Civ 7 In 2026

[Gorbles]

It’s not just about aesthetics. It’s also about bringing in a modern UI (like a dedicated window for designing Stacks of Doom), improving performance on modern machines/laptops/mobile devices, adding new civilizations to the default roster, new modding tools, fixing long‑standing issues, and potentially introducing features from later installments.

I'm well aware of all of that. But this will only work if people actually play the base game. Especially if you want to add new features (like stack management). It's a very risky proposition - far less than a new entry in the franchise.

 

[TheGeoffey]

5) Crisis: What could be an interesting and decisive late age event is boring and meaningless. Keep the Crisis system but make it actually interesting.

There's a mod, Leugi's Crisis Pacing Rework, that starts crises at 50% so you have much longer to savor your problems and then another, More Crises, that adds additional ones so there are 5 each in Antiquity and Exploration. These do a lot to flavor games

​

 

[King Flevance]

I think where crises are concerned it needs to be more interesting as a mechanic than just picking the least bad policy card. The whole mechanic needs reintroduced to the game in a new way. The bad policy card thing isn't fun and offers no interesting decision. Even making it picking the least bad narrative event would make it have a more personal narrative but would still be a poor implementation. A mechanic to model a crisis in a sandbox is a big undertaking and while it helps that they structured the game to time it, you still need a good mechanic at its core that is interesting. Usually, people use different pros and cons. Many 4x games use faction affinity or political weight to the decisions. So you could add in something where picking the same policy card gave you good relations with civs that also chose that one. Maybe even mix in narrative events instead of a splash screen with a wall of text and a button that says the equivalent of "OK". Additionally, many have pointed out that the crisis should be an event that happens on the map that you have to divert resources to deal with, similar to the barbarian uprising crisis where you actually have to fight lots of hostile armies. However, with the ancient plague or happiness, you just have to sit and watch it do whatever it is going to do with no action on the part of the player.

Crises feel like they were just tossed in apathetically as a mechanic. Outside of a restructure of the entire mechanic, it can't really be tweaked or adjusted to feel fun for many of us.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think where crises are concerned it needs to be more interesting as a mechanic than just picking the least bad policy card. The whole mechanic needs reintroduced to the game in a new way. The bad policy card thing isn't fun and offers no interesting decision. Even making it picking the least bad narrative event would make it have a more personal narrative but would still be a poor implementation. A mechanic to model a crisis in a sandbox is a big undertaking and while it helps that they structured the game to time it, you still need a good mechanic at its core that is interesting. Usually, people use different pros and cons. Many 4x games use faction affinity or political weight to the decisions. So you could add in something where picking the same policy card gave you good relations with civs that also chose that one. Maybe even mix in narrative events instead of a splash screen with a wall of text and a button that says the equivalent of "OK". Additionally, many have pointed out that the crisis should be an event that happens on the map that you have to divert resources to deal with, similar to the barbarian uprising crisis where you actually have to fight lots of hostile armies. However, with the ancient plague or happiness, you just have to sit and watch it do whatever it is going to do with no action on the part of the player.

Crises feel like they were just tossed in apathetically as a mechanic. Outside of a restructure of the entire mechanic, it can't really be tweaked or adjusted to feel fun for many of us.

I don’t think they need a complete restructure
-add narrative
-add map counterplay (say Doctors are in very limited numbers)

-also add more connection to the legacy options/points…there is some, but make it more explicit and add more crisis legacies.

 

[King Flevance]

I don’t think they need a complete restructure
-add narrative
-add map counterplay (say Doctors are in very limited numbers)

-also add more connection to the legacy options/points…there is some, but make it more explicit and add more crisis legacies.

But, the extent of these modifications is a complete rework of the crisis mechanic. All of that added in stuff is actually a lot more than the current mechanic offers both in terms of the work required to implement it and the reward to the player as to what it offers the game.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think crises need a rework anytime soon. It's optional mechanic, which a lot of players turn off as soon as they try several games with and learn about ability to disable the crises. Sure, crises have their narrative value to justify age switching, but from gameplay perspective it's better to focus on more core mechanics first.

