don't think these are necessarily mutually exclusive, but if they do only one, I sincerely hope it isn't the true "classic" mode. Again I do not think it will make the detractors happy enough to join the game and the people who like the game now won't like it. It lose lose. So hopefully they are working on the latter mode I mentioned that will appeal to the more moderate detractors and really make the game more enjoyable for those of us who already like it.

[daring heath]

It's not a "lose-lose" when a feature is optional. If someone doesn't like the classic mode, he/she can still play the age-switching mode. What's here that's lost exactly?

EDIT: is this the good old "it will be expensive/difficult for the devs" argument? I'd say let the software engineers of firaxis be the judge on that

[wicked wind]

Because that development time, and continued development time for updates etc, can't be taken back

[main rapids]

I recommend trying to avoid saying what can and cannot be done because of development time. We don't know how much time and resources they are willing to put towards this.

[white agate]

I just hope enough time and effort is put into it to make it a strategically interesting choice. Firaxis are clearly putting time into it, so arguments about whether they should are pretty moot at this point. I just don't want something which is so superficial it satisfies nobody.

[main rapids]

Well, that's what the workshop is for. Be sure to sign up.

[white agate]

Already done. Hopefully an innate tendency towards cynicism isn't a disqualifying factor

[fossil burrow]

Objective and constructiveness is a must, and good behavior 😄 (and playing civ 7 obv)

[white agate]

Hopefully I'm only badly behaved when playing Civ. In real life I hardly ever raze cities to the ground.

[gritty night]

'Hardly ever' - well we all have bad days

[unkempt sphinx]

Its not about saying what can or cannot be done. It's the use of time and where it's being used. Using the time and resources for this "classic" mode takes away time from improving the original vision, you know, the game we are intended to play.

I wish this mode would be worked on after they fine tuned the normal way to play the game, but alas, we are going to end up with half baked versions of both.

[wicked wind]

I don't think it is productive to ignore the fact that Firaxis is a finite group of folks with finite time for development, and this is by definition a departure from their vision snd this a risky endeavor that, if fails, will land with two segments of their player base potentially disappointed. I absolutely love CIV VII and want it to succeed and that is why I worry.

[main rapids]

There are a lot of people, who would like to tell the devs how to set priorities. On which things they should work on first.
But this is not our decision to make. In here, we should identify things we would like to change, and suggest solutions.
There are a lot of people that would like to see Classic mode or something like classic mode implemented. And I'm glad the devs are working on this goal.
Besides, they have different teams of people working on different things. Just because they are working towards implementing Classic mode, it doesn't mean other issues don't get addressed.

[wicked wind]

If I came in here and suggested the Devs make a Fantasy Mode, with Elves and Orcs etc, other folks would, rightly, say they would rather Firaxis prioritize countless other things, as fun as that sounds. That isn't telling the Devs what to do - that is an acknowledgement that development cycles are not "everything everywhere all at once".

[main rapids]

If you would like to have a Fantasy mode, you can start a new thread.
This thread is about implementing Classic mode. It is not helpful for people to suggest that the devs should not be working on it when clearly many people would like them to.

[unkempt flicker]

Dude he was just sharing an example.

[main rapids]

It's fine to share examples. It's fine to express your opinion. What's not fine is disrespecting other people in the chat.
This thread is over 1,000 posts long. We've been down this road before. Whether you want Classic mode or not, some people want it. So please don't tell the devs they should not be working on it.
And I'm not trying to single anyone out. If you want to help, that's fine. If not, please find some other thread that interests you.

[wicked wind]

If you read my post that started all of this, I was on your side. I explicitly said I hope they can do both the classic mode you want and the "keep an age specific civ in the next age".

All I said was "if they CAN'T do that" (THAT, being both things), then I hope they do the latter.

I have no control over the devs or what they do or don't do and simply shared my updated opinion in an extremely long thread that I posted in weeks if not months ago when it was first started.

In fact if you recall with the Scout community feedback a few months, they explicitly asked the community what to prioritize, since they have only X amount of resources and have to determine which way to allocate them.

Nothing I am saying is controversial or meant to take away from your opinion. Have a good night.

[white agate]

I feel for the devs, the community seems very fragmented in what they want and I don't know that there is a decision on Civ7's future which would appeal to an outright majority. To that end I think that making as many modes and optional settings as possible is the best choice available. It isn't perfect, balance is going to be tough when we are all playing dramatically different game modes. And it means the devs won't always be working on things we want if they are working on many different priorities at once.

To flip it around, rather than being annoyed that dev time was spent making pirates, I'm going to choose to be happy dev time is being spent on Civ continuity, and hope that the folk who want pirates enjoy their booty.

[main rapids]

I was originally replying to something Zatygold said. But you picked up the baton, not sure why.
Anyway, I'd like to let it go.

[tough raft]

The Sichuan Restaurant solution. A 50 page menu of options that caters to everyone and no one. I like options, but they should all be considered and every option should be fun and interesting. Spamming options is a "quantity over quality" approach. I'd rather they had 2 or 3 very well considered game modes than 10 sloppily built modes. Less is more. I think the best approach to cater to the 2 "camps" is to offer a well thought out Classic Mode, and then support both whole heartedly. Just spamming game mode options left right and centre just makes the game look directionless.

(I'm being a bit literal with your comment.. you're kind of right. Offering ways for everyone to play is good. But I think some people take it to the extreme and want Firaxis to just quickly add more and more and more and more options and modes)

[main rapids]

I don't think Classic mode is even going to be a mode (depending on what you consider a mode). Just a series of switches at setup screen. Wouldn't take a lot. But right now, the devs are just working on making any Civ playable in any age. The way this thread defined it, that's not Classic mode, but it is a big step towards Classic mode.
So one switch could control whether or not you used Civ switching in game, or limited it to no Civ switching, or a mix of both (some Civs allowed to switch and others would have the option of continuing without changing).
I think if the switches are sticky (set them once and they keep the settings until you change them), shouldn't be much of an issue.

[white agate]

Yeah. Not blind to the drawbacks of making Civ7 the all you can eat buffet edition. I don't see a better alternative though...

[ebon oak]

Yeah, unfortunately some people just take "they can just make it an option" as a magic solution to any complaint as if it's the easiest thing in the world for any dev to do. In particular I think recent Paradox is a good example of what happens when you get option and game rule bloat, and then you have to try and balance for every little rule in the game, and the countless number of game rules and settings become overwhelming to new players, while the actual intended developer vision for the game setup gets lost in all the bloat.

[white agate]

They've trimmed Stellaris' bloat many, many times over. If Civ7 is aiming to have a similarly long lifecycle we'll probably see that happen too

[tough raft]

I'd hope so. I'm a fan of the "one in one out" approach. If they wanna add a feature/option, they should merge 2 existing ones together or obsolete one. Rather than just endlessly adding more and more and more options.

[distant prawn]

Regaldless of the way classic mode is implemented, it would be great if devs released official TSL Earth map alongside it. This map type is perfect for playing civs of all ages.

[main rapids]

I have to say I disagree. I prefer more setup options, and don't see it as a bad thing.
Civ 7 introduced a lot of new mechanics. And some people liked the new way of doing things, and some people liked the old way. Some people thought the changes were too harsh (looking at you age transitions) and some people thought the changes weren't harsh enough (which is why we're getting collapse).
But if we're talking about what the devs intended, they didn't intend to make a game that was only enjoyed by a subset of the community. They were trying to make a game that everybody liked.
And if you're in the group that likes the game now, why not show your appreciation for the devs by supporting changes that bring more people from the community back to the game? Then everybody is happy.

[analog apex]

I disagree. We need the Classic Mode. Choose any civ, dont switch, no "conditions" involved

[unkempt flicker]

Stop. Using. WE! YOU ARE NOT THE LORAX!

[analog apex]

Dammit i always fall into it. You are right i should have used I

[obtuse obsidian]

"You" need classic mode. I'm fine with the way the game is . Classic mode will just be another feature for me to mess with.

Also, can't wait to see what it is and it will totally be nothing what you guys are imagining it to be

[daring heath]

Not only him, as you can also see under any YouTube video of Civ7 and also in Steam reviews and also in this very thread, many people do want to play with a classic mode as an option. BTW it won't be "totally nothing" at all, since there is a workshop announced where people like him could take part in its development. So we are happy, to be honest. 🙂

[fossil burrow]

Can we stick to the topic of implementation ...

and features etc

[analog apex]

I do think it wont be exactly how i want, because what i really want in a Classic Mode goes beyond the civ switching mechanic and involves ages resets becoming completely optional

I will try what they come up with and if selected give feedback on it. Maybe its enough to bring the joy of playing Civilization back to me

That being said, i think placing conditions on it defeats the whole purpose and its something that i only see the switchers proposing. And the mode in muy opinion should be aimed to those that dont like the current mechanichs

So i think the mode should allow to play with a single civ, without conditions and without even prompting the option to switch to reduce the interruptions on gameplay

[white agate]

For me, the priority is that I want it to feel like I am using whichever Civ I chose in whichever age I play. So if I pick Assyria I always want to be getting great works from conquest. If I pick Aksum I want to be building Hawilti (everywhere, all game), etc... When I pick a Civ I want to be picking my theme for the game. That's way easier for antiquity civs though.

Some modern Civs like Mexico, Buganda, and the Mughals have core features that are probably fine to have unlocked early. But how you make it feel like you are playing, say, Great Britain without industry/advanced naval mechanics/archeology... And for some of the more one-note civs like the Pirates you also run into trouble making them more universal. There'a also issues with redundancy - e.g. Buganda and Bulgaria both being pillaging civs. Inca and Nepal both being Mountain civs. Firaxis are already starting to repeat mechanics which is less good in a world with Civ continuity.

Personally I think what I'd really want is for the effects of civics to stay unlocked, and for UIs/UBs to remain buildable after unlocking which works well for antiquity civs... if you then add generic tradition trees they can choose from afterwards. For UUs maybe transfer their bonuses over to the closest unit class wherever possible.

The problem is really for later civs being played earlier. Maybe moving some more iconic abilities off their tradition trees to being civ abilities so that you always get the core feel. But that would leave civ abilities very bloated and make researching their civics less enticing.

Truthfuly I was surprised Firaxis went for "any civ in any era" and not "transcend your civ into the next era." The former is difficult to do and still have it be fun or meaningful. It probably would require some civ reworks...

[gritty night]

Personally I think if the intention behind these changes is to bring back players who don't like the game or casual players who played the past games but never bought this one (those who opted not to purchase at least in part due to civ swapping), then I think the only way they will satisfy those groups of players (generally speaking) is to have the ability to play any civ from any age in antiquity and for keeping your civ to not be locked behind meeting conditions during the age.

That being said, if that base setting exists, then there is no reason they cannot implement alternate additional settings to handle keeping your civ, be that only carrying forward a civ (so no later civs in earlier ages), or locking keeping your civ behind meeting conditions... (or both! - I would definitely give such a mode a try)

These are ideas primarily suggested by those who like the game as is and are opposed to keeping your civ generally speaking though - so I guess the question to them is, can you ever see yourself playing a 'classic' keep your civ option, and if so, what is the middle ground you would want? Because ideally this idea will work for both sets of players - and I think the most realistic way this can work for both sets is through additional setup options like this

[tropic linden]

Question regarding firaxis classic mode

It’s gonna be optional right? Right????

Apparently some people say they will get rid of civ switching entirely 😭

[main rapids]

I agree with everything you said, with the small exception of the changes being meant to get casual players into the game. People who didn't like Civ switching aren't casual players. Civ has always been a pretty complex game, we don't have a lot of casual players.
But like you I will like play with and without Civ switching. I want to try both 🙂
Because of slowmode, I can't create a new post yet. But to answer @tropic linden question, Classic mode is going to be option. People on this thread have always said that's the way it should be, and we have every reason to believe the devs will make it optional.

[fossil burrow]

Yes, fully optional, and the vision of the game with ages and switching will continue. (devs confirmed this last patch notes)

This is a side thing

[gritty night]

I’m using casual in terms of not avid fans of the series. I know 4 people who have played civ 5 and/or6 who have not bought civ 7 because they did not like the sound of the new ideas being introduced, and civ switching has been mentioned as a reason by all of them - for now they’re quite happy with the older games but I think those kinds of players could easily be introduced to civ 7 with civ swapping being optional.

Some people might say why bother to accommodate these players if they’re not avid fans and if they’re quite happy with older civs? Primarily because I’m sure firaxis would have hoped all players would follow them over to civ 7 and I’m sure there’s a decent enough number of them to make a difference in sales and reception that it gives civ 7 a stronger foundation for long term development. We all want to enjoy the game, no one group of players ability to enjoy the game is more or less important than anyone else’s.

[main rapids]

That makes more sense, we're thinking of a a casual player as being something different. And I'm sorry I still have to disagree (but with respect). I wouldn't classify a casual player as someone who's played Civ 5 and/or Civ 6 as a casual player either, even using your definition. Just because they don't like Civ swithing, that does make them a casual player. These are die-hard fans that were very disappointed that the game isn't fun for them.

