“One More Turn” but not “One More Game” - Revisiting my first impressions of Civilization 7

[CGPanama]

Old gamer here, long-time fan of the franchise. Hopelessly addicted to Civ7. For me it very much is "one more game." I thought at first I'd get tired after trying all of the leaders (I haven't yet), but I've already played the same leader with a different Civ lineup

I appreciate hearing this from someone with a lot of games in, I felt like 6 games was enough to get a sense, but it sounds like you have experienced more leaders and came to a different conclusiont. Can you talk a bit about how the leaders felt distinct for you, and maybe your approach to selecting leader/civ matches through the games. As I said, I never really developed a different feel between each of my leaders and civs (despite forcing myself to sometimes take the less optimum path so I could try a new civ in a particular age).

Thanks

 

[Melkus]

Funny you didn't question "beautifully gorgeous mindless shallow clicker" which is the actual point of my small comment.

I'm not that negative on the game (not negative at all really, while I didn't like Civ6 until the first expansion came out and barely engaged with it until then for similar reasons.)

But I'd hope this is a thought from one of the more interesting civ modders that they chew on a bit as they develop the game - to avoid it sliding further in the direction of a "Numbers go up, and then you prestige, and at some point you're guaranteed a win" idler (nothing wrong with taking some inspiration from similar mechanics, but this can lead to empty calories gameplay).

There are certain civs that have felt that way to me - Hawaii, Ming, Majapahit come to mind - where you can just mindlessly research their special civics and suddenly their favorite yields just explode without any kind of serious strategy involved. (Choosing Hawaii because you have lots of coastline doesn't count.)
It's a dopamine rush when it happens the first time, but then you start to doubt what all the previous hours of playing and tinkering were actually for.

If they move more in the direction of Carthage - which you can't just play like the others, you have to engage a bit with their strengths and weaknesses - that would be progress imo. But there's always the lure and danger of yield inflation for FXS - it just works too well with the streamer crowd, I think.

Also "yes please" to more work on: AI, map diversity, asymmetry. And some serious work on the victory conditions, but I think we can take that for granted.

 

[Infixo]

to avoid it sliding further in the direction of a "Numbers go up, and then you prestige, and at some point you're guaranteed a win" idler (nothing wrong with taking some inspiration from similar mechanics, but this can lead to empty calories gameplay).

This is exactly what I am pointing out. As OP mentioned:

The leaders, civs, mementos, buildings, units, resources, wonders, religions, policies all blur into each other. Build one thing or another, and it just doesn’t feel like it impacts the game play.

I've already seen a post about it on reddit. That the game has so many sources of yields and bonuses that no matter what civ or leader you will choose, it will eventually play almost the same. And seems that devs actively go into this direction. Making wonders virtually unimportant... Heck... WORLD WONDERS. Something that should stand the test of time, be a monument of your gameplay. Making them safe and easy to get, with uninspired bonuses. But hey, at least AIs cannot snatch them and make you feel bad.
Now, getting back from this road is virtually impossible. It is much easier to add new civs and leaders with more and more OP abilities, until the game will just play and win by itself. This already happened in Civ6, where each expansion added a new layer of more and more op civs.

 

[Sekou]

I share OP's background with the series- here since the OG and also find myself agreeing with various portions of their complaints.

While my personal review of 7 remains high enough- it's still an 8 for me as I find it engaging enough and I simply love Civ- I understand their personal score drop.

With myself now having 100ish hours logged, I'm still bothered by one big mistake and that is I really believe Firaxis messed up by having you switch Civs instead of leaders. Overall, I really like the switching concept- but it would have been much better if you swapped leaders. Why? Immersion, for lack of a better word.

No, not 'immersion' in the historical roleplay sense but immersion in the sense of 'these are my peeps and I'm going to get them off this blue marble one way or another.' In every prior Civ game I've played, the leader choice was largely immaterial. Rather, I wanted to lead the Vikings or the English or whomever and take them to greatness. The leader was just statistical seasoning. In the end, they had been replaced. I was the Captain now.

But now I have no meaningful connection to my peeps as they change, and poof the game basically says to you the player, "here, try the Normans this Age." Uh, okay. Worse, every time the diplomacy interactions come up I'm confronted with an avatar that is simply not me. Perhaps "design-a-leader" mode happens and alleviates this issue. Perhaps.

