Am I the only one feeling like the Civ count is getting in the way of replayability?

[Siptah]

To me, Civ7 already feels more diverse than fully equipped Civ6, because in Civ6 most civilizations feel more or less the same, with their unique bonuses only slightly modifying gameplay. Yes, there's Babylon and some other interesting cases, but it's more an exception than a rule. In Civ7 I feel leader choice having almost the same weight as Civ6 civilization choice, while Civ7 civilization choice brings additional heavy customization.

I feel the same. Leader and civ choice have much more impact than in previous titles for me, they are much deeper and it takes more effort to play out all their facets. In previous titles, I hated to repeat civs. Here, I'm happy to play almost any civ again (if it fits the current game and I have it unlocked), because they offer much more variety. There's only a handful that I found lame or somewhat bland (Shawnee, Persia) or real one-trick ponies (Mongolia). But even Mongolia, I would actually like to play again at some point

 

[Yzman]

I’ll probably play 20 games before I try Shawnee, they feel too situational on rivers and the Egypt start where they would work I got too far ahead by the start of Explo and I lost interest while thinking about what to do in my first turn with them.

I just finished a game with them and Mississippians and ending with America and I decided that they are borderline overpowered actually with Tecumseh. In this game there is much more to factor that just what the civ says. Their policies are actually the big game changers.

They have great policies for trade and production.

Another example is Songhai. Read their intro, they seem meh to me. But did you know that they have a tradition that allows them to get treasure fleets in homelands with rivers? I won treasure fleets with them with ZERO distant land settlements.

 

[Xefjord]

I feel like Gedemon's assessment of the Civ count just being too low matches the most with my feelings. Of course we probably play pretty similarly given literally 90% of my play time is with their mod lol.

I also don't really care for most of the leaders, I do agree that the choice of leaders is strategically interesting. But the way the system is designed to level of up leaders kind of incentivizes me to just pick one and stick to it for a long time. For aesthetic or gameplay reasons a lot of leaders don't appeal to me. And I can play Charlemagne as every Civ, but there are definitely civs that take advantage of his playstyles better and end up feeling more fun, but playing those all the time just adds to the replay fatigue.

I suppose I am slightly less doomer in that I think having 20 civs per age will ultimately feel better than just 20 civs overall. I do like the mixing and matching, especially if there are multiple relevant cultural pics (Going from Han to Ming or Mongols is always an interesting choice for me I wouldn't get in other games). But it does feel like it's gonna take a long time to get there :/

 

[Siptah]

But it does feel like it's gonna take a long time to get there :/

We'll be at 13 per age in September. Maybe there's one more pack around Christmas, and then maybe 2 next year? Maybe already a larger pack/expansion in 2026 as well? I think 15 per age are a save bet for 2026, maybe even 17-18. It will also be a lot of money ;-) The problem is, once maps with 10+ players per age are officially available, the same repetitiveness will settle in also with 15 or 17 civs per age...

 

[Krikkit1]

We'll be at 13 per age in September. Maybe there's one more pack around Christmas, and then maybe 2 next year? Maybe already a larger pack/expansion in 2026 as well? I think 15 per age are a save bet for 2026, maybe even 17-18. It will also be a lot of money ;-) The problem is, once maps with 10+ players per age are officially available, the same repetitiveness will settle in also with 15 or 17 civs per age...

That wouldn't be as bad, if you have an 18 player map and only 18 civs in each era, the same civs will show up every time.... However, soem will be your neighbors, others will be in the DL... some will be monsters based on location and leader and luck, others will be barely better than IPs. So each game would still be different.

 

[stealth_nsk]

We'll be at 13 per age in September. Maybe there's one more pack around Christmas, and then maybe 2 next year? Maybe already a larger pack/expansion in 2026 as well? I think 15 per age are a save bet for 2026, maybe even 17-18. It will also be a lot of money ;-) The problem is, once maps with 10+ players per age are officially available, the same repetitiveness will settle in also with 15 or 17 civs per age...

I'd expect first big expansion early next year. Even if it will be focused on 4th age, I expect a couple of civs per age for other ages.

 

[firadin]

At ~1.3 civ per age per DLC, if you want 20 civs per age then you're going to need 8 DLCs in addition to the base. That'll cost $300 including the base game just to get to a level of diversity considered "reasonable." It's easy to see how this civ switching scheme let's Firaxis be incredibly greedy and leaves players unsatisfied

 

[Krikkit1]

At ~1.3 civ per age per DLC, if you want 20 civs per age then you're going to need 8 DLCs in addition to the base. That'll cost $300 including the base game just to get to a level of diversity considered "reasonable." It's easy to see how this civ switching scheme let's Firaxis be incredibly greedy and leaves players unsatisfied

it was also 10 civs per age per base game... which means something like an expansion could be somewhere in between in terms of $ per civ per age. (and most civs would probably come in an expansion or base game.)

 

[Stringer1313]

The good news is this is definitely something that will be fixed with time. We just have to be patient.

 

[MACKA0ili]

I'd expect first big expansion early next year. Even if it will be focused on 4th age, I expect a couple of civs per age for other ages.

I know data has already been found for a 4th age in development, but I really wish they would just make the modern age (and heck why not all of them) longer and more fleshed out instead of adding another one

 

[mentos15]

I know data has already been found for a 4th age in development, but I really wish they would just make the modern age (and heck why not all of them) longer and more fleshed out instead of adding another one

And I hope for more than 4 ages, not to play them all at once, but with the ability to create a custom timeline, an 'age playlist' if you will, for a given game.

