Civ 7 Has Probably Done the Best Job at Making Civs Less One Note

[sTAPler27]

In previous civ games most options had 1 or 2 things they excelled at and often times they'd only do so in one specific era. Macedonia as your early game domination choice or Canada as a late game culture pick. Thanks to each civ having their own civic tree player's have a lot more unique aspects to mess around with that are outside of the base civilization power. With civs and leaders being separated as well you can choose to pick a leader who may be specialized to a path different from your primary civ ability. You can have a strong militaristic civ that's given an edge thanks to a strong scientific leader. Or an economic civ that's able to get the trade policies it needs through a culture oriented leader. Along with this no one's doomed to peak in a specific era. Since civs switch across the game even if you miss out on your advantages in one age you can pick a whole new focus in the next. "Struggled to conquer much land as the Romans in antiquity? Then maybe switch to Majapahit in the Exploration age to synergize your cultural bonuses from the last age with your new abilities in the present." While I have my problems with some aspects of this game I can't say there won't be, multiple ways to play. And even though this game's roster is a bit small currently as more civs and leaders or added more combinations will form as you mix and match 3 eras of civs and a leader with their own branching upgrade path. And with certain things locked behind certain prerequisites metas won't be as cut and dry and you'll be geared towards unique gameplay a lot of the time to match the unique circumstances of each game. Do I think the game stears you a bit much in certain ways? Sure, but ultimately I think more choice is ultimately on the table if they land the final era right but we've yet to see much from that.

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

Exactly. In CIV 6, you had definitively a desequilibrium between early era civs and late era civs. The first one were benefiting from powerfull early boosts (including early era points that allowed them to get early golden age easily) that allowed them to snowball, while the seconds had a boost when it was far too late...

In CIV 7 that desequilibrium will be far lower. Of course not all three civs will work perfectly with your leader, but as said previously having some side benefits to supplement your main strategy is never a bad thing.

So far I think the implementation of CIV7 is promising. The civ changing idea was strange at first, but I belive it will be interesting to play. Of course we will be waiting for more civs/leader from DLC, but it was the same for the vanilla civ6 after all...

 

[Krajzen]

One of the few aspects of civ6 I have never critized were individual civ gameplay designs, as they were infinitely more a) Engaging and interactive b) Interesting and c) Actually significant across the game - unlike my beloved civ5 with its extremely narrow, specific uniques, many of which I have always suspected have negligible impact on the game as a whole and function more like placebo

I am very happy with civ7 continuing to make individual civs more distinctive, deeper, more powerful and well-rounded, while also somehow managing to make their designs more cognizable than late civ6 tendency to throw 14 separate bonuses at you (hello Maori or English UA which consisted of like five separate minor bonuses)

 

[CivKirk64]

VI IMO had a big boost over the older versions, but VII feels leaps and bounds over any other entry in this regard. The civ specific traditions seem to add a lot of extra gameplay and flavor on top of already having an ability and other uniques.
The past eras living on in traditions ,and Ageless buildings still providing some of their bonus, on top of the new things will make your empire itself feel multi-dimensional.
Really looking forward to experimenting with the different combinations.

 

[ehecatzin]

Absolutely agree, a big civ VII wishlist for me was deeper civs with multitudes of Uniques: unique art, units, quarters, civics and wonders, and they pretty much nailed it. I'd rather play 3 unique filled civs that 1 with only a few moments of uniqueness.

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

I think this notion of being able to pivot is right. Playing a chill city-building game but your neighbor has turned aggressive? Go Mongolia. (Alternately, playing a chill city-building game but your neighbor has a lot of plump cities that you think would be better in your empire? Do the same.) Conquered all you think you can manage and want to focus on science? Switch to something like that.

The leaders add that thread of continuity - Napoloen is always going to be a concern on your borders. But Napoleon as something more peaceful might give you some space.

Carlbarian on your borders is ALWAYS a problem.

 

[moondog385]

I’ve been very pleased with both the civ designs and choices so far. Lots of diversity in gameplay styles and I really don’t know who I’m going to go with first! And the choices you make in one age affecting the next adds a whole other layer of complexity.

Civ already has an absurd level of replayability but this might somehow take it up a notch.

 

[Kankan]

I also like how it keeps the game more engaging without having any civs snowballing and having a significant advantage over other civs because they’re a powerful culture civ or a powerful early game domination civ or Babylon.

Now it feels like any option is viable without having a significant disadvantage until the late game as now you can synergise different civs to best fit your strategy.

 

[B0RDERL1NE]

Carlbarian on your borders is ALWAYS a problem.

I resemble this remark.

 

[sTAPler27]

I also like how it keeps the game more engaging without having any civs snowballing and having a significant advantage over other civs because they’re a powerful culture civ or a powerful early game domination civ or Babylon.

Now it feels like any option is viable without having a significant disadvantage until the late game as now you can synergise different civs to best fit your strategy.