Lastly, I think switching leaders would have thematically worked darn near perfectly with the Crisis system. Imagine, as the crisis begins, you get alert text "There are rumblings amongst your people that your leadership is tenuous" and as the Crisis and Age nears its end "your people have endured too much amidst all this turbulence around them- they demand a new voice to lead them." The Age ends and so does that leader's turn at the helm.

Anyway, as others after signed off in this thread and elsewhere, that's my two cents.

 

[protocol7]

Something like that would also have preserved the interesting aspect of the game where different civs have natural peaks in different parts of the game, instead of every civ always simultaneously peaking.

 

[Siptah]

I've already seen a post about it on reddit. That the game has so many sources of yields and bonuses that no matter what civ or leader you will choose, it will eventually play almost the same.

That's probably the most trustworthy source you can get without playing...

I can understand this to some extent through my long experience games (digital and analogue) that thrive on adding up modifiers, and every time I went in to learn a new one of these: having an abundance of modifiers means that they become forgettable except if you
a) really know what they are, do, come through and how they interact or
b) focus on one strand and play accordingly.
Of course, if you try to all-round, you lose b), and if you haven't played enough, you don't have access to a).
This is the great advantage that, e.g., EU4 has: while it may have 10 times the modifiers of civ 7, and many of these are mostly irrelevant or seem so at first, geography makes almost all games unique. Thus, it would really help if civ 7 had a few larger things going on to make games unique for the people that aren't as invested to get a) or b) to unfold. I think that some of the kits for civs that offer more unique gameplay already largely succeed in this tough - which is maybe 1/3 of the total civs (e.g., Maya, Rome, Carthage, Spain, Abbasids, Inka, Hawaii). And similarly, some leaders also have rather unique abilities that aren't just passive, i.e., you see/feel them on the map or in the screens you regularly visit.

And seems that devs actively go into this direction.

Which suits me, because in the last decade or so, I've learnt how this allows me to tailor my own experience much better. But taste differs, and so do our experience and expectations.

 

[Infixo]

I really believe Firaxis messed up by having you switch Civs instead of leaders.

Leaders have models and animations. They are more costly to develop. It was most likely a simple budgeting decision to switch civs not leaders. Because all you said about leaders is true - they are in fact much less important, always have been.

 

[protocol7]

Especially if, going forward, unique units are just a couple changes to the xml but re-using an existing model.

 

[GeneralZift]

Especially if, going forward, unique units are just a couple changes to the xml but re-using an existing model.

I love this brand of unique units (sarcastically) - and they always have a vague reference. In reference to the War of Lilies 1083, the Portsmouthian Knight gains 10 combat strength when near Flower Fields while embarked while the Empire is sad while you have no Iron resources. Truly inspirational

 

[Menocchio]

I find it interesting how a regular critique voiced here is how VII feels like a board game—that was the design intent of VI after all! Coming from there, I feel like VII has injected more strategy game DNA back in. I'm really enjoying it, and for me the leaders offer a nice "uniqueness multiplier" in the sense that there are so many combinations of leader and civ abilities to play around with. Nearly every leader is differentiated by having some ability that's unique to them that skews how they approach various game situations: Augustus can build culture buildings in towns, while Scientist Himiko can support all Endeavours for free.

I agree with a lot of the comments though that the change to terrain yields feels like something nobody asked for or wanted. It feels a bit strange planting down regular farms on desert tiles. I'm glad the emphasis of geographically-skewed civs is mostly gone (playing Canada in VI with no tundra access is a great way to simulate what a completely generic, nearly-no-ability civ might play like), but now geographic differences are so minute that they stop mattering very early on. I also kind of miss being able to chop forests and clear marshes to make room for farms and such. This was a major aspect of the development (and destruction) of many real-life civilisations; why are terrain features now so permanent? This is something I imagine a future expansion might address, like a Gathering Storm equivalent.

The unique military units are mostly fine to me, but some feel questionable: contrast the Roman Legatus, which has a neat ability to found a town and also gets a free promotion from a civic, to the Persian Hazarapatis, which gets a free promotion. Or Spanish fleet commanders, which aren't even unique but get a free promotion from Spain's civics. They don't have to all have whacky designs, but unique units—especially the less-exciting civilian uniques—ought to have more memorable flair to them. Some civs get a dozen or so Great People all with interesting and variable abilities that can come into play in a variety of ways depending on how your game is going, and then others get a unique merchant that gives you a handful of gold once or twice. This isn't Sesame Street, but one of these things is definitely not like the others.