[gritty night]

I wouldn’t call them die hard fans (i'm talking specifically the people i know, not a generalisation to all these types of players), they’re more take it or leave it. Casual might not be the right word though, that’s fair, but it may have just been a bigger dealbreaker for them than me given their approach to gaming generally. I had reservations but felt hopeful enough to preorder the founders edition. They opted not to preorder and with the reception/reviews being as they were they were in no rush to purchase after release. But whatever we term them, these are the players that can be won back.

[main rapids]

I'm trying not to belabor this since we're mostly on the same page. But the fans of Civ 5 and Civ 6 weren't take it or leave it. It's not like they don't care much either way (which would make them a "casual" player). They care a lot. They didn't want to leave the game. But because of Civ switching they had to.
I preordered as well (bought it the first day it was available to pre-order). Civ 7 actually set a record for pre-order sales (compared to previous titles). But I too had reservations about Civ switching. I didn't like Civ switching in Humankind at all, but I had faith Firaxis could do it better. And they did do it better.
I have a whole list of issues with the game but Civ switching is not one of them. I don't mind, I like playing with Civ switching and when we can play as one Civ through all ages I'll probably like that too.
But I recognize that there is a large group of people who want to play Civ 7 without Civ switching. That's why I'm supportive of the idea of Classic mode.
Because what I want to to get more of the players we lost back into the game. And I don't think that having something like Classic mode is going to hurt the gameplay as it exists today at all. The devs aren't going to make a change that makes people who already like the game unhappy. They wouldn't do that.

[wicked wind]

Well Stated! I think we can close the thread now (kidding of course).

Focusing on implementation - the one thing I wonder is if the classic mode mechanic, even if keeping one civ with no requirements, can fully "remove" the ages, since there are three tech trees, three sets of units tiers, etc. I wonder what that would look like on the other side. I'm excited to see what they come up with.

I do think Firaxis doesn't get enough credit for making the switching mechanic actually fun (for those who are ok with it as a mechanic). I don't mind the mechanic but found the implementation in Humankind to be too "detached", if that makes sense. I was purple blob entire game with minor things that changed each Era. At the very least, Firaxis made it way more impactful.

[fossil burrow]

CLOSES

[main rapids]

I don't think being able to keep the same Civ through all ages is going to remove the Ages either. And this is a topic we've touched on before. It's hard not to repeat some things when the thread is over 1,000 posts long. But we welcome new insights.
See I think the problem is the switching mechanic is not fun. I give them credit for other things like the artwork, which is very nice.
But I would agree that Civ switching is not as bad as most people think it is. However, that doesn't mean I think people should come around to the idea, it would be better if we got something like Classic mode.
And I've mentioned before that I don't see being able to play one Civ through all Ages as Classic mode, but it is a big step in the right direction.

[tough raft]

I'm just saying every option should be implemented with care and there is such thing as "too many options". Civ 7 seems to give off minimalist vibes, and i think they should embrace that and avoid making the game into a bloatware game like its older sibling. I'm particularly adverse to the sentence "I think making as many modes and optional settings as possible is the best choice available." I like new options but new options should not be the goal, it should be done when it makes sense for the game. Just throwing stuff at a wall isn't going to make the game better.

[white agate]

Bloating then consolidating modes feels like one option. Yo-yo dieting Civ7 style. Find out what works, what people put together, and focus on those modes

[main rapids]

Well yeah, options should be implemented with care. That's why there's a workshop.
I like Civ 6. Why is Civ 6 bloatware??
And no one talking about making as many modes as possible. Just adding some switches in the setup menu. And if the switches are sticky, you set them up once and never have to change them.
The other option is to have fewer switches. Since there's no switch, how would we determine which option we should force everyone into? I think when it comes to age transitions, continuity is more popular, that's why it's the default setting. So we can get rid of that switch and make everyone play with continuity instead of regroup. Sounds good?
As for Civ switching, we could have a vote. Not sure how this one is going to go but I suspect there are more people who prefer the old way (no Civ switching). So that will be the only option going forward.
Switches allow you to play the game the way you want to, and let other people play the way they want to, even if that's different from what you like.
So that's why I'm in favor of switches.

[analog apex]

I dont think anyone is asking to remove any of the current options for Civ 7

[tough raft]

I won't go in depth here why I think 6 is bloatware but it's partly a consequence of the game's long life cycle. [Fixed typo]
They shouldn't feel obliged to retool 7 with all the features (bloat) from 6. They have this opportunity to start fresh and they should take it. 7 isn't a visual update of 6, it's a new game. So i disagree with the idea they should add back all the stuff from 6.

I think you're taking my stance to its extreme, I'm not anti options.

Also i agree with the "bloat then consolidate" approach. As long as there is actually a consolidation. I wouldn't mind if they scrapped continuity vs regroup, as long as the remaining option is balanced and fun and takes advantage of the new age system instead of shying away from it..

[main rapids]

Yeah, I'm not sure why I thought you were anti-options. Though perhaps it was when you said there was such a thing as too many options, which to me sounded like you were arguing against this option, Classic Mode.
Though I could be wrong about that too. I've been wrong about things before. But I'm glad to hear that I was wrong this time and that you fully support Classic mode. Welcome to the team 🙂
I don't think of any of the previous titles were bloatware, and I don't think 7 is either (though you just said you thought 7 was bloatware, I'm assuming that's a typo, but maybe I'm wrong again and you think Civ 7 is also bloatware). Any new Civ should include all the features of the old Civs (possibly with modifications). At the same time, the new mechanics shouldn't burden the player with a lot of extra micromanagement.
Civ 7 did keep some of the features that Civ 6 had, like natural disasters. Many of the features Civ 7 left out, like the ability to play as any Civ from start to finish... people want added back in. Religion feels lite and people want more depth to it, people want to be able to fight over IPs/city-states again like they used to before. People want the ability to liberate settlements for their allies. People even miss the loyalty system. Also we used to have privateers but we just got those back in 1.3.0. I think most people see that as a positive.
There really aren't any old features that were bad, just some of the old features could have used better ways to interact with them. And Civ 7 did make improvements here too, like it's easier to move units around the map now since you can pack them in with commanders.

[pastel igloo]

I mean in classic civ you effectively lost it after an even shorter duration, around 30 to 40 turns on standard. Those units were solely to give you a massive push, whereas civ7 they are long term strategic elements to your civ

[white agate]

Hmm... I do think the unique units in Civ7 are generally less impressive than previous civ games. There are a couple of exceptions, but for the most part I think Firaxis were more cautious with power level of UUs than in previous civs. I do approve but also think it means there are far fewer game-defining UUs.

With civ continuity I think this is the element of most Civs' kit I'd miss the least if there were no equivalent in other ages.

[main rapids]

@paper bluff
Why did you say this to me "so your okay for people to stop playing and lose customers?"?
Do you not realize that it was other people, not me, that were suggesting the devs not work on something you wanted because it might impact the rollout of content they wanted? I was defending your position.

[light river]

Break the civ # per age balance, Break it.

Work with the age transition system. Pull almost all modern civs back to exploration, except mexico and usa. Add medieval japan and Aztec. Tie staying yhe same civ to transitions to multiple victory conditions by age. Or tie it to some form of new crisis success. I think that would make almost everyone happy.

[main rapids]

It's a good idea. People might be opposed to it but those same people, if they get what they want, we'll get your suggestion for free.

[unkempt flicker]

That seems a little extreme.

[main rapids]

Really don't need to maintain a balance of civs per age. They probably will though.
Eventually will have the ability to play any civ in any age.

[tough raft]

Id be down for them to release more antiquities civs relative to explo/modern (and more in explo relative to modern), but it seems counter productive to dismantle civs people already paid for and swap them for earlier age civs.

[analog apex]

Damm, i just realized i missed the mail to sign the NDA and now i cant sign it, so im probably out of the workshop
Never saw the email, so sad

[analog apex]

I think its wrong to tie keeping the same Civ to some kind of quest or worse, to the Crisis, that is far, very far away from what Classic Mode would ideally mean (a completely sandbox experience with no quest or any of that c....).

Firaxis in my opinion needs to try to go back to the roots of the franchise, instead of doubling down in some of the most controversial changes made in Civ 7

[fossil burrow]

There will be future opportunities to join ^^

[tough raft]

I suspect their goal is to have one game mode for all, but make all civs compatible with all ages. By changing how they store the civs, and by defining how Civs behave "outside of their primary age". Maybe even adding additional content for Civs beyond their primary age (eg an ability or building or tech or something).

This would mean that Classic / Switch / Hybrid modes can all co-exist, and everyone is happy. You get your "classic mode" without the devs having to maintain 2 distinct modes, they can instead just have a setup toggle that controls how you can/cannot switch civs.

eg:
Why maintain 2 completely distinct "Egypts" with seperate definitions of abilities, units, civ trees, when you can just have one that can work in either classic or switch mode.

[analog apex]

That is a different discussion that what i replied for. To answer your question, yes, they have many ways to do it, i dont expect different "Egypts", but i do hope we can be able to select the continuous Civs before the game start, because one problem Civ 7 has and i hope this new mode alleviates is the interruption in gameplay

Ideally, nothing should interrupt your gameplay, not Age changes, not Civ switching screens, nothing, because that in my opinion is a huge immersion breaker. I dont have expectations that high though, i think we will still have the Age reset interruption sadly, but i wish we could avoid the Civ switching one by pre selecting before even the game starts that we want to play with continuos Civs

That comes in touch with what you quoted, which was to tie the civ continuity to a quest, which is something i dont like, but isnt tied 1 to 1 with the above

[main rapids]

I agree it looks like we'll still have age transitions and they'll still be something of a reset, at least for the time being. But I do see the ability to play as one Civ from start to finish as a step in the right direction.
What I meant earlier is that once you have the ability to play as any Civ in any age, you get a lot of other features for free or for very little work (might also have a lot of mods).
So we could have Civ switching or being able to keep your same Civ locked behind a quest or some other requirements, but there's no reason to think that you'll have play with those requirements if you don't want to. Right now, you have to do things to unlock which Civ you switch to. But there is a toggle in the setup screen that unlocks all available Civs in an age without you having to meet any requirements.
I am very confident, that there will be a switch in the setup menu (and it will be sticky) allowing you to play a game where everybody picks any Civ they want in the beginning, all Civs are available, and nobody switches Civs, and you don't have to meet any requirements.
What I'm trying to get people to understand is that other people can get some of the variations they want, but that doesn't prevent you from getting the mode of play you want. These ideas are not mutually exclusive, it's the opposite. These variations can all co-exist together and are easily to implement once we have the ability to play any Civ in any age.

[fringe hemlock]

There are already two distinct "Egypts." Or there will be as of this week. Egypt was an Ottoman province for 400 years.

[patent olive]

keeping classic 'inclusive' would be huge for my mp friend group for example. being able to stay & switch in the same game and as mentioned above having the option to force classic on everyone as a preset option in lobby

[fringe hemlock]

There are also three distinct "Persia"s and three distinct "China"s already. This takes us back to the idea that the solution for "immersion" is simply to add more civs to create more plausible historical trajectories-- but that seems not to be what people want, they want to be able to play the United States in antiquity, etc.
I don't think the needs of the no-switch mode should influence what civs are included in the game. As someone who prefers switching, I would rather see e.g. Byzantium, Republic of Venice, or the HRE added to the game than have the existing antiquity Civs of Rome or Greece made into all era civs through new content. If the new mode is meant to be like Civ 6, then it should not be "immersion breaking" if one player is Rome and the other is Byzantium in any era, as that was possible in Civ 6 (same with Gauls and France, etc etc).

[gritty night]

I agree that existing civs should not be condensed into a single version of themselves (such as a sole China or India) for a classic mode. I love the diversity of civ choices and want more. The more cultural depth the better! In that respect I also think that any new civs should follow the original design model and not try to create new versions of condensed civs - I don’t know if anyone has outright argued that they want this (ie a single China) as opposed to suggesting it as a way in which classic could be delivered, but I’d be curious how many people actually would prefer that kind of approach and what makes that more appealing to them

[fringe hemlock]

in terms of 'hybrid' stuff, I do think that mechanics that enhance continuity between ages could be good for both modes. Ofc there are traditions, which is think is a great mechanic, and I've gotten some narrative events in modern that relate to my civ choice in past eras, but I think that stuff could be deepened. Maybe in the same way each civ has its own civic tree, each civ could have its own unique legacy path that unlocks unique legacy bonuses. There could also be mechanics that interact with future eras--like if there were some kind of "destiny" mechanic that let you access some aspect/tradition/ability of a future civ, in exchange for locking yourself out of other civ choices in advance and/or some other appropriate malus. Something along these lines could be a cool feature for normal mode that would also support classic mode-- it'd be a way for classic mode players to feel like their civ choice was still relevant outside of its proper era, without necessitating a massive overhaul to make all civs balanced across all eras.

