Civ 7 BEST NEW Features (according to historians)

[The_J]

@Paisley_Trees , history student and civ-streamer, has released another video with a colleage of hers, this time discussing their most favourite features for Civ7 so far.
This includes
a) the addition of independent peoples and the removal of "barbarians". They discuss that not only this being more accurate, but also the plus of gameplay choices we will get. The also point out that the "Barbarian clans" mode in Civ6 was kinda similar (and rather well received by the community, as I believe)
b) the graphics, including the ethnic art for the different civs. The Civ7 graphics have a lot more detail than Civ6, and it depicts a lot of cultural architecture.
c) unique civis. They call it unique techs (which I think is not accurate), but essentially they appreciate that you take along parts of your previous culture along, not losing everything in the process, and evolving the culture in a gradual way.

Do you agree with their assessment?
Let us know!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well, of course I agree with them, since I've been calling for a change to the distinct Barbarians/Tribal Huts for a couple of years now. Don't know all the details yet, but it looks like the new system basically allows the independent settlements to be either hostile or friendly and even to eventually become City States, which is more than I thought they'd do. Happy Happy Joy Joy.

And anything that applies some kind of progression to the Civs that keeps them unique and allows them to be modified to reflect in some way in-game events is another thing I've been hoping for since Civ V. In all the Civ VII discussions, the fact that elements of your previous Civ get to come along with you to the new Age's Civ means (along with Leader elements that tag along) that to an extent, you are building your Civ as you go from Age to Age.

This is sooooo much better than the former Select Individual Traits from Civic/Social Policy/Great People menus as you like, and is stepping in the direction I've wanted Civ to go for years . . .

 

[Zaarin]

I'll also add my agreement (though it leaves out my favorite new feature, which is that gorgeous map ), and my appreciation for the summary since I'm at work and can't watch right now.

 

[Navelgazer]

Yeah, this is a great video. Thanks for posting, and I want more of it.

 

[Zecon365]

I've always gravitated to Civ because of the potential for it to be a historical sim, so I appreciate any perspectives from historians about how gameplay mechanics do and don't match up with history and what narratives they reinforce. I've also been thinking that the language and narrative behind "barbarians" was problematic, but I wasn't sure how to remove that concept without losing the functions that they brought to the gameplay. The independent powers definitely has a lot of potential, and I'm glad Firaxis took the initiative on that instead of just sticking to what they'd always done.

Somewhat related, I do wonder if they'll ever find a way to incorporate nomadic/non-sedentary groups. I know that "civilization" implies agricultural and sedentary groups, but there are still many historical nomadic groups that civilizations wrote about (and framed them as uncivilized barbarians). Independent powers still seem to be sedentary, just like how barbarian camps were (even though they're temporary). Just some food for thought on how to make Civ more historically accurate.

 

[Krikkit1]

I've always gravitated to Civ because of the potential for it to be a historical sim, so I appreciate any perspectives from historians about how gameplay mechanics do and don't match up with history and what narratives they reinforce. I've also been thinking that the language and narrative behind "barbarians" was problematic, but I wasn't sure how to remove that concept without losing the functions that they brought to the gameplay. The independent powers definitely has a lot of potential, and I'm glad Firaxis took the initiative on that instead of just sticking to what they'd always done.

Somewhat related, I do wonder if they'll ever find a way to incorporate nomadic/non-sedentary groups. I know that "civilization" implies agricultural and sedentary groups, but there are still many historical nomadic groups that civilizations wrote about (and framed them as uncivilized barbarians). Independent powers still seem to be sedentary, just like how barbarian camps were (even though they're temporary). Just some food for thought on how to make Civ more historically accurate.

It would be good if some Independent powers were semi nomadic, ie their "Settlement" was actually a unit that moved around in an area. (which would also lead to more potential conflict, as all the land would already be "claimed" even if they aren't using it right now.)

