Bonuses appears to be rather generic

[Nikolai II]

I'd rather have straight forward bonuses than more esoteric, "interesting" ones, especially if means better balance.

 

[CrackerJack45]

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

I've seen people say this and I find that interesting, as my biggest problem with Civ 5 was that the bonuses didn't feel impactful and every game felt the same no matter who I picked.

 

[uppi]

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 soft reset at the age transition may make some of the more extreme mechanics in one age viable. Those mechanics only have to result in a state that is somewhat compatible with the age transition.

So for example, you could have a Venice-like design in exploration age, by ensuring that all but one city are demoted to towns and you are not allowed to upgrade towns to cities while the age lasts (with sufficient bonuses to compensate for that). On the transition to the modern age into a "normal" civ, you would have one city and many town, but so would any other civ (unless they took the legacy policy that lets you keep cities). Yes, your towns might be less developed, but you should have a mega-capital which might enable you to upgrade your towns to cities faster.

Or you could have an exploration age civ, which is severely crippled in science to the point where it can get only through half the tech tree. But since the tech tree is reset at the beginning of the next age, you could still go for a science victory (though that might require you to rush an awful lot of science buildings).