I understand that legacy paths are technically optional too, but since victory conditions are based on them, they are much more "core" to the game.

 

[Leucarum]

I think Firaxis have to proceed on the assumption that crises are a low prioriry. I believe there was a poll here which was around 50-50 players using them regularly or not, so I'd suspect fixing features which are more universal has to be the priority.

 

[King Flevance]

I agree Firaxis does not need to prioritize crises. But "fixing" them goes beyond a simple mod. I do think Firaxis needs to refine/define Civ 7's focus in 2026. We have the regroup/continuity toggle, and the upcoming 1 civ vs. Civ switching. Also, crises which was advertised as a core mechanic at launch with many players being vocal about turning it off because it isnt fun and Firaxis teases a collapse mode in response. Now, I actually am a big fan of all these options in the game setup menu. But the direction of Civ seems bipolar in its approach. I hope we see them find a cohesive vision for the game and start building something we can all believe in.

 

[Datian]

I'd like to see crises as opportunities. For now, they come as hindrances, simply annoying mechanics, and most of your role is to mitigate them by choosing the right cards. The only fun one is the hostile camps popping everywhere in the antiquity, although it quickly becomes a whack a mole game.

And this is where the opportunity could be, a series of mini quests : if you dismantle enough camps, or do it quickly enough, your civilization is remembered as "the one who fended off the barbarians" and you keep, say, a +5 bonus against independant powers for the next age (and a -5 malus if you let them prosper). You can easily imagine the equivalent for the other crises, the general idea remaining "if you handle it you're rewarded in the next age, if you don't you're punished."

I don't think it would be too difficult to make up.

 

[UWHabs]

I agree Firaxis does not need to prioritize crises. But "fixing" them goes beyond a simple mod. I do think Firaxis needs to refine/define Civ 7's focus in 2026. We have the regroup/continuity toggle, and the upcoming 1 civ vs. Civ switching. Also, crises which was advertised as a core mechanic at launch with many players being vocal about turning it off because it isnt fun and Firaxis teases a collapse mode in response. Now, I actually am a big fan of all these options in the game setup menu. But the direction of Civ seems bipolar in its approach. I hope we see them find a cohesive vision for the game and start building something we can all believe in.

They could use a basic rebalance, enough at least so that you have something to do in each one, that they each force you to at least manage something in your empire. I think down the road they could have some bigger changes, maybe a more branching storyline, mixing some of them together, more detailed setups. They still suffer from the weird age counter mechanism, where if you trigger the crisis and then just complete all the legacy paths, you can have the crisis last like 20-25 turns only, rather than being forced to work with it for 40 or so turns.

 

[King Flevance]

Honestly, I think I would rather have the 3 crisis points instead be transition points into your new civ identity for the next age. So that you slowly shift your identity or evolve it into its next form. You could still frame it as a crisis if you wanted to or you could frame it as whatever narrative event you wanted. Although, you could unlock new options in that window so it could be tricky.

I know it wouldn't be popular probably, but I would like to see you be able to fight the crisis / push forward by removing some of your unlocked civ options from the next age transition. Perhaps removing Abbasids from your choices gives you +1 science to tiles with a specialist and also makes it so that specialists help prevent the spread of the plague for the rest of the age. Or removing Bulgaria as an option could give you a +2 strength against IPs. But you have to have them unlocked to remove them as options.

But I would also like something where maybe you slowly lose your uniques and gain another civ's but that is trickier to design based on the idea that you can still unlock new options by connecting 3 camels or something. I would just like to see smoother age transitions. Get rid of the massive time gap, and stop turning my phalanx units into swordsmen and galleys into cogs. Let me do it and have to pay for it.

 

[Krikkit1]

Honestly, I think I would rather have the 3 crisis points instead be transition points into your new civ identity for the next age. So that you slowly shift your identity or evolve it into its next form. You could still frame it as a crisis if you wanted to or you could frame it as whatever narrative event you wanted. Although, you could unlock new options in that window so it could be tricky.

