"Build something that you believe in."... oh wait, let me play for you...

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

We actually don't know if the content was cut, so much as some of its prep code was pre-released.

That's why I mentioned it being apparent, which by definition isn't 100% true.

 

[Siptah]

remembering when they let you actually make interesting macro level decisions in these games... View attachment 724633
View attachment 724636

i‘m honestly not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean because you could make a decision based on the outcome back then (because the UI tells you the effect), and since civ V, you have to guess? If so, agreed.

If you consider these old rather static and same for everybody government screens superior to the combination of 7’s social policies, traditions and attribute trees in terms of decision making, then hard disagree.

 

[Ornen]

i‘m honestly not quite sure what you mean. Do you mean because you could make a decision based on the outcome back then (because the UI tells you the effect), and since civ V, you have to guess? If so, agreed.

If you consider these old rather static and same for everybody government screens superior to the combination of 7’s social policies, traditions and attribute trees in terms of decision making, then hard disagree.

no, I mean that these screens enable important macro-level decision-making about the shape of your empire in a way that C7 does not.

take AC for example. every single policy on that screen comes from with tradeoffs. if you’re playing as Morgan, you can choose to compensate for your weaknesses — or you can run free market policies that will give you enormous wealth & research capacity, but cripple your military-industrial complex.

in C7, you just pick the best policies for what you’re doing… if you’re building boats, pick the policy that helps you build boats faster. these decisions don't come with real tradeoffs, and they don't feel like a serious difference in playstyle (eg specialist vs cottage economy vs expansive military police state in C4)

many of the most powerful policies are unlocked by traditions. and in fact, you do get to make a big macro decision when you choose a civ. but after that, you just run their kit effectively. during the eras, there is not much macro strategy, you are just executing the civ’s playbook to the era at hand (in exploration, for instance, you add the right specialists which is simple math, expand into new world, and use missionaries to get relics, which is dummy easy)

in short, C4 and AC let you dramatically change your entire playstyle on the fly. I do not think the macro tools (policies & traditions) enable you to do that in C7, instead you just pick the mathematically best choice for what you're doing, with no tradeoffs. the only exception is choosing civs & leader, but that only happens 3 times a game — it doesn't qualify as dramatically changing your playstyle on the fly.

 

[stealth_nsk]

no, I mean that these screens enable important macro-level decision-making about the shape of your empire in a way that C7 does not.

take AC for example. every single policy on that screen comes from with tradeoffs. if you’re playing as Morgan, you can choose to compensate for your weaknesses — or you can run free market policies that will give you enormous wealth & research capacity, but cripple your military-industrial complex.

in C7, you just pick the best policies for what you’re doing… if you’re building boats, pick the policy that helps you build boats faster. these decisions don't come with real tradeoffs, and they don't feel like a serious difference in playstyle (eg specialist vs cottage economy vs expansive military police state in C4)

many of the most powerful policies are unlocked by traditions. and in fact, you do get to make a big macro decision when you choose a civ. but after that, you just run their kit effectively. during the eras, there is not much macro strategy, you are just executing the civ’s playbook to the era at hand (in exploration, for instance, you add the right specialists which is simple math, expand into new world, and use missionaries to get relics, which is dummy easy)

in short, C4 and AC let you dramatically change your entire playstyle on the fly. I do not think the macro tools (policies & traditions) enable you to do that in C7, instead you just pick the mathematically best choice for what you're doing, with no tradeoffs. the only exception is choosing civs & leader, but that only happens 3 times a game — it doesn't qualify as dramatically changing your playstyle on the fly.

I don't think there's a significant difference between those screens and policy cards. You could stack AC policies to focus on economics, and you could take Civ7 policies which bring you gold. Same for food and industry. Other potential specializations differ, but it's not a critical difference.

What Civ7 needs is more fine tuning of the system. As it is now, I often found myself with too few policy cards left out of the bag (often just 1-2 even if deep within an age), if I take all opportunities to increase the number of those slots. This actually removes the choice out of the game, because I just always have all but completely irrelevant to current play policies.

 

[Siptah]

no, I mean that these screens enable important macro-level decision-making about the shape of your empire in a way that C7 does not.

take AC for example. every single policy on that screen comes from with tradeoffs. if you’re playing as Morgan, you can choose to compensate for your weaknesses — or you can run free market policies that will give you enormous wealth & research capacity, but cripple your military-industrial complex.

in C7, you just pick the best policies for what you’re doing… if you’re building boats, pick the policy that helps you build boats faster. these decisions don't come with real tradeoffs, and they don't feel like a serious difference in playstyle (eg specialist vs cottage economy vs expansive military police state in C4)

many of the most powerful policies are unlocked by traditions. and in fact, you do get to make a big macro decision when you choose a civ. but after that, you just run their kit effectively. during the eras, there is not much macro strategy, you are just executing the civ’s playbook to the era at hand (in exploration, for instance, you add the right specialists which is simple math, expand into new world, and use missionaries to get relics, which is dummy easy)

in short, C4 and AC let you dramatically change your entire playstyle on the fly. I do not think the macro tools (policies & traditions) enable you to do that in C7, instead you just pick the mathematically best choice for what you're doing, with no tradeoffs. the only exception is choosing civs & leader, but that only happens 3 times a game — it doesn't qualify as dramatically changing your playstyle on the fly.

Thanks for explaining your point. I can understand where you come from, but don‘t fully agree or rather, I see it as different problem. For me, having no science policy card slotted when I prioritize culture is drawback enough. The problem is that unlocking slots and researching useful policies comes at almost the same speed, i.e., as @stealth_nsk notes, there isn‘t much choice currently. Regularly ending ages with 12-15 policy slots just gives too many possibilities without much drawbacks. Similarly, I think the attribute trees have a much bigger impact than government in civ IV, but there isn‘t much choice. Points are tied to a specific tree, and you‘ll fill out these anyway if you have the points.