 

[Shirotora Kenshin]

Maybe it's the so-called old gamers that are unable to deal with change whatsoever.

I don't think that's true, by the way, because clearly a lot of old civ fans are enjoying this iteration enough. But you can see how lame this sort of stereotyping is. Unless maybe you're too old to see it.

Yeah this could be true, because, you know, i loved Civ how it was before Civ7 changed so much that i don‘t think it‘s Civ anymore. I still love Civ6.

And i‘m glad for the „lot of old civ fans are enjoying this iteration enough“. No problem with it at all. I just wish that soon i could enjoy it as well, why should i complain only for the sake of complaining? You know, i just hope Civ7 will continue to change, because right now, for me it‘s just zero fun.

Your last sentence was unnecessary i think, but ok.

 

[UWHabs]

I find it interesting how a regular critique voiced here is how VII feels like a board game—that was the design intent of VI after all! Coming from there, I feel like VII has injected more strategy game DNA back in. I'm really enjoying it, and for me the leaders offer a nice "uniqueness multiplier" in the sense that there are so many combinations of leader and civ abilities to play around with. Nearly every leader is differentiated by having some ability that's unique to them that skews how they approach various game situations: Augustus can build culture buildings in towns, while Scientist Himiko can support all Endeavours for free.

I agree with a lot of the comments though that the change to terrain yields feels like something nobody asked for or wanted. It feels a bit strange planting down regular farms on desert tiles. I'm glad the emphasis of geographically-skewed civs is mostly gone (playing Canada in VI with no tundra access is a great way to simulate what a completely generic, nearly-no-ability civ might play like), but now geographic differences are so minute that they stop mattering very early on. I also kind of miss being able to chop forests and clear marshes to make room for farms and such. This was a major aspect of the development (and destruction) of many real-life civilisations; why are terrain features now so permanent? This is something I imagine a future expansion might address, like a Gathering Storm equivalent.

The unique military units are mostly fine to me, but some feel questionable: contrast the Roman Legatus, which has a neat ability to found a town and also gets a free promotion from a civic, to the Persian Hazarapatis, which gets a free promotion. Or Spanish fleet commanders, which aren't even unique but get a free promotion from Spain's civics. They don't have to all have whacky designs, but unique units—especially the less-exciting civilian uniques—ought to have more memorable flair to them. Some civs get a dozen or so Great People all with interesting and variable abilities that can come into play in a variety of ways depending on how your game is going, and then others get a unique merchant that gives you a handful of gold once or twice. This isn't Sesame Street, but one of these things is definitely not like the others.

I mean, I do sort of like not being able to go to the lengths that we did in earlier games. Like, the Amazon is still there, and while obviously they have clearcut stretches of it for various reasons, it's still mostly there. It does irk you a little in civ 6 that you can just plow the entire thing effectively without consequence. But yeah, there's a level of change that I would like to do.

As for the general terrain variation, I do think a level of balancing on them isn't the worst. In 6 it did always suck that the difference between a forest/hill start vs a plains start just changed your game so much. Like, I could take the worst civ in the game, and if they were given one more ability that "in their starting city they are guaranteed 3 or more 2/2 tiles", honestly that would almost jump any civ up to S-tier with that ability alone. So making sure that nobody starts in such a terrible position to avoid that actually makes a level of sense.

But at the same time, it does feel like they maybe went a bit too far. It feels like there should be a different level of balance at play that doesn't take the terrain down quite as far as it did. And yeah, would be nice to get rid of like farms on desert and stuff like that.

 

[Siptah]

I mean, I do sort of like not being able to go to the lengths that we did in earlier games. Like, the Amazon is still there, and while obviously they have clearcut stretches of it for various reasons, it's still mostly there. It does irk you a little in civ 6 that you can just plow the entire thing effectively without consequence. But yeah, there's a level of change that I would like to do.

As for the general terrain variation, I do think a level of balancing on them isn't the worst. In 6 it did always suck that the difference between a forest/hill start vs a plains start just changed your game so much. Like, I could take the worst civ in the game, and if they were given one more ability that "in their starting city they are guaranteed 3 or more 2/2 tiles", honestly that would almost jump any civ up to S-tier with that ability alone. So making sure that nobody starts in such a terrible position to avoid that actually makes a level of sense.

But at the same time, it does feel like they maybe went a bit too far. It feels like there should be a different level of balance at play that doesn't take the terrain down quite as far as it did. And yeah, would be nice to get rid of like farms on desert and stuff like that.

