7 Myths About CIV Players That Fooled Developers at Firaxis

[McSpank01]

But how different was each civilization in previous games, though? I don't remember many complaints about replayabiity in IV, V, and VI when the civilizations were even less unique.

(V got better towards the end with Venice. VI got better towards the end with some of the NFP releases. But for the most part, the civilizations in those games were all very similar, or at least very similar to the other civilizations in the same set (e.g. the culture civs). IV was basically a unit, a building, and two attributes. Not much differentiation there.)

I guess the pattern is that they start with more generic civs and then add different ones later. Kupe was one of my favourites in Civ 6 because I could play with the goal of covering the world in forest! Gaul could make in industrial hellscape, I liked the Aztecs so I could run around enslaving the world, and Mali was all about gold. For whatever reason there absolutely were a lot of civs that felt and played differently.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Where "myths" are things the youtuber disagrees with personally.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I do like the more unique civs, I like the way Carthage pumps out colonists rather than settlers. That is the sort of difference I want to see.

This illuminates what I consider to be the greatest problem with Civ - and not just Civ VII, but at least all the way back to Civ III.

They get 'uniques' only half-right.

Yes, Carthage founded lots of 'colonies' which remained non-cities as long as Carthage controlled them.

On the other hand, Carthage also traded more with 'barbarians' on the African and European coasts than just about anybody, including with real IPs that had no settlements at all. Where is that unique ability for Carthage? - Especially when they were given 2x the trade route capability without giving them any extra people to trade with?

Also, Hannibal's most-famous Carthaginian army had almost no Carthaginians in it. A few heavy cavalry, possibly an infantry phalanx, but the great majority of his forces were Spanish, Gaulic/Celtic, Numidian and other North Africans. Again, none from what the game would call Civs but all from 'IPs', many without much in the way of formal Settlements.

So where is the Carthaginian special ability to build an entire army from IP troops?

What we get, as usual in Civ, is a half-baked Carthaginian unique Civ without any model for some of its most unique attributes. Multiply that by almost every Civ provided so far, and ennui sets in after just a few games.

 

[UWHabs]

True, there is technically greater differentiation between them, what with all the different units and tech trees and buildings. And yet they don't feel all that unique. I don't really play especially differently depending on which civ I am. Each civ gets a unique unit which is usually really good, sort of cancelling out the unique units of other civilisations. Many of the civs just seem to mirror each other or feel equally strong. Any civ I play I can pretty much go with any style of play and it will work just fine. In that way there isn't much replayability. Many of the differences are 'under the hood' giving you buffs somewhere but not really changing your gameplay style.

I do like the more unique civs, I like the way Carthage pumps out colonists rather than settlers. That is the sort of difference I want to see.

Yeah, everyone is unique, and I love the unique trees for each civ. I think part of the problem is that until you play the civs, you don't see all those other little bonuses. And even when you play, you don't realize the bonuses until you get some of the narratives. Like my last game, I saw Stepwells as terrible improvements, until I placed one and suddenly they get +3 culture each (or I could have chosen +gold on them, I think). Well, geez, now they start to look a little better.

I do think there's a few civs/leaders that do change it up. Just finished Ashoka/Renouncer, and I did find myself slightly changing my tile placement to basically surround rural tiles, to optimize the happy adjacency bonus. Or thinking that if I claim a rural tile next to like 6 buildings, that tile is now worth +6 happiness on top of the base yields, plus more with specialists.

But some civs end up being more vanilla. Like the Chola are basically just spamming boats. Other than that, there's not really that much in them that really forces you to change your play style. Although I guess at some level, some civs need to be "standard" civs too.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

But some civs end up being more vanilla. Like the Chola are basically just spamming boats. Other than that, there's not really that much in them that really forces you to change your play style. Although I guess at some level, some civs need to be "standard" civs too.

To expand a bit on my previous post and address this:

No group ever set out to become a 'standard' Civ.

Any attributes they developed that were similar to any 'standard' for the time and place were because they worked very well for that time and place (Flood Irrigation in the marshes of lower Mesopotamia or Egypt's Nile, for instance). And IF they developed a unique way of doing things, it was because they discovered or developed into something that worked better (for them) for that time and place.

So, in my Perfect 4X Historicalish Game (in development Forever, doubtless never to be published), Every Civ would be able to build Stepwells - but they would only make sense if your Civ had the same surroundings and conditions that the Maurya did, and would carry some possibly-unappreciated Side Effects you might not want or expect0 , because any Unique Anything is always shaped by the society and shapes that society, and the gamer should have to deal with that as well as the goodies that the Unique brings with it.

To re-purpose the old Quote:
TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

- or a free Stepwell, or Legion, or Long (Great) Wall or any other special attribute, unit, or technique.