I don't mind snowballing because if you're doing good then why be punished for that but it does become annoying when it feels like the game just stops throwing challenges your way. I hope the random events, era changes and disasters keep you a bit humble throughout the game

 

[gdr_willter]

I don't mind snowballing because if you're doing good then why be punished for that but it does become annoying when it feels like the game just stops throwing challenges your way. I hope the random events, era changes and disasters keep you a bit humble throughout the game

I think snawballing is good, but when many players in the game are doing it. It is not so funny after the certain midgame point when I am the only snowballer.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think snawballing is good, but when many players in the game are doing it. It is not so funny after the certain midgame point when I am the only snowballer.

I think this is part of the point…snowballing in “absolute” terms (numbers make numbers go up faster) can be good.

Snowballing in competitive terms (farther and farther ahead) isn’t.

Ideally, the competition is Red Queen…you have to work harder and harder just to stay in place. (the better/stronger you get, the more your adversaries get both stronger and more against you)

The Age system helps with that.
As you get ahead, you push the age to completion, and then in the new age everyone is at the same tech/civics/number of cities/IP relationships

The things that Do carry over (without getting equalized)
Number Settlements
Population
Number units
Unique buildings, Wonders, Ageless buildings
$ and influence stockpiles

Need the Crises to deal with (lots of Settlements, Wonders, Population should mean the crisis is more severe for you)

 

[Krajzen]

Ideally, the competition is Red Queen…you have to work harder and harder just to stay in place. (the better/stronger you get, the more your adversaries get both stronger and more against you)

The day that some strategy game manages to figure it our in the fun and non-frustrating way will be the day my heart is stolen by it, I want to feel the satisfying pain of going up the ladder and the adrenaline of staying on top of it and fighting powerful aspiring champions, the respect I give to the worthy enemies. Real life top 1 sportspeople in most disciplines rarely complain on boredom, they need to fight like hell not just to get there but to defend their position and prolong their golden era.

In 4X games almost all AI players ultmately play like chill easygoing sportspeople who don't care about going to the top, they just want to have fun so to speak, or are satisfied with their more modest achievements. When the human player takes #1 spot from the AI empire, that empire isn't really determined to prevent that at all, nor is it jealous and bitter from losing its #1 spot, unlike real life empires, which are much less easygoing and chill than sports players after all

Look at the current US-China rivalry, Indian fixation with catching up with China (not to mention the West), Cold War, Russian megalomania, French being jealous of the British empire and English cultural supremacy, Napoleon, Genghis, Alexander etc.

One of the reasons it is easier to get bored after becoming #1 against AI than against human players is because no AIs are agitated by someone else, not me being #1. AIs are always happy go lucky to be number 2 or number 3 or to just hang out being humiliated at the very bottom of the ladder. Humans have many personalities but gather few of them in a contest of power and the temporary prideful hegemon will constantly struggle against ambitious contenders.

 

[chaosprophet]

Carlbarian on your borders is ALWAYS a problem.

Firaxis need to release Carlbarian as a free mod cheat leader now-

Also your post seems to implicitly confirm any civilization has a gameplay unlock

 

[CivKirk64]

I don't understand the idea I seem to see around here, that each age everyone is starting from nothing, you aren't you are incentivized to plan a head a little because everything's lost and I'm no longer the Romans.

Yes you still are the Romans but now you have a cool new identity on top of it, we're Roman Spaniards now! Off to sail and settle distant lands (Croweville, ReedTown etc) . Spreading our religion of Maximus (founding saint, Commander of the Northern armies)

Set yourself up for future success. If you play your cards right and have everything fall into place with no disasters (I'm looking at you crazy amount of barbarians I didn't notice there), then even with the crisis and transition, you should be well position to succeed.


If I'm planning to switch to the Inca than ,I know I'll want to place some settlements near mountains even if it doesn't help right now; Or the very least posture to block off the mountains from other civs, so I get a head start on all those bonusses right away in exploration. Since most cities reset as settlements, maybe under the new culture I leave them as towns this age, and promote my former towns instead.

 

[LastSword]

I have the opposite feeling. The best job in this aspect were civilizations with no uniques. Players had an ultimate freedom to do whatever they want with a chosen civilization. It cannot be topped.

Players will quickly learn to abuse legacy system, the subconscious knowledge that action A carries benefits while action B is ultimately wasted will also define a metagame. I don't think AI will stand the test of time ~ like in civ6 where it is baited into building worthless districts. Human brain will plan ahead, AI is incapable.

As the civ switching is just an elaborated policy tree it will also suffer the same issues. Of course you can force yourself to choose worse governor or policy tree - to roleplay - but it does not make a system good/balanced. Multiplayer will very quickly verify how viable the entire system is. In the best case scenario I hope that some terrain-based civilizations will be viable niche picks. In the worst case scenario there will be just obvious power outliers everyone goes for no matter what.

In future (when more civilizations is added) there will also probably be a situation in which civA is always a better pick than civB. Gameplay variety is limited yet players need for new and shiny civilizations is not.