I think that, capital as first settlement aside, civ 7 already comes with the mechanics to make terrain matter much less in the long run (in a good way): towns feeding cities. It means that desert cities (assuming that desert wouldn't give food, but more gold and maybe production and have lots of space without improvements) fed by fishing towns would be perfectly viable (and fun). The problem is really the start, but then again, the starting bias each civ has might be able help here as well. It requires a lot of rework, but I think civ 7 could have a good start and midgame for every civ in their biome, without having to revert to balancing all biomes.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Leaders have models and animations. They are more costly to develop. It was most likely a simple budgeting decision to switch civs not leaders. Because all you said about leaders is true - they are in fact much less important, always have been.

Animations have their role, but there are more important things:
1. One of the reasons to implement civ switching in the first place is the difference between early and late civs in previous games. Now all civs are equally focused on the age you're currently in. With leaders having less unique things it's easier to make their bonuses ageless.
2. In theory it's easier to associate yourself and opponents with characters, not abstractions. It's a bit harder for old time civ fans, because we're accustomed to play as and against civs, but once you start playing you eventually catch the idea and see your opponents more as leaders than civs. If I have Machiavelli nearby, I always expect stab in the back, civilization just defines which weapon it will be.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Thanks for a well written OP where I can understand where you are coming from - I agree with some parts, others not so much, let me just pick up on a few points.

Natural wonders don’t awe me. Wonders just blur into the background.

I agree re Natural Wonders and think there are too many Great Wonders - many of which are aren't really great although something like the Gate of All Nations is incredible and in a recent playthrough the Coliseum solved my Capital's happiness problem.

Diplomacy I touch sometimes, but mostly wait for them to offer.

Interesting as I think the diplomacy system is one of the best things in the game, it really forces you to choose your priorities.

I think there are two main issues and they're likely playing into how you feel:-

1. Yields are so big everywhere nothing feels special, including the Natural Wonders (many of which are just yields without any other ability).
2. I think the resource system is the best in the series but let down by an awful UI. In Civ IV for example if you were building the Parthenon with marble as an Industrious leader you could really tell the difference from other Civs. In Civ VII the effect is there but it's not called out e.g. you should be able to hover a wonder and see e.g. base cost 300, less 40% for Ivory = 180, that way the real impact of the resources would jump out at you.

 

[jshelr]

Please just write down your specifics and avoid final judgment for awhile. Remember civ V! It went from "build the 4 horseman and wipe out the world" to become the best civ game for peaceful builders -- but it took awhile.

 

[CoconutTank]

Something like that would also have preserved the interesting aspect of the game where different civs have natural peaks in different parts of the game, instead of every civ always simultaneously peaking.

This probably would've been a deal breaker for me and made Civ 7 much less interesting. If I want to deal with timing windows for civs and certain civs being incredibly boring until the end game, I'll just go back to Civ 6.

 

[moondog385]

I couldn't relate less on not engaging with some of the mechanics. This is the first time I've been actively experimenting with every single system in the game and having fun with it. In VI, I would avoid war like the plague while in VII, I find it quite fun.

Sameness can vary depending on the civ, like in past entries. For a civ that has unique great people, I don't see how one could feel that the units feel "samey." For militaristic units, perhaps. I think it's pretty clear what each wonder does so I can't agree there either, but the bonuses aren't as pronounced probably because, as others have said, each civ has an associated wonder now.

 

[ThichN]

I appreciate hearing this from someone with a lot of games in, I felt like 6 games was enough to get a sense, but it sounds like you have experienced more leaders and came to a different conclusiont. Can you talk a bit about how the leaders felt distinct for you, and maybe your approach to selecting leader/civ matches through the games. As I said, I never really developed a different feel between each of my leaders and civs (despite forcing myself to sometimes take the less optimum path so I could try a new civ in a particular age).

Thanks

Sure. I had two Himiko Queen of Wa playthru's, one where I took a Khmer -> Hawaii -> Japan approach, and one where I took a Han -> Ming -> Japan approach. Both were dramatically different primarily because of civ-specific traditions, which you can use in later eras. So in the modern era, I could use Khmer traditions -- as an example.

Those traditions, for whatever reason, are not very well-advertised. Attribute this to UI or marketing, but for some reason what I find to be the most meaningful part of the game is somehow never mentioned. The fact that you can slot in traditions from civs you played in previous eras is a total gamechanger that can make each playthru seem totally different.

