Bonuses appears to be rather generic

[Avatan]

Don't get me wrong, I am properly hyped for civ VII, I even got into the civ switching mechanic.

My worry is that most bonuses (for civ, unique buildings, leaders, great people, and even wonders) appear very generic, such as "+1 happiness for culture buildings", "+1 culture for science buildings", "provide some influence" etc

To me these are not very flavourful and while they may encourage certain play styles, they do not create entirely new way to play the game.

In ciVI, certain civs (Maya, Inca, Vietnam, Gaul, Venice in V, and even Japan or Norway) had thematic bonuses that completely changed the way the game is played, and made us interpret the maps / plan our cities quite differently.

I hope I am wrong because I don't know the game mechanics well enough yet!

 

[Calcifer]

I believe that in civ 6 the civs with more complex bonuses came with the expansions, the civs included in the base game should have more straightforward bonuses. That will probably be the case for civ 7 too.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Yeh, most of the vanilla civs and leaders in VI were, well, vanilla. All of the mad stuff came later, when they had a better handle on the game. Plenty of time!

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm not sure I agree with the original point. Civilizations now give so many different things, what even if most of them are flat bonuses, together they make civilizations really distinctive. Combo of unique civil unit, unique military unit which lasts the whole age, unique infrastructure and civics makes a pretty strong sense of uniqueness. Leaders give less, but it's still more than leaders did in Civ6 and the idea is what their bonuses should work throughout the whole history, so this looks fine too.

 

[Siptah]

I think the stacking of 3 civs makes mad bonuses more difficult. If you want to incorporate some really asymmetric stuff (e.g., VI's Babylon), it would only be valid for 1/3 of the game (assuming that most people play all three ages in a row, which remains to be seen). So, you skip all science buildings and play completely different in age 1, and then you start age 2 with 0 science/turn? Or do you still invest in Libraries and Academies in age 1? That would make the asymmetry a bit pointless then. And if we see later civs with more innovative bonuses, I fear the balance can be very off when combined with the right traditions/earlier UBs.

I do hope that the smaller +1 modifiers and similar things are fun to stack though. For me, the HK early game combo that gives +3 movement on units is fun and mad enough.

 

[Black Gate]

I think the stacking of 3 civs makes mad bonuses more difficult. If you want to incorporate some really asymmetric stuff (e.g., VI's Babylon), it would only be valid for 1/3 of the game (assuming that most people play all three ages in a row, which remains to be seen). So, you skip all science buildings and play completely different in age 1, and then you start age 2 with 0 science/turn? Or do you still invest in Libraries and Academies in age 1? That would make the asymmetry a bit pointless then. And if we see later civs with more innovative bonuses, I fear the balance can be very off when combined with the right traditions/earlier UBs.

I do hope that the smaller +1 modifiers and similar things are fun to stack though. For me, the HK early game combo that gives +3 movement on units is fun and mad enough.

Since the majority of antiquity buildings will see their yields reduced in the exploration age, maybe an antiquity civ that would skip building science buildings could have some "legacy ability" that gives increased science for the first X turns of the exploration age to keep up with competitors' reduced yields. If the abilities start to get crazy with DLC and expansions, who's to say part of the craziness couldn't jump through the era boundaries for a bit?

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the stacking of 3 civs makes mad bonuses more difficult. If you want to incorporate some really asymmetric stuff (e.g., VI's Babylon), it would only be valid for 1/3 of the game (assuming that most people play all three ages in a row, which remains to be seen). So, you skip all science buildings and play completely different in age 1, and then you start age 2 with 0 science/turn? Or do you still invest in Libraries and Academies in age 1? That would make the asymmetry a bit pointless then. And if we see later civs with more innovative bonuses, I fear the balance can be very off when combined with the right traditions/earlier UBs.

I do hope that the smaller +1 modifiers and similar things are fun to stack though. For me, the HK early game combo that gives +3 movement on units is fun and mad enough.

Actually, you lose most of the science from your libraries anyways on era change so it might still work

 

[Siptah]

Actually, you lose most of the science from your libraries anyways on era change so it might still work

Yes, I know, they still produce their base yields though, as we saw in the live stream. It was just meant as an example. You could instead insert a whacky growth bonus and granaries. The idea of covering this with traditions (or specific legacy options) is good though @Black Gate. Let‘s hope FXS is courageous enough to try it.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Leaders have fairly low-key bonuses, and I think that's okay. The civs are much more complex, especially when you factor in what unlocks with their unique civics. For instance, the Maurya is a warmonger when you give their Town-breaker elephants adjacency bonuses to infantry and the ability to enhance healing of adjacent units.