[white agate]

Every Civ is a blob of cultures to some degree. I think deblobbing is great, but what boundaries of blob is acceptable is going to vary from person to person... And probably with how familiar they are with a particular region/culture.

[tough raft]

And both of those "age-specific" civs should be fully compatible with classic mode, in my opinion. Like the "civ formula" just needs to have extra steps to allow classic mode. Rather than redesigning all the civs and making a "classic domain" of civs that are independent of the current ones.

Perhaps a Civ template could look like this:
**
Always:**
Unique Ability (sometimes these abilities will not make sense outside of their primary age, but they are "always on")
**
Primary Age:**
Unique Civic Tree
Unique Quarter / Infrastructure
2x Unique Units
**
Secondary Age:**
1x Unique Unit OR Unique Building OR Unique Infrastructure (maybe a "tier 0" version of their unit in the prior age, or a "tier 4" version of their unit in the following age, some way to extend the flavour of a civ beyond their primary age)

[analog apex]

As long as there is an option that can be selected before the game to play with a single Civ, without quest or any shenannigans, then i dont care about any extra "mode" they make. If they want to also make mixs, or any other stuff, thats ok with me

But i wanted to make clear that those "options" shouldnt leave out the "Classic Mode", which is what it hink the guy/girl i quoted meant. Maybe i was wrong

[analog apex]

This is an idea that is often praised by those that already like the switching

As someone that dont like switching, i consider all 3 "China" as different Civs, not as a continous one, so it wouldnt solve anything. We also still have the issue of getting interrupted in the gameplay with a new Civ Selection screen

The "introduce more Civs to have paths that make sense in the switching" is not something i want, at all

[daring heath]

The QA lead was clear about playing one civ through the journey in the last patch video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_rI5Fm_WGY). I am pretty sure he meant what we had in mind, we are on the same page.

[trim echo]

afaik unless they rebuilt the entire game there would still be breaks throughout ages. Each age is essentially it's own game

[daring heath]

They don't have to rebuild the entire game. There is already a mod that implements one civ through all ages. I don't think these modders rebuilt the game.

[fringe hemlock]

Maybe I misunderstood talsorn, but I thought the idea of avoiding “two egypts” in favor of one that works in both modes had to do with moving back to the civ 6 approach to civ design, when civs were more transhistorical “essences” rather than corresponding more closely (if not exactly) to specific historical empires. As I made a point to say, I know people want a mode in which they can play the US in antiquity and such. My point was just that I don’t think we need to go back to designing civs by asking like “what abilities will convey the essence of chinese civilization across all history” (and it’s too late to do so anyway based on what is already in the game). It sounds like you agree and don’t mind the empire/dynasty approach to civ design, you just want to be able to play any civ in any age and not switch, which I have no opposition to at all, as long as it’s a mode I can turn off (which I know it will be) and doesn’t affect the future of the core game (in terms of how civs are designed, combining the modes, etc).

[analog apex]

I think the "essence" design is far superior and the franchise should go back to it, in Civ 8

As you said, in Civ 7 that ship has sailed, i dont think anyone expects them to stop designing Civs for the current gameplay and instead design them for the Classic Mode. I as a Classic Mode supporter FOR CIV 7 would be Ok to be able to use any of the Civs designed for the current system during the whole game, i dont expect Civs tailored for the Classic Mode

Now, if we are talking about Civ 8, then my opinion changes, drastically, but its not the time and place for that discussion

[daring heath]

That's how I understood from the comment of the QA. We'll pick France once and be able to play through all ages as France. We'll only get its most benefits in the last age - which is OK i think. Every civ shined in a particular era, its natural to have their traits in their respective eras. But the core of classic mode is as we thought, start as X , end as X, where X can be any civ from any age in the game.

[patent olive]

nvm being pro or contra civ switching; the fact that the game needs to be reloaded each time the transition happens essentially creating 3 distinct games feels not good

i hope smoother transitions are on the menu with classic

[white agate]

I think the age system generally needs a lot of work. Legacy paths are repetitive, end of age can feel frustrating with just researching future tech/civics until it ends. Snowballing is worse than in previous civ games.

Each individual age is fun when played separately - advanced starts are great - but connecting them is janky and snowballing makes later ages boring.

I'd like to see more options to smooth ages out, and make them more uniform down the line. It'd probably be a bigger job than making civs continuous, but it's another area which could do with some classic-ification.

[main rapids]

We're not getting classic mode.
Now before anyone bites my head off....
What we're getting is the ability to play any civ from start to finish. That's a big step towards classic mode, but it's still not classic mode as long as we have the age transitions.
Hopefully, we'll continue to make progress along this road. And I think we could get classic mode in the future (might not be called that but nobody cares what it's called).
Overall we're still moving in the right direction. And I hope they improve the age transitions so it's a lot less of a reset (while keeping the reset for players that still want that.)
But it also means what we're getting probably won't fix the load times going from age to age (sorry), that's likely something we're going to have to live with for a while longer at least.

[daring heath]

Yeah, but I personally am grateful that we made it to this point. If you remember (or scroll up) the early comments made under this thread, people calling the request absurd, unthinkable, undoable and mass downvoting every request about classic mode; we are now in a good position compared to where we were on release. We are now discussing the technicalities, details. That's good. We'll get a workshop to better shape this request so that devs can deliver something close to what is requested by the majority of the requesters.

[analog apex]

Yeah, thats why i usually use it within "". Because its easier to say "Classic Mode" than to explain exactly what we are getting. Sometimes i forget though

[amber spruce]

Age transitions are kinda fun though.

[main rapids]

Well, I don't think age transitions are going away either. Just like we got continuity and regroup, and should be getting collapse, we could get more versions of that. So people who want a smoother transition through the ages (more so than continuity) can play that way and people who like the transitions can still play with age transitions.

[analog apex]

The one guy that said if we were going to get "China" made me think. I am not Chinese, but if i were, i might be pissed off that my Millenium lasting Civilization doesnt have its consolidated name, while others do have. Because we dont have French dinaties names, like the Bourbons, we have France

It doesnt really affect me, just a lingering thought that i had as a consequence of that comment. Another consequence of the original decision to split the game

[unkempt flicker]

I feel like it would be the opposite. I would be more proud that our nation's FULL history was being represented.

[main rapids]

I was the one who suggested we might get "China". We've had China in previous versions of the game.
What I meant was since the Han, Ming, and Qing Civs were all tailored for the age they were in, we could get a 4th Civ that was a generic China for playing the game start to finish.
It was just one possible way to implement Classic mode. I didn't say I was for that as a solution.
And by the way it was worded in the devs notes, when we do get the ability to play one civ from start to finish, it's pretty clear to me that we'll be able to play as the Han, or as the Ming, or as the Qing, or any of the other existing civs through the whole game without needed to switch.

[amber spruce]

Nah they’re fine as is. The whole game was but people needed to needlessly complain about how Civ VII actually acknowledged there was a “test of time”.

[main rapids]

I seem to be having trouble explaining.
For players that think they are "fine as is", those players will continue to be able to play the game as it is now.
For players who think ages transitions could be better, we will ask for and potentially get changes.

[analog apex]

Yeah i am 99% sure that its going to be like you say, we will be able to play the current "Civs" for an entire game. I just got thinking about it, why we have Han, Ming, Qing and not China, while we have France but not the Bourbons, just to make a clear example, there are more

Why some "Civs" get represented by dinasties, while others by their national country name, which was the decision factor to do so. Who knows

@unkempt flicker I disagree, i would prefer the Civilization i grow up in to be represented by its name, and not by some family name. If i were french, i would prefer to play France over playing the Bourbons

[gritty night]

In civ 6 we had say chandragupta and ghandi both being indian leaders, or nader shah/cyrus, effectively representing different periods of india's/persia-iran's history. So from that perspective, it's not entirely new an idea, they've just leaned into it more this time around. Like I say, I quite like it. No country stays the same for hundreds/thousands of years, and medieval france (if it was ever added) and imperial france can co-exist and offer different playstyles in my opinion.

If the concern, with playing one civ through every age was meeting your later era 'same civ' - if that would break immersion for some - then they could always do similar to civ 6 where those types of connected civs were clustered together under the same 'civ', but you could choose any version of it, whilst clicking a box to say no duplicate civs, so in civ 7's case, if you got the Han in a game, you wouldn't get any other chinese dynasty - but then in future you can try out another flavour of that history with new attributes and strengths/weaknesses

[daring heath]

We already discussed whether or not any of this is historical, and turns out this is not the point. Civ7 does not claim to be historical, that's why you can transition to Mongols from Ancient Egypt, which is utterly nonsensical. So let's leave that 'but but this is actually more realistic' approach.

BTW we shouldn't be discussing whether or not what is historical anymore. This should be about possible ways of achieving the upcoming classic mode.

[gritty night]

At no point did I say they should only do it this way because it's historical. I am someone wanting a classic style gameplay so I think you're mixing me up with someone who was making arguments that classic mode wasn't historical which is also something I never said.

I was simply expressing how I personally prefer the cultural diversity of showing different periods of individual states history as opposed to a generic china that tries to encompass multiple thousands of years.

This is about how they implement classic mode - whether people wanted that generic one size fits all approach to civs in a classic 'mode', or whether they want to maintain the broadness of civs on offer. You may prefer that first approach, and that's fine, but let's not shut down conversations that **are ** about how people would like classic mode to be introduced and how that influences game development just because you don't agree with the views being put forward (such as the civilizations being developed going forward)

[daring heath]

But this is already decided, no? I thought we''ll pick one civ and play with it through all ages, we'll not have to switch to its modern variant, no. Players pick France, and play with France in ALL ages. They won't pick Celts or Gauls as predecessor, or Burgundy, or Occitania, or whatever.

EDIT: You mentioned 'no country stays the same for thousands of years' which is a realistic and historical outlook on the game, and it really does not matter what happens in reality, since Egypt did not turn into Mongolia either.

[gritty night]

My conversation was about ideas suggested by other people, where classic mode could redesign civs where there are multiple 'versions', like china or india, to make one generic version of that civ the 'classic' variant. So you would not get mauryra, chola, mughal for example, you would just get a brand new redesigned india for classic mode (which yes, you would stay as the whole game, no switching).

I was saying that I would like them to maintain their current civ design philosophy and not redesign such civs for classic - so similarly, if you pick chola, you play chola through all 3 ages. That is the context of my 'no country stays the same' comment - in support of keeping these different instances of indian history for use in classic mode, and not redesigning them into a single 'india' civ. It wasn't a comment in favour of civ switching or anything like that.

[daring heath]

Oh okay, thanks for putting it into context. The way I understood from QA lead's video is that Chola India can stay Chola India through the game. I think this is the easiest thing to do at the moment, since it requires no re-designing process.

[analog apex]

Leaders are not Civs. The Leader doesnt represent your people, you were still playing India. Han, Ming, etc are NOT China, they are just a small part of China's history

The point is that the current game doesnt represent China, as a whole, AT ALL. The name China doesnt exist, instead you play a FAMILY. But that doesnt happen with other countries, the France example comes again, but you can do it with Britain too

You say no country stays the same, but again we go back, why this approach was used with China and India but not with France? France doesnt stay the same either. Your point would make more sense (although i wouldnt agree with it) if that approach was applied to EVERY Civ, not just to some

Why is it only with some countries that dinasties are used, while others get their national representation? How would french people would feel if France doesnt exist at all in Civ 7 and instead we had dinasties? I think they would feel bad

[gritty night]

We don't know what firaxis' intentions were for the future. Yes currently only China and India are split in that way, but there's nothing to say that they couldn't have added a medieval France in later dlc. Or say a medieval Japan or Korea, after all Meiji and Silla exist, not Japan and Korea.

The France that does exist in game is called imperial France too so it is defined by the time period in question in game too. Great Britain is represented as Great Britain, not England. Achaemenid Persia rather than just Persia, Majapahit not Indonesia, etc

I think they have been consistent with naming civs in relation to periods of time as opposed to a unified 'whole', even if other ages versions of those civs don't exist yet

[analog apex]

No, they havent been consistent. Its not the same to call it Imperial China than Ming. Again, the name China doesnt even appears in the ENTIRE GAME

I can understand call it it "Period" + "Name of Civ", but why Imperial France instead of using a DYNASTY name like they used with China? Why Imperial France instead of Bourbons (without the name France in the ENTIRE GAME)

Those are two very different approaches, on does indeed represent the country, the other represents a FAMILY

[gritty night]

We're getting a little off track here, so not gonna argue the point too much, but my point is, if something like Imperial France exists, then there's no reason Capetian France could not be added later for example.