So, for me it‘s not a problem of a lack of impactful macro decisions, but rather that you can almost always have the cake and eat it too with the current balance.

I don’t have a good idea how to change it right now though, admittedly. Maybe attributes could be a single web with five directions, points are universal but the further you move from the center, the more expensive the abilities become. Leader and civ attributes would then be a discount for the respective branches.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

take AC for example. every single policy on that screen comes from with tradeoffs. if you’re playing as Morgan, you can choose to compensate for your weaknesses — or you can run free market policies that will give you enormous wealth & research capacity, but cripple your military-industrial complex.

In AC and earlier Civ games specifically, the decisions as you indicate have Positive and Negative attributes that you have to choose among.

In Civ VII the decision is between getting bonuses in one area and therefore not getting them somewhere else: the choice is not positive versus negative, but positive versus Nothing. IF the positive aspects are strong enough, this is easily equal to the old choices in significance, and equally polar in aspect.

But, as posted, I don't think at the moment they have quite reached the 'sweet spot' in every choice. In most games so far, I didn't have the feeling that I was seriously hurting in some area simply because I had chosen to emphasize another. In other words, in Civ VII I still feel that I can have my cake and eat it and still have plenty of cake.

When I can play Warmonger with Ada Lovelace in Exploration Age (my last game) then I have to question whether the aspects of Leaders even have enough effect and importance in the game - although that was something of a fluke, being part of an Alliance and having some 'easy pickings' opposing Distant Lands settlements to scoop up. It still felt strange and I may have to try some more 'contrary' Leader styles to see if it turns out to be a common fault.

This is, to be sure, one of the most difficult parts of game design to get right. Gamers as a rule do not like having utterly negative outcomes explicit in their choices, so any 'trade-offs' have to be carefully balanced with Leader, Country/Civ, terrain, and other in-game conditions or many of the decisions become Non-Decisions - "only an idiot would choose to play Hotspur with Albanian Democratic Socialism!" - and the system falls apart.

 

[Taefin]

To start off, let me say I love just about everything about Civ7 as a play it. But “Build something you believe in” always comes across as discordant to me for a few reasons:

1) You are simulating elements of history that you don’t necessarily believe in (conquest)
2) Even more the game overtly rewards exploiting, conquering, and converting DL civilizations
3) There is less of a sandbox feel than in the past (though still a lot of flexibility)

“History is built in layers” feels like the correct marketing line for 7, and “build something you believe in” seems like it could be been written down somewhere and pulled out for 8 when they find a way to fit the great elements of 7 back into a history-spanning sandbox.

A little bit too much projection in picking a tagline that seems to try getting ahead of the criticisms of the game.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

“Build something you believe in”

So many times I stare at a narrative event and I think "I believe in option A but option B is much better for my game right now" lol

 

[Zaarin]

"Build something you believe in" makes me roll my eyes, but so do most marketing taglines.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I would vote for Sanctuaries, both natural and buildings or wonders, like Yaojuan caves in China, or a 3.500mt high Stupa in Yangxi, or Patala palace in Tibet, up Kilimanjaro mountain,
or some other high peak safe place, Machu Picchu, if it was actually a city and not just a wonder... all of these places if reached in time... a bunker in modern age if there was a future Mars colonization Age etc... or an Ark if starting in Pre-younger Dryas... an underground city in Turkey, Peru, China, India, Italy, Egypt etc etc etc... those units would survive the "resets"?
It would be also a nice mini-game... build the necessary infrastructure to save your civ from complete destruction. Rising sea flood barriers... maybe a future update?
Feedback is important, if someone don't like auto-upgrade of units, maybe it could be switched off in the initial option screen...

I mean the Templars should have been long gone by now right???

 

[Kwami]

So many times I stare at a narrative event and I think "I believe in option A but option B is much better for my game right now" lol

That's OK. I regularly get the wrong result when I make a choice, anyway. I'll choose A, but the game will give me result B!

 

[ThichN]

in short, C4 and AC let you dramatically change your entire playstyle on the fly. I do not think the macro tools (policies & traditions) enable you to do that in C7, instead you just pick the mathematically best choice for what you're doing, with no tradeoffs. the only exception is choosing civs & leader, but that only happens 3 times a game — it doesn't qualify as dramatically changing your playstyle on the fly.

I adore Civ4 and AC's social engineering systems, and can say that Civ7 actually accomplishes something similar. You mention tradeoffs, and this is apt. I understand what you mean by there only being positives for the player in Civ7. But actually many social policies have a negative trait, especially if you want to: 1. Build tall, or 2. Select an ideology in the modern era. The policies that have a huge oomph to them do, indeed, have tradeoffs. Even before those, though: many unique societal developments for Civs have a negative trait. There is one for the Khmer that reduces happiness outside your capital by 5 (I forgot the pro, funny enough... I think it's for growth in the capital). The game is sprinkled with these.

Some of the tradeoffs are moreso rolling the dice. There is a policy for the Shawnee in which storms generate culture. You select that, you are rolling the dice on ever having a storm. But when one comes, ho boy, the spoils are nice.

Then there are narrative decisions. Imagine in AC you actually got to select options for planet events. In Civ7, many narrative events have negative consequences -- tradeoffs for advantages.

Of course, Civ4 and AC and Civ7 all have decision-making without tradeoffs, too. Not all decisions have consequences. In Civ7 a lot of the minutiae of your social policies and attributes equate to you trying to carve an advantage out of a dangerous and evolving world. Could it be more dangerous and more evolving? Absolutely.