7 Myths About CIV Players That Fooled Developers at Firaxis

[Leucarum]

I’m not staunchly against Civ switching, although this single aspect is definitely the riskiest change they made.

Where I think they made a mistake is the starting roster. If you want to sell civ switching to people on the fence, you need to pack that launch roster with as many “3 stage evolutions” as possible. (Or 2 stage where appropriate.) India and China show this off, but it should be most of the civs. And every leader at launch should lead a civ.

Putting the Byzantines in the exploration age at launch is the single biggest thing they could have done, because then players could do Rome->Byzantium. It’s hard to explain the influence Rome has on the player base at large, but a lot of “I only want to play Rome” types would have been assuaged if they could go to Byzantium right away.

And announce pairings or triplets as DLC. The actual plot of Civ games has always been the memetic fiction of taking a Civ through the ages. The way you do that in VII is by saying “now you can play Celts>Normans>Great Britain,” not “you can play Britain in the last 1/3 of the game.”

You have to sell civ switching as civ evolution- “history is built in layers” means emphasizing the layers of history. None of what I am saying has any bearing on the gameplay mechanics; you can still have the ability to swap to any civ, but those players don’t need to be sold on it like the “I want to play Rome the whole game” crowd.

I don't really agree about civ switching paths - not just because it hampers civs without obvious paths... The lineup is really not very diverse per era, if they had insisted on full stacks it would be way worse. One of the mods I feel is mandatory for me is one which removes AI preferred civ paths, without it I find rhe game gets really stale with AIs always picking the same path. I doubt it would be as bad if there were more civs per age... I really think they launched with half the civs they needed if they were going with civ switching.

It would feel a lot more diverse if switching wasn't in there though for sure.

 

[Sostratus]

The developers explained why they did what they did. It makes sense to me. Your suggestions seem very constraining.

Oh, I know why they did what they did. But I think you’re missing the nuanced point I was making.

not just because it hampers civs without obvious paths

I am only talking about what the game should have been *launched* with to persuade players who are skeptical of civ switching to give it a try. Because that’s the make or break, first impression.

From there you can add all the “standalone”civs & leaders you want. I personally enjoy being able to swap to any Civ I want, but that’s not the same as what persuades more players to pick it up.

There are many dozens of solid contenders for civs to pick from for launch. Eventually the game will have quite a wide diversity of choices. What I am saying is the set they happen to release at launch should have been primarily the ones you can make a lot of historical paths from. I am not saying there’s anything wrong with “standalone” civs etc.

 

[Leucarum]

I am only talking about what the game should have been *launched* with to persuade players who are skeptical of civ switching to give it a try. Because that’s the make or break, first impression.

Fair enough. I can agree with that sentiment. Unfortunately for firaxis those first impressions have been made. For what it's worth I enjoy Civ7 but it's definitely in spite of and not because of civ switching.

I'm hoping the release of the modding tools will be an opportunity for Firaxis to see what sticks when the community starts throwing its collective brainpower at the walls. As much as Firaxis might want to innovate, I expect modders will be able to move faster and give valuable data on what people enjoy. That I think is the best shot for Civ7 to make a good 2nd impression.

 

[Krikkit1]

Oh, I know why they did what they did. But I think you’re missing the nuanced point I was making.



I am only talking about what the game should have been *launched* with to persuade players who are skeptical of civ switching to give it a try. Because that’s the make or break, first impression.

From there you can add all the “standalone”civs & leaders you want. I personally enjoy being able to swap to any Civ I want, but that’s not the same as what persuades more players to pick it up.

There are many dozens of solid contenders for civs to pick from for launch. Eventually the game will have quite a wide diversity of choices. What I am saying is the set they happen to release at launch should have been primarily the ones you can make a lot of historical paths from. I am not saying there’s anything wrong with “standalone” civs etc.

I think if the game launched with (and marketed) the ability to choose to keep your civ name even with new uniques…(you want to go from Roman Legions to Conquistadors…should they be Spanish Conquistadors or Roman Conquistadors)…That would make it a lot easier for them. (as would’ve having a good informative UI for once)

 

[Skojardu]

I don't know where author gets this idea. Civ7 is not more realistic than previous games.

He finds the translation of civ names to their native language overly zealous, at times incomprehensible. Anyone who reads or hears in the news "Kyiv" and smirks remembering it being spelled "Kiev" and pronounced "Key-Ev" 5 years ago implicitly agrees with his point

 

[Yzman]

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.

Isn't that what their Calvary unit represents? They can't build it, have to buy because they are mercs.

 

[Yzman]

I think there is only one solution, as discussed here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...t-a-civ-game-opinions-and-suggestions.697985/

1: RESTRICT every Civ swap to its NATURAL succession.
Leave the option to swap completely a civ to another, and maybe add a middle ground option, like shared borders, cultural exchange, but to ADD only Strict cultural proximity jumping, requires that all civs has a LINEAR optional choice in the first place...
2: RESTRICT Leaders to their Natural civilization. (And leave UNRESTRICTED Leaders as an option (as it was in Civ IV)).
3: Balance out the Age Reset and the tech reset... it is ok IMO if some civs still had to learn Writing in the MODERN AGE but had already unlocked Metallurgy....
but don't just plain the field at every reset as a Tech tree option for every civ should also get in a possible super-patch.