The crazy designs come with mixing leaders and civs. For instance, Tecumseh looks like he will be awesome with Greece.

 

[Avatan]

I think the stacking of 3 civs makes mad bonuses more difficult. If you want to incorporate some really asymmetric stuff (e.g., VI's Babylon), it would only be valid for 1/3 of the game (assuming that most people play all three ages in a row, which remains to be seen). So, you skip all science buildings and play completely different in age 1, and then you start age 2 with 0 science/turn? Or do you still invest in Libraries and Academies in age 1? That would make the asymmetry a bit pointless then. And if we see later civs with more innovative bonuses, I fear the balance can be very off when combined with the right traditions/earlier UBs.

I do hope that the smaller +1 modifiers and similar things are fun to stack though. For me, the HK early game combo that gives +3 movement on units is fun and mad enough.

I kind of see it as the opposite, since the bonus only appli for 1/3 of the games (and old building get obsolete), they can try truly bizarre things. Nomad civ in antiquity? Heavily into vassalage/colonization in exploration ?

 

[Naokaukodem]

I do not agree to call the bonuses "generic", as this term has a bad connotation. "Simple" is better. As opposed to the crazy talk necessary to describe the Civ6 uniques, I think it is the best move. (back to older Civs)

 

[Fummy]

This reminds me of the issue I had with Humankind. That game had a lot of civs on release (60, 10 per era) but a lot of the difference between them was their "cultural orientation", merchant, science, military etc, that they shared with other civs with the same orientation. So playing Aksum, Swahili, Dutch (all merchant) felt kinda like playing the same civ. The only real difference apart from a nice unit and building to look at was a single "trait" that was almost always something like "+2 food on improvement", "+2 science on building" or "+3 production on building". These cheap bonuses dont really create any interesting decisions, except just prioritising those buildings to get the bonus, but you probably would have built them anyway.

That said civ 7's unique civics for each civ may help make them feel less generic by just having more bonuses from different things and knowing you will lose some of them at some point so need to use them while you can.

 

[Olleus]

I quite like bonuses to be fairly generic. If they're too specialised they become restrictive and can only be used one way. Ideally, I'd like bonuses that can be utilised in multiple way towards multiple possible goals, so that they shape strategy rather than pre-determine it.

 

[humble serf]

Many of the unique great people for Egypt, Greece and Han China are near-clones of each other, which is a little disappointing as this seemed like a system which could make certain civs dramatically distinct from others.

It's possible that Antiquity civs are more simplistic because they have to lay viable foundations for such a wide range of possible Exploration-Modern pairs.

 

[shaglio]

In Civ 5, the Civilization bonuses were very simplistic and I loved them.
In Civ 6, they became much more long-winded and verbose. That, coupled with the inclusion of both Civilization and Leader bonuses, meant that I could never remember what they were and I was constantly having to look them up.
If Civ 7 makes them much simpler, with tersely written Civilization and Leader bonuses, I'd be a much happier man. A nice middle-ground between Civs 5 and 6 would be perfect for me.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I really liked the complex bonuses in Civ 6. They were very flavorful to me.

Most of the ones in Civ 5 were forgetable and uninteresting.

I like where they are going with Civ 7. The unique civics and traditions are a great feature.

 

[King of Prussia]

Im sure Civ 7 will follow in 6's path when it comes to bonuses. It wasnt until later DLCs/Expansions that we got civs that turn the way the game is played on its head with their unique playstyle. Its one of those things that happens when the game matures and has a natural flow. Once you establish that, you can make stuff that goes against it.

 

[AriochIV]

Civilizations with really extreme mechanics may be difficult to do in Civ7 because of the civ-switching mechanic. It's problematic to set up a really different playstyle like Venice or Phoenicia, for example, if you have to go back to a more conventional set of rules in the next Age.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I was thinking the same thing. The Agendas sound more interesting then the bonuses. If you look at Confucius:

Agenda
Guanxi: Increase Relationship by a Medium Amount for having the most Specialists in an empire. Decrease Relationship by a Small Amount for the leader with the least amount of Specialists in an empire. Only triggers if Confucius has at least one Specialist.

Unique Ability
Keju: Increased Growth Rate in Cities. Increased Science from Specialists.

Seems like you could have had the ability be more growth and science for each civ you have more specialist then. Keju as it is is probably more powerful than that because it's "consistent" and your guaranteed to get it each game, but it might not be the most interesting way to do it.

 

[Glassmage]

Civ5 bonuses the best and most unique. 6 and 7 look like adding a bunch of numbers for different stuff