Buy it? So your forced to switch cultures?

[Lord von Games]

I have always loved Civilization and 4x games. The joy of picking a culture, and building it from the stone-age up has always been great fun. Of course I have my favorite civs, based heavily on my RL experiences and fields of study.

Have I read the reviews right? When the eras change am I forced to abandon my favorite civ and pick another, and rinse and repeat, until I'm suffering with a lack of cultural identity and anthropological multiple personalities?

If someone could correct me, elaborate, and or help me understand this.

IE: Can I pick the Ancient Egyptians and see them grow to be a modern superpower? Etc?

I'd rather not get stuck with another game that ruins the 4X experience... and most 4X games... you can't TRULY experience in 2 hours or less, it requires a much longer investment.

[WorldsApart]

No, you can always keep your current culture and get a Fame bonus and now with the new patch an additional bonus for sticking with the same culture.

[Lord von Games]

Is that new? Seems to contradict a lot of reviews... (I get how the bonus is new)...

[runy.mmorpg]

it is realy fun to add new cultures at Era change, much more than keeping you original one
i love civilization since the first one many years ago but this new system is really good
I test 'russian' for final era for my 3 rd game lol
i was expecting big war but not for the moment so not sure it was good choice
PS : my civvilization is egyptien in spirit like i build more than half wonders

[DNLH]

No, you could always 'transcend' with current culture, there's even an unlock or an achievement for completing a game without changing a culture once and a Persona trait that makes AI do the same (pretty sure that one of the default personas has it).

That being said, it is still more beneficial to stay flexible and choose your cultures depending on situation, most of the opponents will do the same, so if the idea itself is annoying to you, then I don't think transcending on your own will help. Frankly, I found it jarring only for couple of first playthroughs in OpenDev, but I can see how it can be annoying for others.

Also, if you pick Ancient Egypt you can go for Egyptians in Contemporary, but they are as similar as, well, ancient and current Egypt. If anything, I find the monolithic culture blocks that Civ is used to have more jarring than what HK has, but they're two extremes of same issue, I just enjoy the flexibility HK provides more, gameplay-wise.

[brunocarvalhopaula]

You CAN change cultures each era, and the AI will problably change (there's a specific AI trait that makes it stick to the same Ancient culture all game, but thats only on specific personas), but you're not forced to. It'll probably be a challenge to win without changing cultures, but you can do it.

Play however you like, bro.

[jonnin]

Not only can you glue to your starting culture, but you can rig the AI opponents to do this as well. I think the trait for it is "stubborn" or some word like that. Those AI with the trait will NOT change culture the whole game. If you are doing it too, its probably ok. If you change cultures, its likely a negative for the AI and keeps them weaker (no better culture units, and can't adapt to have stronger bonuses as the later eras have massive bonuses).

But this is not civ. Civ is about gaming mechanics to be the best at one thing like science. This game is more balanced; you do better if you have a little production, a little science, high population/food support, and so on. The best way to get that is to have multiple cultures as your people evolve and adapt to the world around them. The culture change is, besides a name change, a way to adapt your priorities and focus as a people to meet your current needs rather than sticking to what worked in the stone age and never changing those ideas.

[monkeypunch87]

Originally posted by Lord von Games:

Is that new? Seems to contradict a lot of reviews... (I get how the bonus is new)...

Nothing new about it. Possible since release.

[chaney]

Sure you can stick with your starter.
I suppose you could cherry pick to make the opponents stick as well.
So technically that answers it.

BUT ...

Not changing is generally considered a weak move. The bonus points are probably not as good as a new culture's benefits - with exceptions of course. This seems to be community consensus, based on my reading of the forum. Sometimes this will be desired as an extra challenge, as pointed out above.

Doing so takes out a lot of the intended play. You'll get your entire set of benefits up front. Following that, no new special units/buildings/effects etc. That's not really any worse than Civ where you get your goodies at some point - maybe quite late - but you give up one thing this game does to keep decisions interesting and relevant more throughout the game. It feels like buying a helicopter but just driving it around on the perfectly good wheels instead of flying it.

I never understood why changing cultures was any more absurd than one permanent culture, or the thousands of years old leader, but people have their own reactions.

[FilipinoFOX]

They should have just made sure every culture had at least one historically accurate culture to change into for each era.

Perhaps it will get there one day if they dont abandon the game.


https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2967595683

Havent used this in a long time but I wonder how close it is to having every culture being able to be historically played through the eras.

[SKELETOR]

Changing cultures is one of the big ideas of this game. Personally I love this concept, but If that turns you off then you should probably find find another game. Even if you keep the same culture or make logical steps, the AI players won't.

[SkaarSmashKikou]

Originally posted by Lord von Games:

I have always loved Civilization and 4x games. The joy of picking a culture, and building it from the stone-age up has always been great fun. Of course I have my favorite civs, based heavily on my RL experiences and fields of study.

Have I read the reviews right? When the eras change am I forced to abandon my favorite civ and pick another, and rinse and repeat, until I'm suffering with a lack of cultural identity and anthropological multiple personalities?

If someone could correct me, elaborate, and or help me understand this.

IE: Can I pick the Ancient Egyptians and see them grow to be a modern superpower? Etc?

I'd rather not get stuck with another game that ruins the 4X experience... and most 4X games... you can't TRULY experience in 2 hours or less, it requires a much longer investment.

An OP discussion about anthopological matters?
''You are an person of culture I see.''