The Husky video is painful to watch, as also reading through the comment section...
Nobody wants to talk about this game and no-one except maybe 1% sees as it is worth even
considering trying to patch it to a playable state...

the perceived gap is too large.

To me, civ 7 require a drastic solution, and that is before even talking about all the other issues like no workers, victory conditions, lack
of scenarios, no iron-mode equivalent, etc.

Restrictions are never the answer. I'm glad you would be happy with less options, but many wouldn't.

Restricting basically means you want me to play the game exactly like you, with no option to do otherwise.

 

[Yzman]

The good news is that after disappointment comes acceptance and finally, apathy. So you won't have to read too many complains going forward. Not sure this is good for the franchise, but as long as Firaxis is happy, all is good. Enjoy the game!

Is the snark really necessary because some people enjoy a game you don't? Why did you have to phrase it as Firaxis is happy instead of just acknowledging that people hace different opinions? It is exactly posts like this that he was referring to. If you don't like a game, fine. But the contempt for others that do drags the whole discussion down and is very tiring.

 

[aelf]

Well, as a player, I much prefer apathy from those who hate the game. The franchise might be doomed anyway, since it got too popular and has accrued too many customers who probably wouldn't have stood for the changes it had gone through from Civ 2 to Civ 6 had they been there.

 

[socratic]

This doesn't make a ton of sense to me, though. Role-play, sure, but having Rome collapse and give way to Normans/HRE/Byzantines/whatever and then into modern-day European nations is more historically immersive than it was before. Obviously not a perfect 1:1 representation of real world history, and the leaders potentially not lining up is still weird, but closer to reality than how things were previously. Surely seeing Rome led by an immortal Caesar neighbouring Lincoln's America is very immersion breaking?

Not to say people can't dislike the ages system; everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just that the specific historical immersion point hasn't made much sense to me.

For me, immersion is less about historical accuracy and more about the feeling of continuity throughout the game. I want to feel like I’m leading the same group of people. Is it historically accurate to have the immortal Cleopatra take Egypt to the stars in 1853? No, but there is a concrete identity that I can connect with my whole playthrough. I’m not against civ-switching, but the current selection of civs doesn’t allow this. There is no immersion from Greeks turning into Russians or Inca turning into Mexico. Ethiopia is stuck in Antiquity. Egypt and the rest of the Arabic world just stop existing in the Modern Age. etc. etc.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Isn't that what their Calvary unit represents? They can't build it, have to buy because they are mercs.

Actually, the Numidian Kingdom was an Ally of Carthage, and their defection to the Romans was just about the Last Straw for them.

Everybody used mercenaries at one time or the other in the Mediterranean/Middle East, What made Carthage unique was that by the time of the Punic Wars virtually their entire army was mercenaries: mostly Gauls and Spanish tribes, but also Baleric slingers and other 'specialists'. About the only Carthaginians Hannibal had in his army were a few heavy cavalry, and even they were outnumbered on horseback by Numidian allies and Gaulic cavalry.

I suppose you could try to build an army entirely of units from IPs in Antiquity, but it wouldn't be particularly unique to Carthage and would probably not leave enough Influence to do anything else - whereas 'real' mercenaries required Gold, not Friendship, to obtain

 

[Yzman]

Actually, the Numidian Kingdom was an Ally of Carthage, and their defection to the Romans was just about the Last Straw for them.

Everybody used mercenaries at one time or the other in the Mediterranean/Middle East, What made Carthage unique was that by the time of the Punic Wars virtually their entire army was mercenaries: mostly Gauls and Spanish tribes, but also Baleric slingers and other 'specialists'. About the only Carthaginians Hannibal had in his army were a few heavy cavalry, and even they were outnumbered on horseback by Numidian allies and Gaulic cavalry.

I suppose you could try to build an army entirely of units from IPs in Antiquity, but it wouldn't be particularly unique to Carthage and would probably not leave enough Influence to do anything else - whereas 'real' mercenaries required Gold, not Friendship, to obtain

Once again, I think the point of them having a unit that they can't produce just pay for is to mimic the idea that they were all mercs.

 

[King Jason]

I think Myth#2 is part of the problem with AI and 1upt…1upt basically made War a “cheat code” because the AI was bad at it.

So making War more costly made sense to increase the challenge.

Or, they could have made the computer good at it. People discuss 1upt like it's impossible to get right.

Old World is right over there... and the number one complaint from new players who go to try it out is that it's too hard and the computer kicks the crap out of them on the battlefield. This is only the case because everyone is used to the civ model, where the computers basically can't play their own game.

