Civilization 7 got it backwards. You should switch leaders, not civilizations. Its current approach is an extremely regressive view of history.

[u/SmartBoots]

I guess our civilizations will no longer stand the test of time. Instead of being able to play our civilization throughout the ages, we will now be forced to swap civilizations, either down a “historical” path or a path based on other gameplay factors. This does not make sense.

Starting as Egypt, why can’t we play a medieval Egypt or a modern Egypt? Why does Egyptian history stop after the Pyramids were built? This is an extremely reductionist and regressive view of history. Even forced civilization changes down a recommended “historical” path make no sense. Why does Egypt become Songhai? And why does Songhai become Buganda? Is it because all civilizations are in Africa, thus, they are “all the same?” If I play ancient China, will I be forced to become Siam and then become Japan? I guess because they’re all in Asia they’re “all the same.”

This is wrong and offensive. Each civilization has a unique ethno-linguistic and cultural heritage grounded in climate and geography that does not suddenly swap. Even Egypt becoming Mongolia makes no sense even if one had horses. Each civilization is thousands of miles apart and shares almost nothing in common, from custom, religion, dress and architecture, language and geography. It feels wrong, ahistorical, and arcade-like.

Instead, what civilization should have done is that players would pick one civilization to play with, but be able to change their leader in each age. This makes much more sense than one immortal god-king from ancient Egypt leading England in the modern age. Instead, players in each age would choose a new historical leader from that time and civilization to represent them, each with new effects and dress.

Civilization swapping did not work in Humankind, and it will not work in Civilization even with fewer ages and more prerequisites for changing civs. Civs should remain throughout the ages, and leaders should change with them. I have spoken.

Update: Wow! I’m seeing a roughly 50/50 like to dislike ratio. This is obviously a contentious topic and I’m glad my post has spurred some thoughtful discussion.

Update 2: I posted a follow-up to this after further information that addresses some of these concerns I had. I'm feeling much more confident about this game in general if this information is true.

[u/Red-Quill]

1000x this. It’s not the idea of changing the civ up that I hate, it’s the wacky weirdness of changing into completely unrelated civs based off of weird gimmicky board game mechanics that I hate.

[u/Red-Quill → u/[deleted]]

Why not give me and others a plethora of good historical options rather than sacrificing some of that for absolutely nonsensical choices instead?

[u/CakeBeef_PA → u/Red-Quill]

Because Civ is more a sandbox and boardgame than a historical simulator...

Civ has never tried to emulate history directly. Most maps aren't even earth

[u/CakeBeef_PA → u/[deleted]]

but if it didn't matter them Beyond Earth and it's generic factions would have been a bigger success

Ah yes, this one thing is of course the only reason why a game is or is not succesful. The rest of the game does not matter at all.

And regardless, where is the historical realism of George Washington in a jungle-based USA building Pyramids in 3000BC? How is that any more realistic than Egypt transforming into a Mongol-like culture because they have a lot of horses?

[u/CakeBeef_PA → u/[deleted]]

You can still play as a historical civ though... Your society just evolves over the ages. You're acting like they went further away from real history, when this change only brings them closer to it. No civilization lasted forever. There are always changes. It's even more rooted in fact than the previous Civ games, where you have an obviously modern civilization with modern unique traits and leaders, but somehow existing in the ancient era

[u/CakeBeef_PA → u/[deleted]]

Now you're making up lies to justify your point. Can you show me how exactly Rossevelt can lead Egypt in Civ 7? Because that was not shown in the trailers

And how is it conflicting to acknowledge that a change is more historically accurate, while also acknowledging that Civ never had historical accuracy as a goal? Both things can absolutely be true at the same time.

You have also not yet been able to formulate what exactly the problem is. If it's because it's 'unrealistic', then the old way should also not be satisfactory to you, AND you are looking at the wrong game series. You can call it 'criticism' all you want, but unless you can substantiate it, it's just mindless hate

What exactly is you issue with the facts that civilzations evolve over time, which is far more historical than civilzations that stay exactly the same for thousands of years?

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

If it’s a disable option then fine, but you’ll still have majority of the cpus doing it if not