 

[Zaarin]

Somewhat related, I do wonder if they'll ever find a way to incorporate nomadic/non-sedentary groups. I know that "civilization" implies agricultural and sedentary groups, but there are still many historical nomadic groups that civilizations wrote about (and framed them as uncivilized barbarians). Independent powers still seem to be sedentary, just like how barbarian camps were (even though they're temporary). Just some food for thought on how to make Civ more historically accurate.

On Civ's scale, the city model represents nomadic groups fine. Nomads didn't generally wander from one end of a continent to the other but in small, more or less fixed locations that shifted with the seasons. On a scale of decades, years, or even a year, those no reason Civ's cities can't be interpreted that way. (This is doubly true for seminomadic pastoralists.)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

On Civ's scale, the city model represents nomadic groups fine. Nomads didn't generally wander from one end of a continent to the other but in small, more or less fixed locations that shifted with the seasons. On a scale of decades, years, or even a year, those no reason Civ's cities can't be interpreted that way. (This is doubly true for seminomadic pastoralists.)

What they have to model is the vastly greater territory that the pastorial 'camps' or tribal entities could command: the Scythian tribes commanded to some degree territory stretching clear across modern Ukraine and southern Russia from the Danube to beyond the Caspian Sea with a population only a fraction of that of much tinier mainland Greece. Something similar happened with the Xong-Nu and their successors north and northeast of China and across central Asia: very thin on the ground, but covered a Lot of ground.

That's why I think a modified 'Town' feature could represent them, especially if their 'towns' commanded, say, a greater swath of territory (similar to the Russian feature in Civ VI) than normal towns or cities.

Assuming the much later North American native pattern held true, and there's every evidence it did, groups tended to move back and forth between fairly fixed territories: "Winter Pastures" and "Summer Pastures" and stuck to the same places and routes for decades as long as the pattern and consistency of rain and plant growth remained the same.

 

[Krikkit1]

I was thinking more about the whole issue of land that is used by nomadic groups but isn't noticed as "claimed" by agriculturalists because its not improved. (the whole Ranchers v. Farmers each thinking they have a stronger claim to the land.)

Perhaps Independent "Camps" for nomadic peoples could have a massive Invisibly "claimed" area, say no improved tiles, but they "claim" 3-4 tiles out from the camp.... any time you claimed some of a Camps area with one of your settlements, tensions would increase, and they might start raids... if you actually improved some of "their" area, raids/tensions are almost certain (until you can either get enough Diplomacy or Force to get them to recognize your claims, Diplomacy might allow you to recognize some of their claims)

(wanting to get that feeling of the "empty" land you see already "belongs" to someone who will get annoyed if you do something with it)

 

[Thormodr]

Will check it out. Thanks.

Edit:

Good video. I concur about barbs changing to Independent people's/city states. It looks to be a good change.
Unique tech trees for each Civ as well as a greater attention to detail and uniqueness graphically are both great.

Not as big of fan of Civ switching/layering but if it is done as historically as is reasonably possible, it may work out. This will necessarily require a huge number of Civs. Hopefully that will be supplied by Firaxis and/or modders.

Oh and yes, camels are very cool. I'm a big fan of that addition. Hopefully, the Nabataeans are included. I am a big fan of desert Civs.

"They have been described as one of the most gifted peoples of the ancient world and one of the "most unjustly forgotten"."

 

[pokiehl]

Cool video. I’m glad they called out the camels! Looking forward to new resources in general.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I was thinking more about the whole issue of land that is used by nomadic groups but isn't noticed as "claimed" by agriculturalists because its not improved. (the whole Ranchers v. Farmers each thinking they have a stronger claim to the land.)

Perhaps Independent "Camps" for nomadic peoples could have a massive Invisibly "claimed" area, say no improved tiles, but they "claim" 3-4 tiles out from the camp.... any time you claimed some of a Camps area with one of your settlements, tensions would increase, and they might start raids... if you actually improved some of "their" area, raids/tensions are almost certain (until you can either get enough Diplomacy or Force to get them to recognize your claims, Diplomacy might allow you to recognize some of their claims)

(wanting to get that feeling of the "empty" land you see already "belongs" to someone who will get annoyed if you do something with it)

Another possibility is to be able to 'use' some of the pastoralists' land if you paid for it.