I see the naming convention as representing a state that existed at that period of time, and the han dynasty was one of the chinese states that existed in antiquity just as imperial france existed under napoleon. Han China did not exist in later time periods, so if they want to represent that part of the world in multiple ages then they have to differentiate. It fits civ 7's theme to identify civs per time period as opposed to unified wholes, which I don't think is a bad thing - if they gave us a Capetian France I think that would be a cool twist on another way to play 'France', in the same way leaders of civ 6 gave us twists on how to play a civ.

[analog apex]

You still dont get my point. In your example it wouldnt be Capetian France, it would be Capetian, without the France part and France as a name wouldnt exist in the entire game, and it would feel bad

I think the Devs realized that it was important to keep the Occidental country names, but failed to realize that for the Oriental ones. And i even think it would be good for the game, to add China at the end of Ming, Han, etc. Not because of historical accuracy, which doesnt really matter, but for player indetification, which DOES matter

Just like playing with Capetian France, or Bourbon France would feel better than playing with just Capetian or Bourbon

[main rapids]

Yes, we should keep in mind that we can get more versions of Great Britain, France, Japan for other ages, and still have a mode where we can play any Civ start to finish, including Civs that get added.
No one is suggesting it has to be one or the other. We're getting both.
And really I just can't imagine a Civ game without Samurai. So that's coming too.

[daring heath]

You are totally right, now that I think of it.. Civ7 is probably the only recent Civ game where Japan doesn't have samurais, and Ottomans don't have bombards due to the dedicated age/civ mechanic.

[gritty night]

Ah i see! So it's the way they're named that bothers you, not that there are different 'chinas'? Because you feel it loses the identity of China in those instances? That's fair enough, and maybe something they'll change in future - or if not, a mod can solve 🙂

[analog apex]

I believe i am getting misunderstood here. I am not talking right now about having different versions or not, that ship has sailed with Civ7. I am talking about the naming chosen for those different versions, and how the occidental ones kept their national name in those different versions while the Oriental ones didnt

I think that was a mistake, and the different versions of oriental Civilizations should have their national name too, just like the occidental ones have it

@gritty night yes i was talking about the naming, i probably failed at explaining myself (english is not my native language, have a little patience with me). Mods are used by a tiny amount of players, i think Firaxis should look into it an add the National names to the Oriental Civs. Now that @main rapids mentioned Samurais, another example would be Edo or Tokugawa Japan, which should under no circumstance be called just Edo or Tokugawa

[main rapids]

Ok now I see your point. That makes sense.
But Samurais are a unit, and the Edo period was ruled by the Tokugawa family.
Side note, Japanese words don't have a different plural form (might be a few exceptions). 武士 is both singular and plural for Samurai.

[analog apex]

I know Edo period was ruled by Tokugawa, but since some Civs are named by periods (Imperial France) and others by Dynaties (Han, Ming) in the case of Japan, they could use both Edo or Tokugawa, which its kind of my point. In any of both cases they should also use the name Japan in the end. They should do the same with China and India IMHO

[main rapids]

I get what you're saying (or think I do). Names aren't all that important to me. What I would like is to have more Civs and to be able to play any of those Civs start to finish. And we're getting that.
I don't think any of the existing Civs should end with "China" or "India" or "Japan" though. Neither the Han, Qing, or Ming are China.
Which is why I asked earlier if you would want there to be a China that we could play start to finish. You said "no", and that's a perfectly understandable answer.

[amber spruce]

I don’t think you’ve been asking politely though. And again the Ages didn’t need to be changed.

[analog apex]

Well, thats where we disagree. I think Names are much more important than historical accuracy, and it neither Han, Qing or Ming are China for you, then its a huge mistake to not have China represented at all in the game

Either all three are China, and they need to be named China, or we need China in the game.

I do want a China to play from start to finish, i dont think we are getting one, because i dnt think they are going to make Civs specialized for "Classic Mode"

EDIT: I think its kind of weird to say Han, Ming, etc are not "China", they clearly are for me, its part of the Chinese history and Civilization. They are not a fulll China, but thats a problem we have with the current system

[fossil burrow]

I think the discussion has long moved past this point, it will be happening in some shape or form (as an option), so please don't post comments that aren't constructive. (also I'd like to point out @main rapids is one of the most polite & helpful individuals on the server.)

[main rapids]

I see your point (of view) and I'm sure many other people see it the same way. So let me try to clarify my point of view.
When we get the ability to play any Civ from start to finish, we still won't be able to play as China from start to finish, because China does not exist in the game. So when you play as the Han, you are not playing as China, you are playing as the Han, which is not China.
Yes, the Han are a part of China. But I don't think of the Han as China any more than I think of your arm as "you". Your arm is a part of you, but you are a lot more than just your arm. "You" are made up of all your parts, and not just the physical parts. Your mental, emotional, and spiritual parts also make up what "you" are.
I actually hope you don't see things my way, because we're not getting a China "blob" Civ. You see all three as being China so when we can play as any Civ start to finish you'll have 3 different flavors of China to play with (4 when we get the 4th age). And I'm happy with the ability to play with those 3 Civs start to finish too, even though I don't think of any of them as being "China".
So we both get what we want 🙂

[analog apex]

Right, i see your point, and we dont have a "China" for the exact reason i have been posting my last messages and its because in the case of China and India, unlike the rest of the Civs, they decided to go with Dynasties instead of periods of the original Civ

I dont know why they decided to take a different approach with them, but its the issue we have, and its an inconsistency problem.

The reason why i think we wont have a "blob" China is because such Civ wouldnt be able to be used in the "original vision" version of the game and i think they will try to make Civs thinking on being able to use them for both versions (and any other possible one)

[main rapids]

Well, I think the reason they went with a different approach with China and India is because both of those Civilizations have been around for a really long time.
That's not to say that other Civs haven't been around for time period longer than a single age either. But I think it's just a matter of time before with get more. I expect somewhere down the line we'll get a Modern Age Great Britain and Exploration Age Japan, plus a whole lot more.
Which is one of the reasons I'm looking forward being able to play as any Civ start to finish. I feel like Exploration Age Japan is missing from the game (currently), and with that new classic mode feature, I'll be able to play as Japan in all ages.
Probably still have to wait for Samurai, but I'm ok with that.

[amber spruce]

I mean “you” in the plural sense of people complaining about the Civ switching being a thing at all.

[fossil burrow]

Point still stands- we’ve moved past that now.

[ebon oak]

They took the same approach to the civs from China and India as they did every other civ in the game. You brought up France before, but they also split up French history into the Normans for exploration and Impderial France for modern. Same with the British Isles where we have the Normans representing William the Conqueror's England in exploration and Great Britain for modern. There's also Japan and Korea where we have specifically Meiji Japan and specifically Silla. And specifically Aksum for Ethiopian history. And Pharaonic Egypt. I could go on, but I think that's enough examples. The decision to represent periods of Chinese and Indian history individually across the ages is the same as they've done for every civ included in the game, that's the point of the age system and civ switching that it allows them to highlight different periods of the history of a culture or region separately instead of blobbing them together like they had to do in past civs because of the limitation of the mechanics.

[patent olive]

I feel like a lot of you guys here are willing to die on very specific hills, but even if you “win” those arguments, they don’t translate into very usable feedback. There’s no shame in not playing Civ 7 much, but I think it shows in how abstract discussions have become.

Most conversations are happening on the level of immersion, historicity, or fundamental design philosophy. Those things matter, and I’m not trying to dismiss them. We do need those discussions. But right now there’s a clear imbalance, and that’s where I think problems start.

When we stop playing Civ 7, what actually happens? Do we reach an age transition, disagree with a core design idea, and instantly Alt-F4? I honestly don’t think that’s the common case. Ending sessions early usually has much more complex reasons. For me, and for many people here, the core gameplay loop just isn’t fun and plenty of concrete reasons for that have already been pointed out in this Discord. Example 1 Example 2 Example 3 Example 4

That’s why I’d caution against expecting “Classic mode” to magically fix everything. Even if it addresses some fundamental issues, if many of the smaller, practical problems remain, the gameplay loop still won’t be strong enough to keep people playing consistently.

So my suggestion: next time you quit a Civ 7 session, actually reflect on why. I think you’ll find it’s rarely a clean black-and-white “I fundamentally disagree with the developers’ vision.” Then try to turn that into practical, gameplay-focused feedback, even if it means fewer big philosophy debates and more concrete posts. I genuinely believe that will lead to a much better Classic experience when it eventually arrives.

[main rapids]

I want to agree with you, you made lots of good points.
But I don't think people on this thread think of classic mode as a cure-all. Sure, it's very important to some people, but not the only issue players have with the game.
Which is why other threads exist.

[patent olive]

fair enough just wanted to share my observation

[amber spruce]

Except those Indian civilizations are actually different states and societies and not just dynasties of a single Indian civilization. They always deserved to be represented separately.

[main rapids]

And now they are, so....
Also looks like you and I have a similar viewpoint that Mauryan, Chola, and Mughal are all there own unique Civ, and none of them are India.
But I was answering the question about why India and China were treated differently, that they each got a society that was associated with either India and China for every age.
There really aren't any right or wrong viewpoints, people have different ways of looking at it.

[amber spruce]

Well for China I would argue that the different Chinese dynasties were distinct in terms of culture and priorities even if it was all the same broad “Chinese civilization”. Setting aside all the times when China broke apart into warring states for hundreds of years.

[amber spruce]

Also hot take; it should not have taken seven whole games to split up the Gandhi India blob - certainly not when Byzantium, Greece, and Rome were all represented as separate entities since Civ III.

[analog apex]

Again, no Occidental Civilization was stripped of their National country name. NONE. The Normans are a special case because they are a mix of several of them, but only Oriental (and in some case Africans) have been stripped of their name. The same approach was definitely NOT used in every Civ, sincwe i gave you specific examples of how in one case Dynasties were used, and in another case were Dynasties could be used, they were ignored (Bourbons, Capetian, etc) yet they didnt strip France from their national name

yes, Korea (another non Occidental Civ) also suffered from it

This isnt about representing periods, you can choose how you represent those periods, you can choose if you take the timeline approach (Imperial France) or the Dynasty one (Bourbons, Capetians).For Occidental Civs, they took the timeline, for non Occidental, a mix of timeline and dynasties, with China and India being the worst offenders. And it might be a good reason why China is the region where the game did worse

@patent olive "Classic Mode" is aimed to solve some problems, not all. The game obviously has more problems, you are free to discuss them too of course

[fringe hemlock]

I mean, we have “America” rather than the United States, Great Britain is known by that name rather than the United Kingdom.. we also have Prussia, which no longer exists… I’m not familiar with the performance of the game by country, but I would guess “national country names” are not as important as you suggest.
It’s complicated because the modern nation state is something that Europeans invented. Nations emerged in Europe as an expression of European politics. Of course, in many cases, “national country names” were actually imposed on non-Europeans by Europeans.

With regard to India, this issue is politicized. There is a popular Hindu nationalist movement in India that would like to erase the Mughals from historical memory completely—writing them out of textbooks, demolishing historical sites, etc—or else portray them and Indian Muslims generally as either villainous invaders or traitors. While not intentional and just a consequence of the approach to conceptualizing “civilizations”, past civ games kind of have represented India’s history in the way Hindu nationalists imagine it: as a millennia-old, integral, continuous Hindu civilization, rather than a panoply of different powers, cultures, and religious practices. We did get the “Mughal fort” in Civ 5 and I know India’s ability in Civ 6 was supposed to represent religious diversity, but the overall picture was still rather one-dimensional.

I personally was extremely pleased to see the Mughals represented as a full civilization in civ 7, something I never expected. That won me over to the idea of civ-switching right away, because I knew this was what enabled their inclusion, alongside other Indian empires. I hope we will see Indian Muslim empires like the Delhi sultanate added in Exploration, and I’m sure the addition of the Marathas in Modern will help cool any outrage that the Mughals were the only subcontinental modern civ at launch. Civ switching makes this possible.

[deft portal]

Wait, are we really arguing that giving China a UA called “dynastic cycles” that gives bonuses to Eurekas is somehow more thematic than having different dynasties be playable with their own unique units and buildings?

This whole conversation seems silly to me because at least Han, Ming, and Qing say “China” after them in case you’ve never looked at the Wikipedia page for “China”. Meanwhile, there was a post every other week about “where is England” when half the Normans’ content is English.

[prime apex]

But for real, Where is England??

[analog apex]

I dont know if you are missunderstanding on purpose or if i am bad at explainng the issue. All those names are Nations on different times of history, they are not DYNASTY NAMES, which are nothing more than a FAMILY NAME that got into power. Nobody called themseves a "Mingian", "Hanian", etc, but people did called themselves "Prussians", "Britains", "Americans"

I hope i made myself clear this time because i dont know how to explain it anymore, i have already gave examples, i have already explained step by step the problem and there are still people that dont get it

No Occidental Civ ever received such treatment in ANY Civilization game

[white agate]

I'm glad more civs are getting deblobbed. I'm pretty sure that the egregiousness of any blobs is directly proportional to how familiar folks are with any given culture so it's especially good to see it happening to non-european civs

[deft portal]

Not to be snarky, but is this the only strategy game you play? If you play any of the paradox games, the borders in China will be defined by the ruling dynasty. “Great Ming” and “Great Qing” is how “China” appears in-game (there’s a ton of other states in “China” depending on the time period). If you go open EU5 right now, you can even get stuff like the country of “Koke Temur”, one of the warlords in Red Turban Rebellion scenario.