In contrary, I find that possibility of changes as useful at an strategic level, as it is to reflect cultural changes, over time. For example, IRL, romans are now (basically) Italians.

But you could still play as your first pick, for example you could keep Myceneans from the start to the end game, thus, you will be able to build their strong fortress, in any of your regions, during all that time.

[Lord von Games]

So everyone keeps saying that you are disadvantaged from not changing? Does this mean that cultures have limited evolution? IE: Having Ancient Egyptian chariot warriors is awesome in the ancient period, but if you stick with them, then you end up bringing a bow to a gunfight? In "Civilization" most cultures were pretty equal (sure some traits gave them extra advantages in certain eras,), but as time went by, you evolved them as you saw fit...

[nullpo]

Yea, you get unique unit only from your origin unit. You can just bring generic units in later eras. Tbh I consider ascending not a huge detriment, except for contemporary era. Contemporary culture ability is so busted, you'd be a fool (or achievement hunting like I do) for you to skip it. These days I just keep ascending as romans if playing empire or below due to how busted their emblematic quarter is.

[jonnin]

Originally posted by Lord von Games:

So everyone keeps saying that you are disadvantaged from not changing? Does this mean that cultures have limited evolution? IE: Having Ancient Egyptian chariot warriors is awesome in the ancient period, but if you stick with them, then you end up bringing a bow to a gunfight? In "Civilization" most cultures were pretty equal (sure some traits gave them extra advantages in certain eras,), but as time went by, you evolved them as you saw fit...

yes, no, er. :)
Your unit for the culture is locked, so yes, you never get a new special unit. The special units are just a gnats hair stronger than the normal one for that tech level, though, so if you stick to, for your example egypt, you will still have musketmen after a while and tanks. You are not locked into ancient era units, you just lose out on the special units for later eras. This is not a big deal.

The problem is that you can't get the bonuses from later cultures. That is pretty much the long and short of it.
lets take my favorite progression:
egypt: my first era, I will produce many buildings rapidly so my city(s) are really cranking out the infrastructure, food, stability (garrisons), and wonders/stone circles rapidly.

persia: because I changed to persia here, I now get +2 city cap (more cities is more of everything and much of it leading to score increase, like # buildings built, population total, etc). I also get a speaman that is about as good as a warrior class but is also anti-cavalry, but meh. Its that city cap and their special district which gives me tons of influence currency and money that I love. If I had kept egypt, I would not be able to handle so many cities and would not be as rich in influence currency.

now, the third era, by this time my cities and probably the ai on both left and right of me all follow my religion, and
teutons: gives me gold per religious follower and science per follower as well. This is a big deal to my choices because so far I've been light on science and its starting to drag me down so this culture keeps my units up to date by researching better ones. Meanwhile, egpyt is still making pyramids and building buildings rapidly, and that can be successful but you are now having to alternate one garrison ** and one building every few turns and its annoying, you are running out of space in some provinces too, its annoying.

and so on (I stop here because from here I pick more random cultures than a set one. Those above are not my only way of playing but its my best first 3 eras setup for my style and wants). Each new era, you fail to adapt to shore up your weaknesses or branch out, but just keep trucking along with the same old thing.

This isn't civ. It has MANY different mechanics and about all you can say is its the same TYPE of game. Everything is different: win conditions*, religion, combat, progression over time, ... very different.

* civ can be set to end after # of turns and highest score, which is like this game, but does anyone do that? And HK can be set to unlimited turns, letting you do the space race or conquest victory but at the end of all that even if you win the space race you can lose on fame score.

** garrisons can easily add 15 stability to a city each, with city watch +5 and a religious tenet +5, and +5 base. I end up with dozens in each city often, as I attach a LOT of territory to my cities and they get unstable fast.

---------------
unrelated but a game a lot like civ, galactic civ 3 (and 4 is out now but I can't find a compelling reason to buy it) has universes so big they tax my machine (I9, 64 gb ram) that can take a month to play out a conquest victory, has the science victory (obviously not a space race!! ) and others and is more like civ in most ways (but you can design your own units, like alpha C but better, and it has stacks, like HK). Its excellent and, its very easy to mod, just edit text files in simple ways can do a lot. Of the modern games, GC3 is my favorite strategic.

[Slim]

The cultures you get in a play thru are similar to how Civ games have bonuses for different Civs. Example being the Americans getting a slightly better version of a fighter plane or Baths for the Romans are better than the standard aqueduct.

It isn't necessary for a player to switch cultures outside of aesthetics and unique buildings/units. Those units are very comparable to vanilla units and will be replaced once the next tier of units are available.

Edit: I should say that unique buildings will stay thru out a playthru. So the bonuses you receive from those Mycenaean palaces at the beginning of the game will carry thru til the end. You'll essentially miss out on that but you also miss out on every other building type regardless when you pick a culture in this game or a Civ in Civilization.

Edit2: I wouldn't bother buying this game if you have a feeling you'll be burnt by the purchase. I jumped back into it recently and the RNG can be rough (like when your own alliance member decides to rush over to your territories and start raiding and sacking just as a different alliance decide to declare war on me).

Edit3: And yes, you can just pick a Culture and play it thru to the end.

Edit4: And and I feel like the worst feature of Amplitude RTS games is that the Ai will always get to move/pick/do something before you can. The game Endless Space 2 has SO MANY popup screens that there is a dedicated options menu for the HUGE list you can turn off. This games pop ups aren't nearly as bad but damn man...