 

[Gori the Grey]

V got better towards the end with Venice.

Polynesia plays very differently.

The gold dump that Spain can get early on feels different from anything anyone else can do (game unbalancing, even).

The ability Germany has to recruit barbarians when they clear a camp is a unique way of getting an early army up.

Austria's ability to buy CSs and have them become their own cities is unlike anything else out there (its usefulness can be very situational).

Inca's movement bonus in hills makes a military game feel really different.

 

[UWHabs]

To expand a bit on my previous post and address this:

No group ever set out to become a 'standard' Civ.

Any attributes they developed that were similar to any 'standard' for the time and place were because they worked very well for that time and place (Flood Irrigation in the marshes of lower Mesopotamia or Egypt's Nile, for instance). And IF they developed a unique way of doing things, it was because they discovered or developed into something that worked better (for them) for that time and place.

So, in my Perfect 4X Historicalish Game (in development Forever, doubtless never to be published), Every Civ would be able to build Stepwells - but they would only make sense if your Civ had the same surroundings and conditions that the Maurya did, and would carry some possibly-unappreciated Side Effects you might not want or expect0 , because any Unique Anything is always shaped by the society and shapes that society, and the gamer should have to deal with that as well as the goodies that the Unique brings with it.

To re-purpose the old Quote:
TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

- or a free Stepwell, or Legion, or Long (Great) Wall or any other special attribute, unit, or technique.

I'm not sure I would like that game more than the civ-style where one civ has the unique... But I have pondered something along those lines as like a potential game mode, and wondered how it would work. In civ 6 terms, something along the lines of basically if you were first to Iron Working, maybe you'd get the option to run a little Iron Working mastery project, and if you complete it first, you can unlock the "Legion" as your unique replacement of a normal swordsman. If you don't seem to need that, maybe you would continue along until you have a spot that suits you better.

Now, maybe the system isn't based on you researching to unlock, but maybe it ends up more a system like Sukritacts' Urban Districts mod, maybe it's a specific region on the map where if you are the civ that settles there, you unlock the ability to build stepwells there (or maybe anywhere).

But to circle back and tie it to the OP, I would probably argue that this kind of violates my view of the 1st point in the post about realism and accuracy. It's a fine line - I think people like the ability for any civ to build a specific wonder, if you are assigning something as a building or an improvement, they should belong to the civ we associate with them. Like if you have the Great Wall as a world wonder, absolutely I want America to be able to build it. But if it's an improvement or a building, then I think it would violate the "realism" play to let anyone build it. Although if that were a game mode, like the random techs game mode in 6, then sure, it might be a fun variation to spice things up too.

 

[Sagax]

To expand a bit on my previous post and address this:

No group ever set out to become a 'standard' Civ.

Any attributes they developed that were similar to any 'standard' for the time and place were because they worked very well for that time and place (Flood Irrigation in the marshes of lower Mesopotamia or Egypt's Nile, for instance). And IF they developed a unique way of doing things, it was because they discovered or developed into something that worked better (for them) for that time and place.

So, in my Perfect 4X Historicalish Game (in development Forever, doubtless never to be published), Every Civ would be able to build Stepwells - but they would only make sense if your Civ had the same surroundings and conditions that the Maurya did, and would carry some possibly-unappreciated Side Effects you might not want or expect0 , because any Unique Anything is always shaped by the society and shapes that society, and the gamer should have to deal with that as well as the goodies that the Unique brings with it.

To re-purpose the old Quote:
TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

- or a free Stepwell, or Legion, or Long (Great) Wall or any other special attribute, unit, or technique.

Boy do I have a Catanian-speaking user on this forum to introduce you to…

Replying to your earlier comment, I don’t think it’s them getting uniques “half-right” out of ignorance, but rather them intentionally focusing on just one-two historical aspects of a civ, while also getting constrained by their own game systems.

Using your Carthage example, I don’t know if the ability to trade with IPs (not CS) is something that can be coded unilaterally for Carthage, or instead requires overhaul of the IP/CS logic as a whole. If it’s the latter, then it’s not a surprise that they went for an easier approach and just gave Carthage more trade routes - “just send them to CS if you have that many, that will kiiiinda fit thematically”. Of course, that clashes with the urge of some AIs to erase as many IPs as they can, so your mileage with a CS-centric trade will vary. And let’s not forget that we’re still being limited by the map size.

Purchasing an entire army from IPs is somewhat in the game as well, at least in spirit - between the ability to permanently levy CS units and the one military CS bonus granting you a unique unit. And it’s already available to everyone, so I don’t know if that lean will make Carthage stand out.