Also, just so we’re clear, you are aware “Ming” and “Qing” aren’t literally the guys’ names, right? They’re the names of the dynasty, but the dynasty isn’t named after the founder ala European monarchs.

[analog apex]

I dont care how Paradox games have their borders (i dont like Paradox games) Maybe its one of the reasons why Paradox games doesnt have that many players (EU5 has less players than both Civ 6 and Civ 5, yeah, i dont think they are an example to follow)...

Yes, in the case of China, the dynasty name doesnt match the guy's names, but its the same concept. They were not the national names either, no one called themselves a "Ming" as demonym

[patent olive]

They didn’t call themselves that because the concept of a nation didn’t exist yet. Nationalism as we understand it is largely a 17th–19th century development.

In a way, your own observation points to that: calling them “nations at different times in history” is already somewhat anachronistic. Modern nations claiming continuity over thousands of years can end up flattening very different cultures, political systems, and identities into one label, which arguably distorts how history actually worked. See @fringe hemlock comment on India for example.

That said, I do understand where you’re coming from in terms of player identification. People naturally resonate more with choosing a familiar “nation” than an ancient cultural or political entity.

Personally, though, I find Civ VII’s approach refreshing. It leans more into historical context and cultural evolution rather than retroactively projecting modern national identities onto ancient societies. I’m glad Firaxis chose to go in that direction.

[deft portal]

Um, I can’t tell if you’re trolling, but do you know what the largest ethnic group in China refers to themselves as? The answer will shock you!

[main rapids]

The Han.

[unkempt sphinx]

Way off topic, again....

[main rapids]

Not my fault.
Also Stellaris is a good game made by Paradox.

[deft portal]

I mean, this is kind of the root of the argument. People who like Civ switching point out how many cool paths you can actually do with it now, but instead of getting those new paths, we get developer time thrown into trying to make the ones we do have optional.

Like, we still only have 2/3 of the Civs for Rome-Byzantium-Ottomans but sure gotta make sure we get a game option for each permutation on the Names of China Wikipedia page first.

[main rapids]

I would really recommend that we limit our comments to what we like and don't like, and why, features we would like added, improvements to be made.
Leave how resources are allocated to the devs to decide.

[deft portal]

Indifferent to: the ability to pick any Civ in any age, letting Civs “transcend” like in Humankind

Dislike: Adding completely “new” Civs because apparently referring to Ming China the exact same way it was when playing as Yongle in Civ VI is confusing

[valid drum]

More than 1 year ago, before the game was released, i suggested (at CivFanatics forum) to add an option for custom civilisations, much like we already have custom religions (basically just a custom name) and allowing players to keep their civilisation name at age transition if they wanted to. No changes to gameplay, no new set of rules ... nothing complicated, just a (couple) variable(s) to store the name, colour (didn't knew at the time colour would be associated with leader), icon, architectural style ... that defines the visual identity of the civilisation. I still think this would have avoided some of the negativity Civ7 received.

With custom civs, the historically minded player might find even better names than what Firaxis choose, the guy who wants to play the Maya until the (failed) 2012 apocalypse can and the guy who wants to play some imaginary kingdom from their favourite fantasy book can (why not if they enjoy it, it's a game, not a history lesson).

Mechanically, age transition and Civ-switching brings a lot of fresh air to the game and keeps longer sessions interesting. Psychologically however, loosing your civilisation even thought you did all you could to make it great (and you have more legacy points than the next 2 civs combined) creates a "feels bad" moment at age transition. It feels like your civilisation didn't "stand the test of time" and makes you wonder why you even bothered building all of this. No matter how hard Firaxis tried to force the leaders in our face, i think many players still identify with their civilisation first and this creates a loss of connection (and thus a loss of interest) when you are forced to change to another one.

And BTW, yes @patent olive , when i abandon a "game" (something i do less often then i did in 6 where i barely finished one, so there's progress), it's usually at age transition because my game with the civilisation i choose is over now and i'm not interested in the new one.

[patent olive]

Nice so being able to keep a civ will tackle your issues quite well then

[unkempt flicker]

Once again, I have to reiterate, I don't want it to be CALLED Classic mode. That's an admission of defeat.

[faint schooner]

The most logical scenario is to call CLASSIC mode "CLASSIC mode"... but it's irrelevant

I think that the main problem of this post is that some people give feedback about how they think that can be done the mode and other people just comment completely different topics to sabotage the feedback...

[fossil burrow]

It’s just going to be called one civ or civ transition or something , does it matter

Toggle button

[unkempt flicker]

They never explicitly said it was 'bringing back the classic Civ experience. Call it Single Civ mode or Endurance mode!

[fossil burrow]

It doesn’t matter.

Call it super fantastical journey 🤣 the name is inconsequential

[slate orbit]

Just throwing in my two cents: I really enjoy Civ7, never reached 1000 hours faster in any other game. I took a 4 month break since I was not only "burnt out" by Civ but also the gaps in enjoyment grew larger and larger. I came back due to the patches and the new dlcs and I am having a blast again, but since I came back I have not reached Modern once and at most played 10 turns in the 2nd age before restarting.

I am not sure whether a classic mode would solve this issue of not finishing a game for me. As @patent olive pointed out before, it can be many other issues that hold back Civ7 from being a fully enjoyable game for some people. When I reflect on what bothers me the most, it is rather the feeling of "winning" the game being so far away. The first age feels amazing: Exploration, first conflicts, building up your empire, creating stories that are intriguing to continue through gameplay. I am trying to get the legacy paths as best I can and I feel accomplished when I also achieve my personal goals e.g. "colonizing the east coast of a continent", "building a specific wonder", "having a strong alliance with my neighbor" etc.

The second age just feels like a boring filler episode which I have to watch just to enjoy the final episode in which the most exciting stuff happens. Of course I could just play the first age, but I also want to enjoy the race and competition of reaching the winning conditions. The 2nd age does nothing like that for me. This is also the reason for why I feel burnt-out by Civ7, because I have to go through the 2nd age just to enjoy what I like the most. If classic mode would basically remove the age transitions with only a set of fixed victory conditions, it might make the game flow feel better for me at least. They can keep the legacy paths for some extra attribute points that can be fulfilled whenever, but I don't really care about them except 1st and 3rd age

[white agate]

I also have struggled to go beyond antiquity. Though I am not as bullish on Modern. That said, have you tried turning legacy paths off in antiquity/exploration? You do probably need abbreviated ages as otherwise things progress too slowly.

Aside from snowballing, I find the legacy paths are what most makes Exploration feel like a filler episode. Turning them off lets you play without railroading, and it's surprised me how much better it felt. It has made me suspect that the "classic" feeling is being hurt by legacy paths far more than I had thought.

[tough raft]

Fine If You Insist Mode

[slate orbit]

Thank you for the recommendation, will definitely try this out today Maybe that’s the way for now to enjoy the game, for me at least

[white agate]

I've become a bit of an evangelist for turning them off. They get repetitive very fast, and I like setting my own objectives. Turning legacy paths off feels a lot more like classic Civ too.

I think if Firaxis are going to make legacy paths work they'd need to make them dynamic in some way rather than just adding more to choose from.

[frigid raptor]

I would much prefer that they commit to the game mechanics that they've oriented the entire game around and make them more fun. Than back-petal at this point.

[fossil burrow]

https://tenor.com/view/the-road-to-el-dorado-both-both-is-good-gif-8304204

[trim echo]

Hey planning on giving this a shot myself to see how it fares, I expect you wont get any attribute points for the next age by turning them off, correct? Or do you get a default set amt?

[white agate]

I find you get a fair few from future techs/civics

[trim echo]

Ah right that makes sense, if legacy paths aren't effecting age progress then you're more likely to get future techs/civics; so it balances out

[merry ether]

This

[unkempt flicker]

Another thing that I think needs to be discussed is the question of if a "Single Civ" mode is included, would that mean less content down the line, as they'd have to make sure everything works with both modes?

[trim echo]

I certainly hope not.

[white agate]

Or you can look at it as increasing the value of the DLC they do put out since you can play the content you like for longer.

That's been a sore spot for me, I usually only get excited for 1/3 of an XPAC in any civ... so only being able to play that content for 1/3 of the game hurts the percieved value of DLC to me. If civ continuity can fix that then I'm all for it. I'd like to want to buy the DLC after all.

[unkempt flicker]

But then it could get more expensive. No one likes expensive DLC.

[gritty night]

I still think there's every chance adding in the ability to keep your civ through all ages, and thereby potentially bringing players back to the game, means that there is every chance the game's player base and development will be in a stronger position to deliver content for longer. Only Firaxis know whether introducing such a mode will slow down development of other content in the short term, but i'm sure their hopes are that by doing so, the game has a long lifespan and lots of other content can be produced for it over a longer period of time.

[fossil burrow]

I don’t even think it’s a discussion point personally - they’re committed on this decision so let’s support it and make it work , more players = more hype.

(Also more money = more content) 🥳

[paper narwhal]

If the option to use a single civilization is a feature in itself, why not? Let's include it. I, on the other hand, as someone has already suggested, would introduce the ability to evolve civilizations differently, not all at the same time. The only problem is that it would disrupt the game mechanics too much, so I don't see any implementation options for it. But I hope so.

[unkempt sphinx]

I have done extensive reading of the game files and based on what I have read, the age system in fully engrained. For those people that don't want or like the Age Transitions, that's probably not an option.

The amount of rework or additional development it would take to have an option for no age transitions is A LOT.... I don't see a 100% "Classic" mode to be a part of the game anytime soon, if ever.

The closest you will get to a "Classic" mode, at least early on, is using the same leader and the same civilization in all three ages.

[stiff galleon]

I think many people talk about civilizational shifts but actually mean age transitions. I'm not sure if that's being misinterpreted. But we'll see how it's received.

[trim echo]

Yeah I keep saying this, the game is essentially 3 separate mods/scenarios/games/wtvr you want to call it with threads connecting each. Multiple have confirmed it, and the first I heard about it was in Boes' review where he had been told by devs how the game worked. People asking for a fully continuous age don't know what that entails

[main rapids]

I think one of the purposes of this thread is to identify what would need to change in order to have a Classic mode.
Arguments saying something should or should not be done, or won't be done, aren't very constructive. People said we wouldn't be able to play one Civ from start to finish because it was too much work, and we're getting that. We just don't know what's possible.
People should ask for the features they want to see in game.

[white agate]

Well, given that civ continuity is something that was possible to mod in, I think it's fair to say that the age system is more deeply ingrained.

But Firaxis have already given us options to soften the edges of the age transitions. At some point the transitions become so soft it just becomes a question of how much you hate loading screens. That's what I'd expect rather than the complete removal of ages anyway.

[analog apex]

Name isnt really important. But a lot of people will consider that whatever this mode is, is the way to implement "Classic Mode" and the last chance Civ 7 has to redeem. I know me and several friends consider it

Antiquity is the most fun because Exploration was entirely designed around the forced Distant Land mechanic, which goes against the very concept of a sandbox game. Not to mention how incredibly Eurocentric such concept is, which is a big deal for most of the World that suffered Europe's "Exploration" consequences

Ages (with some kind of reset) will most likely continue and that is a problem, but if the civ switching problem is reduced and the ages impact is minimized, maybe the interruption and the immersion break is soft enough to be less of an issue. In my ideal World, Ages would just be informative, like it was in previous entries, with no reset of anything. But i dont see that happening in Civ 7

I still want to give the new entry of my favourite franchise a chance to be near the level of the previous entries

[white agate]

Assuming age transitions made as soft as possible, from what I've seen the issue which will be toughest to resolve in making a classic-feeling mode is the Tech-Gating. Not being able to research ahead of era has been an out-and-out red flag for some of the players in my MP group. More than Civ switching I think it's what's prevented us getting a consensus about moving over to Civ7.

While I like that it keeps everyone's militaries within roughly the same power band of each other - I think it makes military gameplay far more interesting... The player type who wants to get a tech/economic edge and stomp with more advanced units has kinda been thrown under the bus in Civ7.

[analog apex]

Yeah, thats a big issue, but that might be able to be solved. Detaching tech from Ages isnt impossible, the main problem from what i understand is that each Age transition kind of redraws the map, and i think that is the biggest limitation to remove Ages

Of course, even if they detach tech tree from Ages, some things that require certain resources wont be able to be built untill the Age change and the map is redraw

[unkempt sphinx]

An acceptable idea would be to allow future tech and future civic to progress the next ages tree.

This feature already exists for technology and civics. For example, peity can be unlocked with legacy points.