Instead of 'scenarios' as in past Civs, give us ages; before ancient, after modern, a detailed slice of an existing age, mythological - the possibilities are endless.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

We'll be at 13 per age in September. Maybe there's one more pack around Christmas, and then maybe 2 next year? Maybe already a larger pack/expansion in 2026 as well? I think 15 per age are a save bet for 2026, maybe even 17-18. It will also be a lot of money ;-) The problem is, once maps with 10+ players per age are officially available, the same repetitiveness will settle in also with 15 or 17 civs per age...

The other problem with this of course is that the packs are currently $30 for 4 civs, so while we'll be at 13 per age by September at no cost to anyone whose already bought founders, after that point you'll have to shell out a further $150 on 5 more Civ packs to get to 20 per age, or wait much longer than the yearish you've proposed to get the at a discounted rate (and that's probably going to be max 33% off for a couple of years, so you're still having to shell out almost the founders cost again)

That may be fine for some, but I think it's going to block a lot of casuals from experiencing this game it its intended state for 5+ hard, negative years until there's a discounted gold edition or something.

 

[Siptah]

And I hope for more than 4 ages, not to play them all at once, but with the ability to create a custom timeline, an 'age playlist' if you will, for a given game.

Instead of 'scenarios' as in past Civs, give us ages; before ancient, after modern, a detailed slice of an existing age, mythological - the possibilities are endless.

You might want to try millennia.

 

[King of Prussia]

The game will need many years of DLCs, Expansions, and Mods before it gets to feeling like previous Civs, in terms of not running into the same few over and over. I banned Civs in 6 if they appeared too often.

I think leaders more than Civs is what would help the most with this feeling. At least to me currently.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I haven't played the game yet, but I think the best "solution" to avoid stale games is by randomizing your leader and Civ every time and force yourself to play whatever combo's you've been given.

At least, until more Civs are released ofc.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I haven't played the game yet, but I think the best "solution" to avoid stale games is by randomizing your leader and Civ every time and force yourself to play whatever combo's you've been given.

At least, until more Civs are released ofc.

The best solution is to try the game. As you can see in this thread, for many players Civ7 already gives strong diversity. You need to just see where it's for you, not base on others' opinion.

 

[Gedemon]

I feel like Gedemon's assessment of the Civ count just being too low matches the most with my feelings. Of course we probably play pretty similarly given literally 90% of my play time is with their mod lol.

I also don't really care for most of the leaders, I do agree that the choice of leaders is strategically interesting. But the way the system is designed to level of up leaders kind of incentivizes me to just pick one and stick to it for a long time. For aesthetic or gameplay reasons a lot of leaders don't appeal to me. And I can play Charlemagne as every Civ, but there are definitely civs that take advantage of his playstyles better and end up feeling more fun, but playing those all the time just adds to the replay fatigue.

I suppose I am slightly less doomer in that I think having 20 civs per age will ultimately feel better than just 20 civs overall. I do like the mixing and matching, especially if there are multiple relevant cultural pics (Going from Han to Ming or Mongols is always an interesting choice for me I wouldn't get in other games). But it does feel like it's gonna take a long time to get there :/

well, obviously there is also the point that when you're used to play with 20+ civs on a huge map, civ7 is not match for any previous version of the game, and wont be with official content until a few years.

 

[Calcifer]

My impressions so far:

Standard size is the same size I was playing in civ 6, so I don’t feel like I’m missing out on bigger maps. Totally understand those that liked bigger maps though.

Concerning opponents I find myself focusing more on the leader rather than the civ, so having the same civs over and over doesn’t bother me that much as long as leaders change. The biggest difference between civs for me are the special units.

The way I’m choosing leaders and civs for my self is I’m trying every leader once and choosing the civs that are a better match from a gameplay perspective. I’m also trying to complete as many challenges as possible on the way (especially victory types and wonders). I have to say I don’t pay much attention to civ unlocking criteria during the gameplay, so I sometimes find myself disappointed in age transition when the civ I would have liked to play isn’t available.

 

[firadin]

it was also 10 civs per age per base game... which means something like an expansion could be somewhere in between in terms of $ per civ per age. (and most civs would probably come in an expansion or base game.)

Expansions are an interesting topic. The DLCs are just 4 civs and they cost $30/each. RAF and GS were $40 and had many new civs and new mechanics. It would feel awful to pay more than $40 for an expansion to the game, being almost the full price of the base game. On the other hand, it would feel awful paying $30 for 4 civs if $40 gets you 10 civs and several major new mechanics. Really not a lot of pricing room for them to move around in.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Expansions are an interesting topic. The DLCs are just 4 civs and they cost $30/each. RAF and GS were $40 and had many new civs and new mechanics. It would feel awful to pay more than $40 for an expansion to the game, being almost the full price of the base game. On the other hand, it would feel awful paying $30 for 4 civs if $40 gets you 10 civs and several major new mechanics. Really not a lot of pricing room for them to move around in.

1. DLC packs have exactly the same price as in Civ5 or Civ6 - $5 per piece. Nothing changed here regardless of the increased base game cost.
2. If you look at Civ6 New Frontier pack, it's sold for $40 (for 8 civs + 1 leader), which is the same price as Gathering Storm and more than Rise and Fall's current price of $30.

So, I expect it to be the same with Civ7. Probably expansions will be sold for $40.