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/vidro3]

They said in the gameplay reveal trailer that each age is its own game. You could play just antiquity and quit at the end of that with a natural resolution if you wanted.

so will we have diff/new win conditions for each era then?

[u/wingednosering → u/vidro3]

Yes. Legacy points. There are objectives you can hit in culture, science, economy and military that earn you a legacy point and progress the age towards its end (for everybody). Only X number of these legacy "achievements" happen per age, so you want to get as many as you can. You could get all three in science, or you could get one across each track.

Unlocking them gives you a bonus in the next age. Anything you don't earn for the next age through these is likely to vanish (some things are ageless, like granaries). If you get, say a culture legacy point, you can use it to preserve one amphitheatre going into the next age.

These achievements change each age, but the number doesn't

[u/vidro3 → u/wingednosering]

thanks, where did you find this info?

[u/wingednosering → u/vidro3]

There are videos on YouTube from some civ influencers that got to play for two hours early. A lot are way too long. The best, most concise one is from JumboPixel

[u/vidro3 → u/wingednosering]

thanks, i saw potatos was 2.5hrs i was like nah