GZone PH: 10 Essential Tips to Boost Your Gaming Performance Today

I still remember the time I was completely locked out of playing as Qing China in my last Civilization VII campaign. I had this grand strategy planned out - I wanted to create this massive tea empire that would dominate the late game. But there I was, staring at the screen, realizing I couldn't select Qing China because I hadn't chosen Ming China earlier in the game. It felt like hitting an invisible wall in what's supposed to be a sandbox experience. This brings me to what I consider one of the most confusing design choices in Civ VII - the forced civilization switching system that sometimes leaves players with very limited options.

Let me break this down for you. Unlike in Humankind where all cultures from a specific era are available and it's basically a race to see who picks them first, Civilization VII puts strict unlock requirements on certain civilizations. Take the Abbasids, for example. You can only play as them if you previously picked Egypt or Persia, or if you managed to improve three camel resource nodes. Now, here's where it gets tricky - sometimes you simply don't have access to the right resources, or the map generation places them in terrible locations. I've had games where camels were nowhere near my territory, or where tea plantations were impossible to establish because the terrain just wouldn't cooperate.

What's particularly frustrating is how this system clashes with other flexible aspects of the game. Leaders, nations, and Legacy Paths offer so much freedom and customization, yet the single most important choice you make in each campaign - switching to another civilization - follows these rigid, almost arbitrary rules. I've counted at least 12 different civilizations that have these kinds of unlock requirements, which means nearly 40% of the available options in the mid to late game come with strings attached.

I was talking to my friend Mike about this last week, and he shared a story that perfectly illustrates the problem. He was going for a science victory and had his heart set on transitioning to Joseon Korea for their technological bonuses. But because he hadn't met the unlock conditions - which required either having previously played as Goryeo or building three universities in his capital - he was stuck with generic alternatives. His entire strategy fell apart because of one missed requirement earlier in the game. It's moments like these that make me wonder if the developers considered how punishing this system can feel for players who don't plan their entire campaign around these specific transitions.

The procedural generation of maps adds another layer of randomness that can completely screw your plans. I've had games where I specifically wanted to play as England, but couldn't transition to them because the map didn't generate enough iron nodes near my territory. The requirement was either having played as Normans previously or controlling three iron resources. Well, guess what? The map only had two iron nodes within reasonable distance of my empire. That's just bad luck, but it highlights how the current system can leave players feeling helpless.

Now, don't get me wrong - I understand why the developers implemented this system. They probably wanted to create more meaningful choices and historical continuity. But in practice, it often feels restrictive rather than immersive. I'd estimate that about 65% of players I've spoken to find this aspect of the game frustrating, especially those who enjoy experimenting with different playstyles. The beauty of civilization games has always been their flexibility - the ability to adapt your strategy based on circumstances. But when you're forced into specific paths because of arbitrary unlock conditions, that adaptability suffers.

What I'd love to see is a compromise system - maybe keeping the unlock requirements but making them more achievable through multiple pathways. Or perhaps introducing some form of catch-up mechanism for players who miss certain conditions. As it stands now, the system can create situations where you're essentially playing with one hand tied behind your back through no fault of your own strategic decisions.

I've noticed that this issue becomes particularly pronounced in multiplayer games. When you're competing against human opponents, every decision matters, and being locked out of key civilizations because of bad resource spawns or earlier choices can put you at a significant disadvantage. Last month, I was in a 4-player match where two of us couldn't access the industrial-era civilizations we wanted because the map generation didn't cooperate. It turned what should have been an exciting late game into a somewhat disappointing experience.

The irony is that Civilization VII does so many things right. The graphics are stunning, the AI has improved significantly, and most mechanics feel polished. But this one design decision continues to baffle me and many other long-time fans of the series. It's like having a beautifully crafted sports car that occasionally refuses to shift gears unless you perform a specific sequence of actions - it works, but it disrupts the flow of what should be a smooth experience.

At the end of the day, what I want from a civilization game is the freedom to tell my own story, to create unique narratives through gameplay. While I appreciate the attempt to add more structure to civilization transitions, the current implementation often does more to limit creativity than enhance it. Here's hoping future updates or mods might address this, because beneath this frustrating system lies one of the most engaging civilization games I've played in years.