This could unlock a random tech or civic; or give the player a new token called something like unlock tech and unlock civic. This new token would give the player choice.

[white agate]

I guess it depends on what you find is the problem. If I'm putting myself in the shoes of the player type who wants to leverage a big tech lead, I suspect it'd still feel like you're in a straightjacket.

[fringe hemlock]

Idk, I find this is still basically achievable. Researching future tech actually does give you a tech boost in the next age. I suppose it’s not as extreme as like swordsmen vs planes but that’s it.

[white agate]

I'm coming at this from an unusual angle anyway in that I like the speedbrakes on tech, and I do think it is good for the millitary game - but for my forner Civ6 MP crowd, it's the #1 reason players give not to make the jump (Civ switching is a close 2nd). I think it's honestly shorthand for the player type who regards the snowball as the point of the game. While I'd also argue it's the Civ game with the worst snowballing yet, that snowballing looks very different (setting up your ageless infrastructure). It's far less obvious, and I agree with critics, that this also makes it less satisfying as a player. You can get just as big (or bigger) a lead as you could in Civ6, but it doesn't look like a lead.

[fringe hemlock]

the reset with each age does create a stumbling block for those who just want geometric growth. There could be ways to address that, like making the age switch not remove adjacencies and such. That should definitely just be an option though, not a change imposed across the board--it's hard to assess, but I kind of think the game balance still hasn't full caught up to the adjustments they made to the loss of yields on age transition. I kind of hope if "collapse mode" ever appears, it brings back the more dramatic loss of yields from launch. I understand why some players don't like the age reset, since it is a big setback that has nothing to do with how well or poorly you played, but to me it does help prevent the tedium that sometimes sets in when you're just running away with the game.

[white agate]

I get what you're saying. And I agree that Civ7's future is going to have to be the most customizable version of Civ to date if it's going to succeed.

I don't agree that the age system has helped with runaway games. The AI usually gets knocked back harder than the player by age resets, so making the reset more severe ends up accomplishing very little. I think if Firaxis really want to do this then they need to make resets asymmetrical rather than tinkering with severity (the AI gets less things reset than the player) but I imagine this was tried and probably felt horrible. Given human psychology and its dislike of things feeling unfair...

For me the biggest issue with the age system is that it becomes a reflection point where I ask "Do I want to continue" and 95% of the time my answer is no. I definitely end my games way sooner in 7 than I did in 6. Which is the opposite of what ages set out for. So I'd rather have smoother age transitions for that reason... If I'm not prompted to stop I'd probably play longer.

[unkempt sphinx]

It definitely depends on the person because I am the exact opposite of your experience. I have over 5000 hours of Civ 6 and roughly 700 hours of Civ 7. I have fully completed games (Antiquity through Modern) over 30 times in 7, but in 6, I think I fully completed about 5 games. I have actually fully completed more games in Civ 5 than Civ 6 and I only have around 300 hours of Civ 5.

Personally, I really like the Age system and think its doing exactly what it was designed to do, it just needs more balance passes and some gameplay rework for the Modern age and rework of the age transition. So many times when playing Civ 6, I found myself in the early modern age around tanks and just lose interest in continuing. I had all my fun in the early game settling and finding those juicy district spots. By the time I get all that done, its either I am winning or losing to a point that its obvious, so it made more sense to get end that session and start a new one because in the beginning is where I have had the most fun.

I am hoping that some real good comes from them working on this "classic" mode that 1) helps the community realize that age transitions were never the problem and 2) help the age transition process improve 100%.

[white agate]

For me, Civ7 is mostly just the antiquity age, and the age system really encourages me to quit early. But that's not everyone's experience, and I'm not trying to invalidate yours. Also I love Antiquity Civ7.

I do think the age system sounds great on paper, and not all the problems are with the ages themselves. Legacy paths are an especially big part of making the later ages have less replayability, and making later ages have less fun mechanics.

But the tension between wanting a reset versus players to have a sense of continuity is one which I think might not be fixable in a satisfying way. Firaxis might have picked an insurmountable hurdle here.

[fringe hemlock]

Yeah, I’m not saying you can’t effectively snowball, you totally can. It’s just a less tedious experience in 7 for various reasons, imo. Partly for the same reason that “a lead doesn’t feel like a lead,” I suppose

I’m also the opposite of you, I finish way more games in 7 than I did in 6. And the age system definitely entices me to play longer.

[white agate]

Snowballing is definitely different in Civ7. Getting your ageless infrastructure up doesn't feel the same as a previous civ game. So I can see why it appeals to different people.

I still enjoy it too, even though it feels more abstract, and rewards being your own Civilopedia. But at least in my experience, snowballing is way easier in 7 than in previous iterations. It definitely took longer to get ahead of the AI in 6 (at least on higher difficulties).

[fringe hemlock]

The single player game is easier in general I think. This is part of the reason why I’ve finished more games; in 6 if you were playing on deity, you could tell fairly early on if you stood a chance to win at all, or your strat could get disrupted in such a dramatic way that you needed/wanted to start over completely. The ease of 7 is partly a function of things like equalizing starts, reducing your chances to lose out on something completely (like founding a religion, great people, etc). On one hand I appreciate this, because I don’t think it’s fun to restart because you happened to miss a founder belief or whatever, but I think a higher single player challenge will be needed eventually. Multiplayer is an option ofc but I don’t always have the schedule flexibility for MP.

In terms of whether it’s an insurmountable challenge, I could be wrong but I think ultimately the no-switch mode will mostly serve as an enticement to try the game again. It will be the other improvements to the core experience that will actually get people to continue playing on whatever mode. Funnily my initial feelings about civ 6 were pretty negative, similar to those of some about 7; i played it once at launch, once when rise and fall released, and only actually preferred it to 5 after GS. I imagine others will have the same experience with 7 if they have an excuse to try it again and find the core game improved when they do

[deft portal]

One thing to note is that the AI starting bonuses are infinitely weaker than in 5/6. Deity AI in VI started with 3 settlers and a small army. In V, they have extra units plus a bunch of techs already unlocked.

The AI in VII has higher % modifiers, but otherwise starts on the same level as the player.

[white agate]

Once they had the tight settlement caps, I'm not sure the older way of buffing the AIs would have been as effective.

As for "insurmountable challenge", I probably phrased it poorly. There's a conflict between wanting players to carry things over so they feel like they have continuity, and wanting to reset players to have a more constant challenge. I worry that that goal of the age system just has a fundamental contradiction, and Firaxis can't have their cake and eat it. And it also leads to the questions of should curtailing snowballing be the goal? Previous games were fine with it in there, are the changes making its consequences worse (I'm thinking of civ switching locking content to less fun ages)? Do players really care about playing games to completion? (Though if I were a dev making content nobody played I'd consider that last one a bigger problem than I do as a player).

I guess I am gradually drifting closer towards wanting a classic mode the more Civ7 I play. The Devs' vision sounds great when you pitch it. It had good goals, and I still appreciate a lot of elements introduced (Civ7's early game is so good that I find myself unable to go back to Civ6). But I think a lot of features need to be seriously rethought if it's going to join the pantheon.

[paper radish]

I think this pov comes from a less experienced perspective. Civ 6, for example, has an insurmountable and trivializing snowball effect; if you pull ahead, unless you specifically do something to ruin your tempo, you will always stay ahead for the rest of the game. This makes it rather boring at times to play to completion, because you know youre going to win no matter what, and frustrating if you happen to play MP, because your enemies know theres no way theyre stopping you.

The age transitions I think undoubtedly were meant to address this issue, and are one of the key things that makes civ 7 unique. Obviously, its not going to jive well with people who want a massive snowball, but no solution will make everybody happy. Personally, I rather enjoy the soft reset of the ages, as I think it gives you smaller goals to achieve throughout the points in the game that culminate in helping you eventually reach your end goal.

[white agate]

I think you've misunderstood my point... I agree Civ6 on deity isn't a challenge once you learn to snowball. Honestly, every Civ game to date has had a huge snowballing effect (I'd go one step further and say it's every 4X game). Said as someone whose first game was the OG Civ.

Civ7 however, has made it a problem through the age system. Previous snowballing wasn't an issue because you didn't miss out on anything by stopping early. Civ7's design set out to try and stop snowballing, but they also dramatically raised the stakes on how much worse it would be if you failed to make the late game interesting by locking content to the end game, and structuring the game around trying to nudge you into finishing.

So if Civ7 had a good late game I wouldn't be complaining as much, but modern is still a single-minded, disconnected, drudge... Even while antiquity is probably the best early game that civ has seen. I genuinely think previous Civs did the victory conditions better as at least they felt connected to what you were doing up until that point.

[paper radish]

Having an uninteresting late game I think I can agree on, but thats a separate issue, and one that was not present in the specific comments I responded to (I have not generally been reading the entire conversation to date). I was specifically responding to snowball mechanics, and I do praise the way that civ 7 generally handles it, and it is not something I would want to see changed.

Aside from that, I think having an uninteresting win condition/late game/modern era is actually almost entirely separate from that discussion, and could be handled entirely on its own without having to touch era transitions (or even better, use the era transition mechanice to fix it)

[white agate]

In my experience the snowball is faster and harder in 7 than in previous Civs. I don't think it's ever been this simple to win games on deity. I understand what the devs tried to do, and if I were a dev I'd be quite annoyed about making late-game content people never play. But there's been a lot of unintended consequences of the design decisions and I question whether firmly demarcated ages were a good idea in the first place.

As for whether it's separate to the discussion, I think the state of the late game is what has pushed me towards thinking a classic mode is needed. I've gone from being generally supportive of the Devs' visions, to spotting the flaws, to thinking they need to step back and make major changes. If you design a game to based around three acts, you need to make each act equally good. The conflict between players carrying stuff over, wanting a reset each age, and a large proportion of the playerbase hating losing progress is to me the main culprit, and seems like a fundamental dilemma in Civ7's design. Since each age is either ok or pretty good when played separately (advanced starts), it seems like the transition/snowball is the issue. And since no 4X game (that I know of) has managed to fix the endgame problem, I really wouldn't bet on Firaxis being the first ones (especially not while under pressure from time, publicity, the community, and presumably 2K).

That said, locking civs to an uninteresting endgame is the most egregious consequence - and I'm glad Firaxis are going to walk that back - hopefully in a way that makes for an interesting mechanical choice. But after that, I'm still left wondering if it's still possible to make the age system actually work.

I adore how Civ7 starts - Antiquity is amazing enough that I can't go back to Civ6. But Modern and exploration are so bad that it's a struggle to get behind the age system.

[main rapids]

Why do you think the POV is less experienced? Because it differs from your own? Did you feel the need to point this out to prove your argument?
Every day I listen to people in the general chat talk about how they don't play the Modern Age, because the game has already been decided by Exploration (sometimes by Antiquity). So snowballing still seems to exist. Has it gotten better in Civ 7? How would you measure that?
I think the problem is thinking that not finishing the game is a problem. What difference does it make if you are enjoying the game?
I also think it's a problem to assume that because people want classic mode, that they don't like the current system because they can't snowball as much. Most of the reasons I have heard is one of identity. They want to play as one civ and prove they can last through the ages.
From day 1, people on this thread have been asking for a "mode". They want to play the game as one civ, beginning to end, without a reset of the ages. But they are asking for a mode, not to change the game for all players. People who enjoy Civ switching and the Ages system will still have that.

[white agate]

For sure there's an emotional element too for ages and civ switching. And arguably that's harder for Firaxis to get around than mechanical issues. And I'd rather us not try to gatekeep each other on "who's the most experienced" - I tried not to rise to the previous comment - ultimately it's just gonna make us look old.

[main rapids]

You took the high road and I took the low road. But I feel strongly that everyone's viewpoint is valid, I'll continue to defend that.
In hindsight, I probably should have used a DM though.

[paper radish]

Indeed.

[slate orbit]

I just wanna take the “three acts” kinda thing from your text and expand on it: In school we learnt about the basic structure of story telling using the picture of a comic mouse (see attached image). The tension of each story should find its climax at the end of the Middle Part, the “Main part”, with the Introduction setting the tension and allowing it to grow its trajectory and with the ending absolving the tension completely, finishing the story.

In Civ7, the mouse looks kinda… reversed. Antiquity starts off extremely well compared to the other two ages, with the climax of the story either happening around the end of Antiquity or Early-Mid Exploration (the higher the difficulty, the later the “climax” in my experience). However, it is really rare to see any climax situations in Modern. This usual tipping point is where I won’t feel any sense of competition anymore, which robs me of any motivation to continue. The hero saved the princess, the empire survived, the dragon has been slain. As such, I skip modern most of the time.

It is really clear to see that they wanted that kind of mouse-story in each age which also works to a certain degree. However, it does not work for the entire play of all three acts. And as long as they are not able to create mechanics that allow us to create a mouse-story for the entire play-through, players will feel both disconnected from their empires and end games before reaching Explo.