Ultimately, I think I prefer more laser-focused civ designs, instead of ones that cast the net too wide in an attempt to capture every unique aspect of their historical counterpart. Because that’s how you end up with Civ 7 Russia, and my issue with them is not solely limited to the Katyusha.

 

[Krajzen]

All those questionable myths, half of which are clearly not even true, and he didn't mention by far the most obvious and massively important one: Firaxis' belief, openly confessed in one of the interviews, that players identify themselves with the leader, not with the civilization - paving the way for the original sin of civ switching that has obliterated the playerbase.

THAT is truly catastrophic myth to believe. A leader has always been more of a third-party diplomatic face given of the Other rather and yet another set of mechanical bonuses attached to the civ rather than any sort of the player's embodiment. There have been many succesful historical games with faceless countries (Age of Empires, Europa Universalis...), not many with avatars leading whatever. Nobody has ever wanted the game to have civ switching and greater focus on leaders as the players' avatars. People have always been clearly more excited that Vietnam comes, and that they can play as Vietnam, not any particular character. People wanted interesting "archeological" civs even at the cost of excuse pseudo-leaders, but not huge personalities that you can attach to whatever. There was no demand for the civ switching; on the opposite, a gigantic % share of the playerbase has been repulsed by it, with no movement in the opposite direction. You have a huge % of the playerbase who loathe civ switching, and on the other side you have at best "yeah cool idea though I could live without it". So the total sum of the emotional sentiment is highly negative.

How could they believe this and what were the sources for such ridiculous belief is beyond me. The game is called Civilization, not Leader. Its motto has always been to build a civilization to stand the test of time, not to become a leader to stand the test of time. Before civ7 I have seen an (unrealistic) demand "please give multiple leaders per civ, which change across ages" like 20x more frequently than the civ switching. They have somehow masterfully made a slam dunk change precisely opposite to the wishes of the fanbase.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Using your Carthage example, I don’t know if the ability to trade with IPs (not CS) is something that can be coded unilaterally for Carthage, or instead requires overhaul of the IP/CS logic as a whole. If it’s the latter, then it’s not a surprise that they went for an easier approach and just gave Carthage more trade routes - “just send them to CS if you have that many, that will kiiiinda fit thematically”. Of course, that clashes with the urge of some AIs to erase as many IPs as they can, so your mileage with a CS-centric trade will vary. And let’s not forget that we’re still being limited by the map size.

Purchasing an entire army from IPs is somewhat in the game as well, at least in spirit - between the ability to permanently levy CS units and the one military CS bonus granting you a unique unit. And it’s already available to everyone, so I don’t know if that lean will make Carthage stand out.

The only way I could see that implemented is making it to where you can't build or purchase your own military units at all, so you'd have to purchase from IP's if you want a land army, and to me that wouldn't sound fun to play with.
Though I suppose it might not be that big of a deal if naval units could be built and you'd have to rely mostly on those.

 

[Leucarum]

However you slice and dice it, claiming there are "7 myths" is a very clickbaity concept. I guess that's inevitable for youtube.

I think the grain of truth in there though is that many different sections of the playerbase really value different elements of the civ experience. Previous titles have made sweeping changes to one or two areas and had churn as a result, but 7 has hit so many features at once that churn is coming from every angle. There's a good (great, maybe) game in there but you can pretty much guarantee that it changes something which everyone will consider core to the civ experience.

I think the TLDR would be that firaxis made a great design that nobody was asking for... Not so far removed from the video's premise but less clickbaity than a list.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Like if you have the Great Wall as a world wonder, absolutely I want America to be able to build it. But if it's an improvement or a building, then I think it would violate the "realism" play to let anyone build it. Although if that were a game mode, like the random techs game mode in 6, then sure, it might be a fun variation to spice things up too.

The Great Wall is, unfortunately, a very bad example to use in this context, because similar walls were built by numerous non-Chinese groups, large and small, including Persia, Rome, Wessex, and various states and statelets in (modern) Russia and Ukraine. The only thing really 'unique' about the Long (Great) Wall was its sheer size, and that was as much a product of the size of the state as anything else. The Persian "Great Wall of Gorgon" or the Roman defenses along the Rhine-Danube frontier were both several hundred kilometers long and had garrisons numbering in the 10s of 1000s - as a percentage of the state's forces available, quite proportionate to the Chinese Great Wall.

As to Why anybody else should build a Great Wall, that depends on the in-game situation, and if appropriate for 'America' should be available to them - at a price.