Add to this some really nifty civ-specific narrative events, and you got yourself some memorable playthrus. I remember playing Tecumseh and going Miss -> Shawnee -> America. As my modern America industrialized and I angled for an economic victory, there were events specific to the Shawnee exploration civ and/or Tecumseh, but in the modern era, as you modernize. These events were chiefs lamenting the loss of land / the gradual de-beautification of the landscape, thereby presenting me with a decision: barrel forward in the name of tribal progress for a hefty economic windfall, or seek advice from the elders, increasing culture yields on some of my ageless unique improvements. I think this event sequence was three separate pop-ups, and I really had to think carefully about what to decide.

There are, of course, more straightforward games, sure. My game with Ibn went Persia -> Abbasid -> Mughal ... though there were still some surprises along the way. The plague was particularly bad and my trade empire was threatened at the beginning of the modern era with a world war. I still managed a science victory. I remember it well. This was a great lineup to get my bearings, so to speak. I'd like to try Ibn again soon.

My military domination victory was with Amina. Aksum -> Songhai -> Buganda. Insanely fun. I actually could have also gotten an economic victory, but ran for an ideology early. A ragtag group of smaller civs put up quite a fight, but in the end, my troops prevailed. I was on a fractal map with a bunch of scattered islands, and I remember carriers factoring in heavily to this game. It was also when I first noticed the AI sending fleets for me. It was tense. This was my first victory on Immortal.

I also did a dual science/cultural victory with Pachacuti... Maya -> Inca -> Mexico. Mexico has been one of my favorites, too. They have some insanely fun unique policies and great people. This playthru was likewise distinct.

Now I am Lafayette. Carthage -> Norman -> ?. I'm thinking French Empire, though. There is a huge inland sea that is seeing a lot of action. Movement of troops, fleets. Catherine recently was so far ahead that I decided to land a ton of my cavalry in her lands and capture a few culture-heavy cities (I was mainly mad that she stole Notre Dame). Again, such a distinct playthru. My Carthaginian traditions that I can slot in have supremely bolstered my navy. I have a feeling this will help a lot when I transition to France in the modern era. Lafayette, too, has an ability to create new tradition/policy slots, so I've been able to slide even more in by being friendly with (some of) my neighbors. Harriet Tubman is in this game and geez she has been quite the menace, but now we are buds.

OK, so breaking these down, I guess I can distill the distinctiveness of my playthrus to these (there are more, but let's say this for now):

• Traditions carry over from previous civs, thereby making your civ really feel like it came from something else ... truly "layered" ... and it also makes each playthru so different because you can find that suddenly a card from the ancient era synergizes so well with your civ in the modern era, and completely pivot as a result
• Narrative events. Some are more fleshed out than others, but the ones that are can totally change your empire and provide a memorable experience
• The lack of balance. Yes, you heard that right. I love the lack of balance. Balance is totally overrated in 4x games. I'm actually worried they will move to balance the game in the future. The fact that Catherine could spring forward in culture gave me pause in the game. I had to shift my strategy if I was going to contend with her Russia in the modern era.
• Changing landscape. I like the capital changes, and how that alone can suddenly inject energy into a totally different area of your empire. I like that each era feels like you can focus on something different. You can propel yourself forward in new ways, using what you did before as a springboard, but not a wall or a claw holding you back.
• The leaders. Their abilities are so dramatically different from one another, and mixing and matching them with civs, events effects, and traditions can utilize different facets of their abilities that you may have not used in a previous playthru.

I'm still bothered by one big mistake and that is I really believe Firaxis messed up by having you switch Civs instead of leaders.

Couldn't disagree more. I love the leaderheads and what they represent. Civ was never, ever meant to be historical simulation. The leaders have personality and you come to hate or love some of them when they show up. That's a good sign. They carry with them certain ideologies and practices that make the game feel like it's a stage play, and I love this. I play Old World for what you desire.

Humankind failed in this area, which is why I don't like it: the leaders are not distinct. In Civ7, I can already tell you the personalities of most of the leaders and what I think when I meet them in the field.

 

[ThichN]

I also wanted to mention that Civ6 did none of the above for me. Again, there is a synergy with Civ7, and an ability to pivot and shift and play fluidly that I think hasn't existed since Civ4. The systems do sort of equalize goals for all Civs, but it's the path in Civ7 that really drives the fun home -- not the destination. Civ6 imho was the polar opposite. It was all about outcomes, with a tacked-on mess of mechanics to achieve those outcomes.