[paper radish]

Addressing your not personal points, in general my opinion on it hasnt changed since the day this thread was conceived; people desire a redesign of the game so they can play it how they want to play it. Edit: And I mean redesign quite literally, as the game is "balanced" around age transitions and civ switching, some combinations were not meant to be possible at all together. I consider this a bit selfish/silly, as theyre asking for what is essentially a different game than the one that they got.

There are definitely balance issues and things to adjust with the way things are right now, but in my view they should be things that are adjusted to the scope of what we currently have available now, instead of changing it to be more similar to past iterations. Change isnt always bad, and I would like the different iterations to be distinct from each other, not similar and reskinned.

[white agate]

My first thought was that Civ7's ages do kinda follow the trajectory of the matrix trilogy. I like your analogy better, and think it definitely does hit the point well 🙂

[paper radish]

I love the usage of a diagram to help explain your point but I cant read its language

[main rapids]

Selfish, is telling people they can't have the changes they want because it might have an impact on a game they happen to enjoy.

[paper radish]

Lets not ignore the rest of what I wrote in what you responded to in order to focus on this one word, but yes, I would consider it selfish: a relatively small portion of the community wants a game mode that would require a complete rebalance of all the current civs and leaders in game, if not also including different game mechanics, techs and buildings. Its not as small of a QOL casual players might think it is, it would more or less be releasing a 2nd version of the game, and I dont think that its realistic to expect or even a worthwhile to consider. The game was made to function the way it does now, and yeah unfortunately it may not cater to every person's playstyle or desires, but you wouldnt ask game devs to remake their game on any other popular title simply because some people dont like it

edit: spelling/punctuation

[main rapids]

Well it would seem slow mode doesn't apply to all of us here on the chat....
What the change requires is irrelevant. This is the Feedback channel and people should provide feedback. If they want something, they should ask for it. It's up to the devs to decide what is feasible and what is not.
So far, you have said others are inexperienced, selfish, and now "part of a relatively small portion of the community". How do you know they're a small community? Is that meant to imply that the devs shouldn't listen to what they want?
Would you please, find a way to express your opinion without being insulting?

[white agate]

Is this a balance issue though, or is there a fundamental conflict in Civ7's design ethos?

The reset vs continuity dichotomy seems really thorny to fix. Firaxis want enough stuff carried over that it feels like you're playing a continuiation of the same game, but once you play to that it turbocharges snowballing and you fatally undermine the other design goals of the age system. The only solution I can think of is having the reset affect AI and players differently, but given how much humans hate unfairness I suspect that this would not go down well.

I started off generally supportive of the age system, the intention is clear and the goals laudable. But I don't think it's struggling with balance issues. I think what Firaxis are trying to do with it has a contradiction at its core that I doubt is going to get fixed.

So, not coming from a selfish point of view I hope. I want Civ7 to be the best game it can. The devs got a lot of stuff incredibly right - towns/cities, leader/civ mixing, commanders and no builders in particular are all amazing - but I don't see the game hitting its peak without questioning whether some core mechanics work (age resets in particular, but I'll also throw legacy paths in there for making railroading into a worse problem), and whether some design goals were misguided (especially getting everyone to play the late game)

[paper radish]

Yes, slow mode doesnt apply to moderators

Im not causing conflict, being insulting, using bad language, or are otherwise belittling others, and I dont appreciate you attempting to make me out to be doing so, so please stop the personal attacks and keep it on topic. Im simply expressing a dissenting point of view than the one that is currently being discussed.

[paper radish]

I see your position more clearly now, and I think that your concerns and mine are probably more in line than I had initially thought (and fwiw I do not consider your pov specifically selfish). However, I dont really think adding a secondary mode of play would also fix the core issues that we are presenting here, in fact, I think it would do the opposite, by adding 2x the amount of things to consider when balancing, as well as trying to introduce any new content/mechanics that would need to somehow consider 2 very different modes of play.

To address your first point, I agree that it was commendable as a first attempt of fixing snowball play. I think they need to keep pursuing that direction instead of giving up on it, though through which avenues even I couldnt begin to speculate. My best suggestion would be to fix certain other areas of play (i.e. more interesting win cons/modern era), and maybe that will clear some clutter to reveal a more straightforward fix to any issues with ages some people might have.

[white agate]

The difference does seem to be centered on levels of pessimism. I haven't had a solution suggested (and can't think of one myself) which I can see fixing the snowballing issue. It does seem like a fundamental dilemma to me in Civ7's design. That puts me in the camp of it being better to admit "defeat" in the name of making a better Civ7

[fringe hemlock]

just want to say that exploration is my favorite age. I do not think the perception that everything after antiquity is just awful is shared by all, I doubt even everyone who dislikes the age resets would agree on that

[white agate]

Exploration is definitely not as bad as modern. The legacy paths are just as big an issue as snowballing for me (you're pushed to play every game the same, and the paths are crazily easy, while the AI struggles). But snowballing definitely means you know how exploration will play out before it starts. The early 1/2 of exploration is still interesting, and I'd probably play it more often if the age transition didn't act as a prompt to stop.

I always find myaelf asking "Do I really want to play exploration if I already know the outcome, the play pattern is repetitive, and I'll have to go through setup again?" The game has to be pretty different for me to say yes

[paper radish]

I think the issue youre describing here is playing to the meta or not, which is not really related to the age system. I think the same things you said here could also be said of antiquity; aside from maybe war or wonder civs, you really play through most of antiquity the same way.

This wont be changed even if the age system were removed. You would still have simply The Best Strategy, which would apply to most civs and most game plans. Choosing to deviate from that is the creative part of the game and probably what keeps most people playing for awhile after their introduction to the game.

I tend to agree that the legacy paths could use some tweaking, but I dont think Id want to see them removed either, as I think especially for newer players, it helps set a guiding focus as to what your gameplan should be and gives civs different ways to focus on being relevant (i.e. not everybody goes all in for science)

[white agate]

I've seen this argument a few times. The legacy paths contribute to age progression, and legacy points so it isn't really possible to ignore them unless you turn them off. I do really like Civ7 with legacy paths turned off, though pacing goes quite wrong without abbreviated ages. It definitely improves exploration in particular a lot.

I do think legacy paths are one of the more salvageable mechanics though. The key I think will be to make the paths dynamic in some way. If they are the same every time and you just pick from a selection they'll get stale again quickly.

[analog apex]

We are asking for a different game than the one we got because we are asking for a Civlization game, not a Humankind one. We are asking for things that have been core for the franchise for over 3 decades, things that made the franchise what it is now. And we got a shallow copy of a less successful franchise that cant even begin to scratch the shadow of what Civilization is

About Ages, i think they were a complete failure. They failed to solve the issues they came to solve and introduced new problems

About snowballing, that doesnt need to be fixed. If you played so much better than the enemy during over half the game, you should be ahead and impossible to catch up unless you screw up. That is how the game should behave, otherwise you would be punished for playing well early

About exploration, if you like or dislike it will depend 100% on if you like or dislike the Distant Land mechanic, since the entire Age was designed around it. An Eurocentric view of history that was used to design the game around it

[trim echo]

idk I've seen your comments throughout this thread for a while now and I think you just dont vibe w/ this instillation, and then are using your grievances to speak with generalisation. There's nothing wrong with not liking an entry, if anything that's to be expected if the "30/30/30%" development style is to be considered. I just think it's a little strange to be asking for a completely different game than the one delivered, like, the previous titles are still there? They're still fun? It's not like firaxis ripped them from your steam account or anything.

Also, I'm not saying there's NOTHING wrong w/ civ7 and it shouldnt be improved- a lot does need to be. But there's no reason to throw the baby out w/ the bathwater

[analog apex]

We know old titles are still there, and we are playing them, thats why Civ 7 cant even reach Civ 5 numbers, let alone Civ 6. It happens because a lot of us decided to play those over the new entry

For any other franchise, that would be a clear indication of how much the new entry failed. Now, Civilization is special, and we know sometimes it takes time to surpass the previous entry, but the previous previous one? That's new

Is it necessary to throw the baby? Thats irrelevant because it wont happen. The question is, how much change it needs and how much change is POSSIBLE. This whole discussion is to try to help Devs find out how much change it needs. How much is possible is something only them can know

At this point, even the Devs realize that forcing players to change civs was a mistake. Now, what is the best version of single civ gameplay that can be introduced? We need to try to find that out

[trim echo]

Yeah of course more people would be playing a fully finished game with years of DLC and mods that often goes on sale instead of one that just came out a year ago in an arguably unfished state with questionable pricing for DLCs...? Especially in this economy? Not to mention the inane "controversies" surrounding some of the leaders. I dont think that's indication of a "mistake" in design though, don't be ridiculous- civ games have always been a slow burn

[slate orbit]

I also liked to use this argument of “if you don’t like it, you can always go back to another game that you like”, but I have been thinking that this does not address the core of players’ negative opinion about Civ7’s age system. At this point, I think it is a 50/50 situation, one part emotional, one part revolving principle. If a game series sets up a distinct character with distinct mechanics, it is to be expected that the next game won’t change the former too much with improvements and additions on the latter but still in frame of the former. Civ7 holds its distinct character, but not without a fundamental change through various new additions to the mechanics. This can definitely cause a divide in the player base and the before-mentioned numbers are proof of such. I couldn’t care less, personally speaking. However, for everyone trying to make this game the most successful (financially), this is very important. And last but not least, it might become tedious to read such comments, but in the end, it is player feedback and worth to mention consistently just as much as any other kind of criticism that the devs fail to address.

[trim echo]

Perhaps there may have been some misunderstanding. I'm not coming at this from any angle of concern or lack-there-of towards any larger general player base that holds negative opinion towards this title. I haven't interacted with them, I don't know them, their full opinions, their wishes or their dreams. They're all free to their own concerns and opinions, and really, that's both cool and fine. I know the ages system isn't popular, but I feel confident it's the systems surrounding and interacting with the ages that causes friction rather than the ages themselves. I'm actually replying to crashdummy specifically, who for the last 6 months has ONLY participated in this feedback thread and continuously called the game "a failure" that isnt "even a civilization game", wanting the game to basically be remade from scratch.

My point is to let it run it's course. They were saying these things 6 months after it was released! There's wanting a mode for whatever reason and then there's calling the game a failure that needs to be remade/move on to civ8 without an actual proper shot. If you want to call me a bootlicker, wtvr idc, I just want to see an actual difference in my sequels than "fanbase's favourite thing, again". And if needs be, I'm OK with a classic mode! That's fine!

Maybe it's how uncompromising I've seen them be that's annoyed me to this point, that there's no other option than a full rework and seemingly nothing short will be sufficient. Maybe it's their use of the "royal we" time and time again. Maybe it just reminds me too much of a story an author had told me about people begging them to publish their works on random sites/apps, and after a long and tedious process, didn't see any sales from those people. I get things are different with a franchise of this scale- don't get me wrong, it's just a vibe ig.

Maybe I'm not making any sense at all, and I've seen windmills where there are none. I'll gladly be corrected. Mods are free to slap me as they see fit.

[slate orbit]

I totally get your point and I didn’t mean to make you seem or feel neglectful of the opinion of others. I understand how frustrating such discussions can be, especially if perspectives are just too different.

I attempted to move the topic to another dimension, at which - ignoring the emotionality, perception and biases - we could come to the understanding that change is necessary to grab more players from the overall civ player base. I wholeheartedly agree with your notion that the age system itself isn’t that big of a problem, but then again, there are players who stop playing after encountering the age system for the first time. We can dissect this - to some quite ignorant - decision all we want, but in the big picture, it just does not matter that much. As such, a “classic” mode is necessary from that point of view. I don’t need it and many others won’t as well, but it will allow many others to give the game a chance and maybe even convince them of the age system which hopefully improved by that point.

Again, I didn’t mean to picture you as ignorant or shortsighted or bootlicking, that was not my intention and I apologize for making you feel that way. Also, your notions make a lot of sense, it’s just that saying A being correct does not mean B is not correct.

[trim echo]

You're fine mate, you haven't insulted me or caused me grief. I see where I might've gone a bit off, and I didnt mean to assume you would call me anything of poor spirits, that was a pre-emptive defence to others. Sorry if that caused you a bit of grief in return. I think seeing 6mon or so of "game is a failure" pushed me to a certain limit of reasonable discussion. If anything, I'm rather perplexed someone would spend so much time dedicated to that specific narrative[not sure if right word] - it almost feels a bit reactionary, if that makes sense? @analog apex if you want to explain more your view, I'd be happy to hear. Really, I'm glad to be wrong. Yes, there is a point for dissection and exploring everyone's opinions, I mean, that's kinda what this and all feedback threads are for.