To be honest, in several hundreds of hours playing Civ VII, I have seen very few instances where a Han or Ming Great Wall could be built of any length, or made any defensive sense to build, in any game. But where it is both necessary and advantageous, it should definitely be available, whether the final on map graphic resembles the rammed earth Great Wall of the Han or the earth and timber and ditches of Offa's Dyke or the spaced fortresses and lookouts of the Rhine-Danubian limes - or, jumping ahead an Age or two, the steel and concrete of the Maginot Line - which, like all the massively-expensive fortified lines and systems, Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time. . .

 

[Gori the Grey]

All those questionable myths, half of which are clearly not even true, and he didn't mention by far the most obvious and massively important one: Firaxis' belief, openly confessed in one of the interviews, that players identify themselves with the leader, not with the civilization - paving the way for the original sin of civ switching that has obliterated the playerbase.

It's been added as number 8 (by yours truly).

How could they believe this and what were the sources for such ridiculous belief is beyond me.

Because of how people talk, in forums like this. ("I'm building up for an attack on Monty") But I have argued that that is a kind of shorthand, which is not necessarily indicative of how people think about what is happening in the game.

 

[Krikkit1]

It's been added as number 8 (by yours truly).



Because of how people talk, in forums like this. ("I'm building up for an attack on Monty") But I have argued that that is a kind of shorthand, which is not actually indicative of how people think about what is happening in the game.

I think there is a bit of a difference too.
Identifying the other players by their Leaders, and Identifying yourself by your civ.

It means that civ switches with constant leader is probably the correct choice (and there was always some demand for a civ to evolve…Aztecs to Mexico, Rome to Byzantines/Italy).

What they needed to do is pay much greater attention to giving players agency over how that gameplay transition impacts their civs identity.

 

[Gorbles]

I would add Myth #9: Players care more about beautiful map realism than readability.

I think most civ players, especially the hardcore players, don't care about pretty graphics. They care about readibility and strategy. I feel like the civ7 focuses too much on graphics at the cost of readability and strategy. And I get it, in today's world, pretty 3D graphics sell games. And if you have a high end computer, you can zoom in and urban districts look gorgeous. But city sprawl makes the map a visual mess, especially in the late game. Cities merge together in a big messy blob that covers your empire empire. It can be hard to know what is what.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting we go back to civ2 graphics. I think you could go back to cities just being a city center with maybe 1-2 adjacent tiles for urban sprawl, and have wonders on the map, the rest of the map could be tile improvements and still have a nice looking map. I don't think the entire map needs to be covered in super detailed buidlings and districts.

There are approximately 20,000 threads about Civ VI's graphics that disagree with this premise.

Which leads me to my hot take: how do community members quantify myths at scale? Is the only data point we have "Civ VII did poorly", which leads to the conclusion of "ergo the decisions can't have been rooted in real data"? How do we at CFC know what the wider community plays like? How do we separate fact from fiction; myth from evidenced opinion?

 

[SupremacyKing2]

It means that civ switches with constant leader is probably the correct choice (and there was always some demand for a civ to evolve…Aztecs to Mexico, Rome to Byzantines/Italy).

Yeah, I've said that if you want to do civ-switching then you have to keep the leader the same so that there is some continuity. If you change the leader too then I think it would be confusing for the player as they would see a different AI leader every Age.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

There are approximately 20,000 threads about Civ VI's graphics that disagree with this premise.

Which leads me to my hot take: how do community members quantify myths at scale? Is the only data point we have "Civ VII did poorly", which leads to the conclusion of "ergo the decisions can't have been rooted in real data"? How do we at CFC know what the wider community plays like? How do we separate fact from fiction; myth from evidenced opinion?

Yes, players wanted less cartoony graphics. That is not the same as wanting super pretty detailed 3D graphics that make the map hard to read. I highly doubt that players who criticized civ6's graphics wanted cluttered maps that are hard to read.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yeah, I've said that if you want to do civ-switching then you have to keep the leader the same so that there is some continuity. If you change the leader too then I think it would be confusing for the player as they would see a different AI leader every Age.

Or if you have leaders with no readily-identifiable distinguishing characteristics, which was the Humankind Problem.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes, players wanted less cartoony graphics. That is not the same as wanting super pretty detailed 3D graphics that make the map hard to read.

But to be honest, arguments in this Forum (and far too many other platforms) tend to devolve into binomial Either - Or types:

SOD versus 1UPT

Simple versus Complex graphics

Leader versus Civ changing

Changing versus Continuous Civs and Leaders

In almost every case, there are potential 'solutions' - or at least, different alternatives - that should be explored rather than assume the only answers are in simple A or B terms.

 

[Xur]

While I really dislike civ7, I will say that they nailed the art style this time. I don't like the city sprawl, but that's something I also didn't like in civ6. So for me personally, at least the art style and visuals isn't a problem - it's just everything else I don't like.