A large number of the Greek colonies that were settled all along the northern and eastern Black Sea coasts in the 8th - 6th centuries BCE were in Scythian territory and ended up as 'client cities' of the Scythians - they paid tribute and/or provided resources like agricultural products and other 'city stuff' and the Scythians left them (mostly) alone.

In general, I'd like to see some more options in Diplomacy or relations between Civs and Minor States than just Fight or Trade. Like Bribe, Placate, Threaten, Cajole, etc. Maybe as a panel with more than two - three entries as choices for interaction . . .

 

[timmychompchomp]

@Paisley_Trees , history student and civ-streamer, has released another video with a colleage of hers, this time discussing their most favourite features for Civ7 so far.
This includes
a) the addition of independent peoples and the removal of "barbarians". They discuss that not only this being more accurate, but also the plus of gameplay choices we will get. The also point out that the "Barbarian clans" mode in Civ6 was kinda similar (and rather well received by the community, as I believe)
b) the graphics, including the ethnic art for the different civs. The Civ7 graphics have a lot more detail than Civ6, and it depicts a lot of cultural architecture.
c) unique civis. They call it unique techs (which I think is not accurate), but essentially they appreciate that you take along parts of your previous culture along, not losing everything in the process, and evolving the culture in a gradual way.

Do you agree with their assessment?
Let us know!

Quick response to these three (a,b,c) points

a) I don't know about "more accurate." I mean, it's all perspective right? The term "Barbarian", to me, was an appropriate label based on what the "civ" Barbarians represented. From my perspective, as the player, the Barbarians, based on how they were represented, were Barbarians. City States were the independent people. Some people and people groups are barbaric and are deserving of the title. Even in the modern day. ISIS comes to mind. Instead of calling it out by name, giving them exposure while considering abstraction, "Barbarian" seemed to be a fair and appropriate title. Of course, I understand the blanket use of the term was unfair historically, but I felt Civ 5 and Civ 6 handled it appropriately. That's my opinion based on my experience with the game series.
b) I agree and look forward to seeing more.
c) I agree. This was the biggest surprise to me (I figured Civ switching was going to be a thing) and the dead space in the UI suggests that an expansion of these specialized civics will happen in the future. Of course, it could be that the UI is just that terrible.

@Paisley_Trees Keep up the good work.

 

[Paisley_Trees]

Yeah, this is a great video. Thanks for posting, and I want more of it.

Thank you! I’m framing this comment as my motivation to keep posting

 

[Prester John 2]

I'm a historian as well. I'm looking forward to the ages system and civ switching though I'm still wary of how it is done. As far as I understand you take over the whole territory of the former civ and that does sound problematic gameplaywise and historically. For gameplay because it doesn't counteract snowballing as in former iterations of civ, and historically, because it doesn't reflect the breaking up of empires through revolts and invasions. I would have hoped a) for large empires to split up and b) for new additional civs coming into play later in the game (aka historical spawns as it was done in the Civ4 mod Rhye's and Fall of Civilization). I guess I'll take what I get in Civ7.

 

[Krikkit1]

I'm a historian as well. I'm looking forward to the ages system and civ switching though I'm still wary of how it is done. As far as I understand you take over the whole territory of the former civ and that does sound problematic gameplaywise and historically. For gameplay because it doesn't counteract snowballing as in former iterations of civ, and historically, because it doesn't reflect the breaking up of empires through revolts and invasions. I would have hoped a) for large empires to split up and b) for new additional civs coming into play later in the game (aka historical spawns as it was done in the Civ4 mod Rhye's and Fall of Civilization). I guess I'll take what I get in Civ7.

I think in the Transition you take over the whole territory, but the Crisis that precedes it can take some of your territory. That is what they need to tune the anti snowball.

 

[Thormodr]

I am a historian, too. Well, a degree in ancient history, anyway, focusing on Greek and Roman history.

I am not so sure about the ages system. I see great potential but if it is implimented haphazardly, it could be terrible. We'll have to wait for actual gameplay video.