A little bit of meta concerning this very forum...

[Xandinho]

Also there has been discussion of something like that for a long time on the forums (usually as ways to make Modern Rome / Ancient America make sense as Italy/ AngloSaxon)

I remember seeing a few people mention that the 'Chinese Civilization' is like a bubble, and that it would be more appropriate if its bonuses changed by era. The detachment of the 'Indian bubble' has been even more discussed around here.

I also recall many saying it was quite absurd for civs like America and Brazil to start in the Ancient Era.

So it seems to me that the age system essentially solves these problem.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I remember seeing a few people mention that the 'Chinese Civilization' is like a bubble, and that it would be more appropriate if its bonuses changed by era. The detachment of the 'Indian bubble' has been even more discussed around here.

I also recall many saying it was quite absurd for civs like America and Brazil to start in the Ancient Era.

So it seems to me that the age system essentially solves these problem.

I think the problem is that whilst the age system might, Firaxis have gone about it in almost the least satisfying way possible in the base game implementation.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the problem is that whilst the age system might, Firaxis have gone about it in almost the least satisfying way possible in the base game implementation.

It is concerning that they haven’t had / revealed something in place for players to keep/customize their civ names.

Admittedly its slightly strange to have a bunch of Norman themed bonuses and still claim the name Rome…. but both the HRE and Byzantium essentially did that. And with customization of civ names (not just keeping) then it could be Norman Rome (or Roman Normans)

 

[gdr_willter]

I think the problem is that whilst the age system might, Firaxis have gone about it in almost the least satisfying way possible in the base game implementation.

It's your opinion, not a fact neither the problem for everyone. Even you haven't played the game yet, have you?

 

[UWHabs]

I have a different view -- and I think it is pent up "demand" for the next release.

The time between releases of over Civ games has been generally 5 years, with Civ 6 being 6 from Civ 5. Now it has been 9 years -- and nobody sure we would even see a Civ 7.

Civ 1 -- 1991
Civ 2 -- 1996 (boy I remember this one -- not knowing about it until seeing it in a Best Buy, not buying it on sight, then waiting a few weeks for new copies to arrive)
Civ 3 -- 2001
Civ 4 -- 2005
Civ 5 -- 2010
Civ 6 -- 2016
Civ 7 -- 2025 (9 years)

This, on top of all of the changes, and it isn't hard to understand why there is so much "discussion" IMO.

Yeah, I know in the lead-up to 6 there was some talk about how it was a little "delayed", but this iteration has been much much longer. The gap between the last major expansion in 5 to the start of 6, vs the gap between the last major expansion in 6 to the debut of 7 is much bigger.

Combined with us being tempted by all these "civ-killers" the last few years, and none of them have quite lived up to the hype, it certainly makes sense that there's a lot of discussion and debate.

 

[Siptah]

Combined with us being tempted by all these "civ-killers" the last few years, and none of them have quite lived up to the hype, it certainly makes sense that there's a lot of discussion and debate.

I think that is a really important point for the amount of speculation and discussion that's currently happening. Humankind, Millennia, Old World, Ara, etc. all brought fresh ideas and takes to the table, and many of these or how exactly they were implemented were/are hotly debated and divisive. This created a lot of hopes and fears at the same time, and apparently many people still live more in these hopes and fears than taking for real what we are actually shown/informed about.

 

[King Flevance]

I really don't get why so many people insist the devs are lying when they say they came up with the mechanic independently, especially since Firaxis' approach really doesn't resemble Amplitude's except at the most basic level. Is it really that hard to believe two teams working in the same space would have broadly similar ideas?

I had not heard the devs say that as I don't follow all of their media that closely. There is a lot of info from Firaxis I have not looked at due to time constraints. Its just simply that media does inspire other media. Added to the fact that Humankind made a splash onto the scene in Civ's own gaming space. So it is just a natural conclusion to suspect. Original or not, I would think that Humankind's reception from the public would have had me considering pivoting strategies. On the one hand this could show a lot of confidence in their design. On the other hand, confidence by itself does not prove anything.

I know I speak against the civ switching but it actually does not put me off. I just simply have a good idea as to why it does some people and it is not my personally preferred design for Civ 7. However, I actually liked HK so I suspect there is a good chance I will like 7.

 

[Zaarin]

I doubt many know that they've stated it didn't. It's simply presumed they're copying the idea because that seems more plausible than they coincidentally moving in that direction before they were aware of HKs move.

It's easy to miss those sorta things if you're not paying really close attention.

You're right. I forgot it was tucked away in an interview.

I had not heard the devs say that as I don't follow all of their media that closely. There is a lot of info from Firaxis I have not looked at due to time constraints. Its just simply that media does inspire other media. Added to the fact that Humankind made a splash onto the scene in Civ's own gaming space. So it is just a natural conclusion to suspect. Original or not, I would think that Humankind's reception from the public would have had me considering pivoting strategies. On the one hand this could show a lot of confidence in their design. On the other hand, confidence by itself does not prove anything.

I know I speak against the civ switching but it actually does not put me off. I just simply have a good idea as to why it does some people and it is not my personally preferred design for Civ 7. However, I actually liked HK so I suspect there is a good chance I will like 7.

Yeah, sorry, I forgot that they mentioned it in an interview, not a major media release. But yeah, they mentioned in an interview being surprised by the HK announcement at the same time they were proposing similar mechanics to 2K.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I noticed that the threads are waaaay more frequented than the ones discussing the release of Civ6 (I noticed some threads going to 10 pages max in the Civ6 General Discussion first threads pages) and that the only early concern was about art style mainly, whereas there is lot more for Civ7. (and as Civ5 was a pretty solid game, everyone assumed that Civ6 would be an evolution of it, so there was not too much discussion about new mechanics except districts, which was pretty blurry as first)
So what can we conclude of this very forum to be way more frequented and that there is more early concerns about features too ? I have no clue to be honest.

Interesting, I didn't participate much for the Civ 6 release in this forum, since the German forum was pretty frequented back then. One reason I came here was, that participation in the German forum has really slowed down, hype is certainly less than it was for Civ 6. Looking at the threads here, I also got the impression that most talk either about Civ Switching, Denuvo or the Leaders. The first two are obviously very hot topics, which didn't affect Civ 6. As far as I understand, the Leader discussions have become somewhat more "political" (in the sense, that people debate pretty heatedly whether Region X/Y/Z is too much/ less represented), so that could be a reason for more frequented threads, too. So discussion maybe has shifted somewhat from gameplay related ideas towards more general/ political topics.

 

[Civinator]

I noticed that the threads are waaaay more frequented than the ones discussing the release of Civ6

I think one point of this phenomen is the change of the civanatics site itself. Nowadays the civfanatics site has "likes". This was not the case when former versions of the civ series were discussed. It is striking, that several forum members here are posting mantra-like again and again always their same opinion - and every time they earn for their same opinion a big number of likes.