 

[GeneralZift]

Or, they could have made the computer good at it. People discuss 1upt like it's impossible to get right.

Old World is right over there... and the number one complaint from new players who go to try it out is that it's too hard and the computer kicks the crap out of them on the battlefield. This is only the case because everyone is used to the civ model, where the computers basically can't play their own game.

Massively agreed, and there is more to it too - the war model in Civ heavily favours the player who is already doing better (i.e. higher techs, civics, bigger army, etc.).
So when humans gain enough of an advantage, they overtake the Ai's artificial bonuses, and can steamroll them completely - stopped only by loyalty, happiness, health, corruption, whatever mechanic is put in place for this.

There should be more of a losers advantage. I'm not strictly speaking about defenders advantage. Just that players in the front of the pack need to face increasingly tougher challenges which make it hard to always win everything, while players at the back of the pack need to be able to siphon victories into progress.

This would make games against an imperfect AI still challenging, and would make for a more compelling multiplayer experience as well.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Once again, I think the point of them having a unit that they can't produce just pay for is to mimic the idea that they were all mercs.

I quite agree that was their intention, but it is a very half-hearted attempt. They took one of the few units in the Carthaginian forces that was not composed of mercenaries and used that to model mercenaries.

Meanwhile, the real strength of the Carthaginian army in the Punic Wars, the array of good infantry and cavalry units they got by hiring and paying Gaulic and Spanish mercenaries, is ignored.

But, in their defense, Civ has never modeled mercenaries well, despite how important they were to many Civs in Antiquity, Exploration and early Modern Ages.

Civ VII is starting to 'put their toe in the water' so to speak, by allowing Civs to use Influence to get units from City States they are aligned with, but given that Influence is the Rare Currency in the game, it's another very minor effort, and the piddling attempts to model mercenary Unique units with corsairs and feodorati only scratch the surface of what could have been done with units such as Baleric Slingers, Thracian Peltasts, Hun Horse Archers, Swiss Pikemen, 'Hessian' (German) Grenadiers, The Wild Geese, Gallowglasses, etc.

 

[Yzman]

I quite agree that was their intention, but it is a very half-hearted attempt. They took one of the few units in the Carthaginian forces that was not composed of mercenaries and used that to model mercenaries.

Meanwhile, the real strength of the Carthaginian army in the Punic Wars, the array of good infantry and cavalry units they got by hiring and paying Gaulic and Spanish mercenaries, is ignored.

But, in their defense, Civ has never modeled mercenaries well, despite how important they were to many Civs in Antiquity, Exploration and early Modern Ages.

Civ VII is starting to 'put their toe in the water' so to speak, by allowing Civs to use Influence to get units from City States they are aligned with, but given that Influence is the Rare Currency in the game, it's another very minor effort, and the piddling attempts to model mercenary Unique units with corsairs and feodorati only scratch the surface of what could have been done with units such as Baleric Slingers, Thracian Peltasts, Hun Horse Archers, Swiss Pikemen, 'Hessian' (German) Grenadiers, The Wild Geese, Gallowglasses, etc.

Would be cool if Carthage was able to use money instead of influence to get troops from IPs.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Or, they could have made the computer good at it. People discuss 1upt like it's impossible to get right.

Old World is right over there... and the number one complaint from new players who go to try it out is that it's too hard and the computer kicks the crap out of them on the battlefield. This is only the case because everyone is used to the civ model, where the computers basically can't play their own game.

Human players can Play Chess with Ai and if they are really good they can came out undefeated, a draw.
Humans vs Ai in Alpha-Zero? Not a chance.

Civ V to VII is Alpha-Zero. They chose the "advanced rule set" and tossed the old, proven "chess set".
Old world Ai is mildly better than Civ V ai, it could be much, much worse.
The basic rules are a nightmare to play with. Ai, non Ai. It doesn't matter.
A good Ai would shred to pieces even the most professionals human players in a matter of nanoseconds.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Would be cool if Carthage was able to use money instead of influence to get troops from IPs.

That would be a very good Quick Fix, and would tie in neatly with Carthage's extra Trade Route generation (2 traders or each one built or bought), since it was their extensive trade network that provided the money to hire the mercenaries in the first place.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Take it one step further- let everyone do it at the cost of Gold or Influence (which I think is still a very logical use of the yield), and just give Carthage a heavy discount towards using the former.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Take it one step further- let everyone do it at the cost of Gold or Influence (which I think is still a very logical use of the yield), and just give Carthage a heavy discount towards using the former.

Using relatively-rare Influence to buy IP/City State 'mercenary' units isn't a bad mechanic, because it keeps some Human player from buying his entire army with Gold, and unless you are playing Carthage that wouldn't be any more accurate (or fun) than having no mercenary units at all.

One 'extra' that might be added to Carthage's arsenal might be the ability to buy units from any City State with Gold, not just those that 'belong' to Carthage. That would give Carthage - and only Carthage - the potential to field an almost entirely mercenary army.