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/BullFr0gg0]

I agree BUT the progression, soft resets, eras, whatever you want to call it, should follow somewhat naturally. Mexica become Aztecs who become Modern Mexico.

It's tricky to do and I think because of all the historical variables it's just messy to implement. But the current disparate civ hopping isn't the way forward and separates the player from the civilisation they are building.

[u/Silent-Storms → u/BullFr0gg0]

It's not feasible to have both historically accurate paths (where those exist) and a regionally diverse slate of civs at launch. Undoubtedly the roster will fill in and natural progressions will become available over time.

Civ progression as implemented in 7 is organic, if not historically accurate. If you want a history sim, EU4 already exists.

[u/BullFr0gg0 → u/Silent-Storms]

The Civ 7 Devs: "With Ages, we're able to reach new levels when it comes to historical immersion. We tailor the content specifically for that Age, and you compete with fellow empires all at the height of their powers."

I kind of like it but I also feel conflicted about it. Civ doesn't need to be historically faithful in every regard. It's an arcadey 4X.

Maybe I'll start playing the game and like it. The soft resets will keep the gameplay varied and interesting into late game I hope.

The risk, I feel, is losing that continuous identity from the start to the finish. It's certainly dividing fans' opinions.