At the end of the day, I think we totally agree on what we can call the necessity of classic mode- I've made similar conclusions and concessions myself. I'm looking forward to the dev's implementation and interpretation of it, alongside everything else planned for this game- it'll be exciting to see where it ends up

[analog apex]

I only reply to this discussion because i am NOT playing the game because of age transitions and civ switching and i am respecfull of those that are and are interacting in the other discussion channels. I will not go to other channels to contaminate the discussion they are having

We keep talking about it because its a franchise we have been playing for 30 years and its valuable feedback for the Devs to understand what they did wrong and why the game is failing (and yes, it is failing). And Devs seems like they found some truth in what we have been talking this last year, because after SEVERAL MONTHS of trying to fix the base game, they understood deeper changes were necessary and they are making some kind of mode, within the possibilities of how badly the base game was designed locking everything to 3 minigames that cant be avoided, that tries to bring back some of the franchise roots

[simple forum]

wait looking at the argument
what if the strategy was not to make a classic mode (which would throw out a lot of the balance of the game, as well as just removing a huge part of civ7) but making the transitions smoother

[analog apex]

Transitions smoother is, from the conclusions we made during these months, kind of the only thing that can be done with Ages in Civ 7 because of how the game is made. Apparently when you change from one Age to another, the game is rebuilt. The new Age is like a completely new game with the same basic map and city positions, or thats kind of how they explained to me

But then you have the forced civ switching problem, and many smalled details

A complete Classic Mode is very likely impossible

[trim echo]

Look, I can see you're passionate about civ and want the best for it, especially if you've personally been playing for 30yrs now. Also, its great to see you're respecting others that do enjoy 7 in its current state. I think my earlier confusion stemmed primarily from that passion and I hadn't seen you talk in threads if you had other issues with 7 (which would be fine) or even the previous titles- to me it seemed rather bizzare there was such fixation of a "classic mode". I think really though, calling a game "a failure" may be a bit strong, if not hyperbolic- especially after such short timeframe (though yes now its been a year ), and its also not something we can or should make the call on either. Firaxis may have had a development plan for the next 5 yrs or were getting told to shelve it by execs- we don't know, and ultimately it doesn't say anything about how you feel about the game and what/why it needs/should be changed.

To add to your most recent comment, afaik that is correct. And really, I hope the friction currently found in transitions, legacy paths, and the rest of the game gets smoothed out for everyone's sake

[simple forum]

actually i feel a "classic mode" could be done by just having a simple change to the game-upon reaching 100% age completion, you aren't forced to switch, but other changes happen:

crises do not stop, but the option to switch civs will be open (with crises ending when you switch, and currently buildable buildings being outdated and stuff), and the technology/civic tree will switch to the next age

afterwards, there will be an additional counter to 120% age progression (separate from the next age's age progression), that is also not increased by any other means other than turns
so you can use a little bit of the previous age's science and culture to get progress on science/civics in the next age, as well as gain progress on nearly finished legacy paths (or, say, squeeze the most of what you can out of religion while modern civs have no way to stop you), but you still have to face the crisis (which is still at maximum intensity), and, if you are at war, you still have to use outdated units (say 50 combat strength lancers versus 55 combat strength curiassiers (i hope i did not spell that wrong), and you might not get the civ you want if you delay

of course, some might argue that its ahistorical, but really - civ is just a game, the same leader leading a civ for 4000 years straight is ahistorical alright, and it really does smoothen things out (since its not as abrupt as the current system with you having the chance of choosing your path forward, keeps the idea of civ switching which is one of the 30% new things of civ7, and really makes the game more cohesive)

and also theres the problem with the ai being too incapable of deciding when they should switch/if they should switch. i accept that this will be a problem that requires great effort to fix, and i would love to see what the people over at firaxis could make for them

[white agate]

7 has a lot of new features. Leader/Civ mixing, Commanders, towns/cities, no builders... These are so good I personally can't go back to 6. It's definitely possible to dislike the flashiest changes (ages, civ switching, legacy paths) and still be playing the game. Telling people to go back to a previous game and stop complaining is ignoring that nuance.

For me, I rarely play past antiquity. Ages, legacy paths and civ switching are so intertwined that problems with one have knock on effects along the others. It's hard to tell whether snowballing, railroaded legacy paths, emotional response to Civ switching, lackluster modern era, crises, pacing issues or something else is the "biggest" problem, because of how interconnected they all are. Hence my hope that we keep on getting closer to classic modes. I doubt any developer could get this tightrope balanced.

[gaunt temple]

If it makes any difference, I'm also of the belief that age transitions themselves are the issue. Playing as 3 cultures in a playthrough is merely a slice of the problem.

This comes from somebody that loves the whole idea of history in layers and that entire thing.

The devs did end up putting in a ton of bandaids to make the age transition better from a gameplay perspective but none of them actually fix the underlying issue. I fear there just isn't a fix without making the age transition trivial.

The game being divided into ages gave me hope that it would make the mid to late game more interesting. Which (so far) it hasn't really done. It did fix some problems such as early game unique units/buildings being hugely superior over late game unique units/buildings. But those small victories do not offset the problems that age transitions bring. 🙁

[analog apex]

Crises are part of the problem. They are just an excuse to enable Civ Switching. Centering Classic Mode around them is a bad idea, plus, they should still be optional and be able to disable them in Classic Mode like you can now

So no, as one of the people that want Classic Mode, that would go against what i desire. I want to go back to the sandbox feeling, and that means getting as few of these things as possible

[patent olive]

in a week we will have something in hand to talk about

this will hopefully force these very abstract discussions to be a little more concrete & gameplay related

[slate orbit]

Agreed, I am sketching up a set of ideas that are gameplay related. It is definitely difficult to come up with a great solution, but regardless of how much will be changed or how classic mode will look like, the normal mode also needs reworks regarding the legacy path (also win conditions), crisis and AI efficiency

[white agate]

With Crises as an optional mode it seems now very difficult to make them a central plank of the design. FWIW I find they usually hurt the AI more than the player, so their utility as an equalizer/reset will be undermined unless they hit the AI more softly... But I suspect players would hate that.

[analog apex]

Yeah, once we get a possible implementation to give feedback around it will make the discussion more concrete, for good or bad. I hope Firaxis can come up with stuff that will bring me back to a franchise that molded my gaming experience in my life

I dont think i will get exactly what i want, but i hope i can get enough for me to feel good about the game or even somethign better than what i wanted

[fossil burrow]

Not here you won’t

All must stay in the workshop 😁

[fossil burrow]

The workshop will have plenty of that don’t worry.

[fossil burrow]

Correct.

There will be future sign ups available however

But we’re not sure if it will be for this topic or not. It’s really popular 👀

I’m gonna dm you and delete that ok 🤭

[gaunt temple]

Secret messages 👀

[analog apex]

nah, it was a question about the workshop which doesnt belong here

[gaunt temple]

hehe I assumed as much

[merry ether]

I see 152 vs 49 for this topic

[fossil burrow]

I see you have the gift of sight

[merry ether]

Yeah, it's a shame that developers don't have the same gift and are wasting time on a feature that is anything but popular and necessary.

[gaunt temple]

I think it's actually not enough, to me the whole age transition should go (or at least smooth'd out). Not that I have high hopes for that happening

[fossil burrow]

Ages are remaining - we know that much ^^

As for popularity of the concept, it’s likely far more popular and more unpopular than this post shows. If it brings people in it’s worth it

[unkempt flicker]

@analog apex You happy? You got your mode.

[turbid sinew]

considering that it's optional (so you don't have to do it if you don't want), and it's likely to get more people to buy it who are put off with the switching nonsense, I'd say it's a wholly worthwhile feature

[dry depot]

guys. This is not the place to complain that a feature is being added. ESPECIALLY before you've even tried it

[fossil burrow]

@amber spruce please be polite - as sloth said - try it ^^ (As a lover of civ switching I’m really impressed at how good it feels - and switching is still there and feels even better now)

[worthy forge]

Genuinely this is going to give the game so much more life and replayability. With all the options to choose from, you can really play how you want to without having to be forced into one play style or the other.

Literally everyone should be happy over this feature, as everyone wins whether you like Civ switching or not.

Just an amazing update over all and I can't wait to play it!

[vocal solar]

To the multiple users who aren’t looking at post dates before replying: this is a suggestion thread from release. It’s many months old. EasyReader3648 bumped it as a cheeky “congratulations” for a long-requested feature.

[hot gyro]

The game had more pressing issues at launch

Especially the food rework

[amber spruce]

But people whining and yelling at others for enjoying the game and Civ switching was fine? People need to grow up and read a history book.

But yes I will gladly try it given the chance.

[fossil burrow]

If they broke the rules they were warned as well.

[amber spruce]

If they were warned I didn’t see it.

[fossil burrow]

Well you don’t see everything that happens ^^

[analog apex]

Not completely to be honest. I was expecting to be able to select the option to play as one Civ before entering a game so i could save on immmersion breaking selection screens, but instead we get one extra one

I do think Test of Time will make the game better and i am happy but i am not completely satisfied

[sick horizon]

This is a different game. What’s the point in making civ 7 exactly like civ 6? We already have civ 6

[fossil burrow]

We're not doing the back and forth thing again folks.

So don't start it please.

[frigid raptor]

Ok after seeing what the spring update has in store I take it back I think they're doing a "single civ mode" correctly in a way that isn't discontinuous with what's come before. I'm actually very excited to see it.

[snow tulip]

I didn't end up having time to participate in the workshop so I've been blind to this, just read the anniversary update post. It's certainly interesting, I'll see how I feel when I get my hands on it. I like the triumphs system

[snow tulip]

Oh I did get access, I just got diverted by playing riftbound and didn't have time lol

[fossil burrow]

Yeah that’s not the case at all. Theres alot of players in there ^^

[gaunt temple]

Sar? Yeah this guy right here 👆
Holy moly 10 minute slowmo

[carmine pulsar]

They were looking for lots of different types of players, but one of the main things was they were looking for players who could give good detailed constructive feedback (both positive and negative). If you applied (e.g. see the old announcement post #official-news message) and didn't get into round 1, make sure to try again next round (not announced yet), and take time to leave honest thoughtful answers in your application (that's how they decided who would be be able to give detailed feedback).

E.g. not "I don't like blah", but "I don't like blah because ..."

[dusky veldt]

Please, Civilization VII development team, make this at least an option.

[carmine pulsar]

see this official post from Firaxis from early Februrary:
https://civilization.2k.com/civ-vii/news/anniversary/
specifically

• section "Introducing the "Test of Time" Update"
  • subsection "Playing as the Same Civ Through All the Ages"

[dusky veldt]

Ah, it's because I really wanted to ask the Civ VII development team to at least offer an option for a game mode with a single technology tree containing all technologies, and where no military units automatically evolve during the game, leaving their evolution entirely up to the player and the AI.

[carmine pulsar]

this feedback post is primarily focused on picking one civ and staying that same civ through all ages, i.e. not civ-switching

your suggestion would probably belong in other feedback post(s), for example:

• single long tech/civic trees: https://discord.com/channels/1307104947426295818/1470078563754577931
• units (not) auto upgrade: https://discord.com/channels/1307104947426295818/1447578068645576899 or
  https://discord.com/channels/1307104947426295818/1388247326182604870

[dusky veldt]

Oh, I didn't know that. I was thinking that the "Classic Mode" mentioned in that feedback referred to a mode with those two elements as a game format. Thanks for the redirection.

[plush geode]

I think this could work as an optional feature that remains fully compatible with the existing Age system. For example, if a civilization fully completes its technology and civic trees during the Exploration Age, it could unlock to transition into the Modern Age early. This would trigger a separate loading screen for that civilization, allowing it to access Modern technologies and units while the rest of the world remains in the Exploration Age.
The global Age system would still continue as normal. Once the overall Age progression is complete, all remaining civilizations would transition to the Modern Age together.
This way, the world timeline stays shared, but advanced civilizations can move ahead and shape the pace of history instead of waiting for everyone else.

[gentle fable]

Is not one of the reasons why we do not have a classic mode (one complete tech tree) is to try to evade that asset limit issue? Basically, a big part of it, I think is performance issues? But I would hope that with this new engine that they would have addressed issues like that, because that was certainly a pain with Civilization 6, especially with mods the asset limit.

[carmine pulsar]

The term you're looking for is "spaghetti code."
The term you used is not actually a term, and is racist.

I'm deleting your post for that reason, however aside from that term, your post provided relevant contribution to the discussion. I'll be DMing you a copy of your post so you can edit, and I hope that you repost it using respectful language.

[fossil burrow]

WELL

THANK GOD

we can finally close this beast of a thread

@brisk elm 🥰

[trim echo]

No kidding eh

[fossil burrow]

It’s been mostly a privilege 😂

[brisk elm]

We believe this feedback has been addressed in our latest 1.4.0 Test of Time update, detailed here: https://civilization.2k.com/civ-vii/game-update-notes/. As a result, we are locking this thread. Should you feel this resolution was overlooked or your feedback remains unresolved, please feel free to open a new thread, adhering to our feedback guidelines. We deeply appreciate your patience, dedication, and contributions to fostering this wonderful community! 🧡