I know it wouldn't be popular probably, but I would like to see you be able to fight the crisis / push forward by removing some of your unlocked civ options from the next age transition. Perhaps removing Abbasids from your choices gives you +1 science to tiles with a specialist and also makes it so that specialists help prevent the spread of the plague for the rest of the age. Or removing Bulgaria as an option could give you a +2 strength against IPs. But you have to have them unlocked to remove them as options.

But I would also like something where maybe you slowly lose your uniques and gain another civ's but that is trickier to design based on the idea that you can still unlock new options by connecting 3 camels or something. I would just like to see smoother age transitions. Get rid of the massive time gap, and stop turning my phalanx units into swordsmen and galleys into cogs. Let me do it and have to pay for it.

A gradual shift would be interesting but incredibly difficult to implement at this point. (the civs are all designed withe the assumption that all of their uniques are together and only in the given age…for some it doesn’t matter much, but for others it does)

 

[King Flevance]

A gradual shift would be interesting but incredibly difficult to implement at this point. (the civs are all designed withe the assumption that all of their uniques are together and only in the given age…for some it doesn’t matter much, but for others it does)

I agree. I tried thinking of a way to do it but came up short. Smoother age transitions though would be great.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Ctp : Civilization was sued for having "Civilization" in the title.
It is true it was a different game as I gave read in other threads, but... it was THE superior game...

Magrails
Acquatic cities
Orbital cities
A super tech tree
Graphics that where on par with Civ III graphics, before Civ III launched...

If CTp was allowed to continue developing, and wasn't "decommissioned", it would have released Ctp III...
That never happened...

Civ III took everythying good from Ctp, and made it their property- AKA, it's the other way around.
It wasnt Ctp Copying Civ. It was Civ copying Ctp.
And because there was struggle to be the best in the category, nothing was spared.
The Best, memorable scenarios and units came out strapped to Civ III, and the fight was adding as much feat as possible,
whilst maintaining a fast paced gameplay.

Today it's just the shell, the graphics that improved.
The Core. The mechanics, stats, attention to small details, all evaporated in the run for minimalism, consolization.
It would be utterly possible to resurrect a fierce adversary to Civ VII, given how poor the game has become in terms
of raw features.

When your design has become over-complicated because of a number of errors down the road, it will need a bigger human force
to continuosly monitor and correct. If 1UPT was never implemented, if unit embarkment was never implemented, workers and roads construction removed (and before that, taxing roads...) and instead just focus on making what was already brilliant more deep...

Developing new scenarios and units...
doubling down on workers feats, kind of tiles improvements with also adding new biomes...
map heights...

Civ III launched in the time Physix came out...
Other similar games were experimenting with 3D, even as minigames within the game...
Could you imagine a minigame where you had to defend your palace from an invader King
or a rebellion, and your personal, main city castle, would transform in a 2D Zelda, Link to the past, or Indiana from Lucas, when
it switched to combat mode, or inside an airplane... when the first Airplane came out...
you'd become the Red Baron for a special mission...
and you could see your Civ Map in pseudo 3D?

I see nothing, and I mean NOTHING, really innovative and gamebreaking,was done in Civ, ever since Civ IV came out.
No-one else there to contend the title.
HK did improve the map with heights, and simply used a different combat system.
But it didn't invent ANYTHING brutally awesome the likes comparable to what the late 90s
and early 2000 we used to get...

Even now, what's stopping 2K from delivering multiple Civ spinoffs that are not Civ VII?
I mean 2000 folks and the only thing they care is balancing AI aggressiveness in the only game left in
active development???

People on Steam LOVES Retro, 2D, Indie stuff... Octopath... Silksong..
There's never been a better time than now to experiment and try new stuff---in old cloth---
and yet, we get only brutalist AAA without a soul, 90% of the time.

Small teams, 9 people, made expedition 33... only 9 devs...
Civ VII combat system is nothing but boring at this point...
I always hated these super units with almost infinte health that takes multiple turns of combat just to kill one...
or the Scouts that outruns you, can attack and defend... instead of just die instantly... it is just a chore...
Copying a chore, that is what HK did wrong... and that is why it failed miserably...
the only good thing (the map) has the Editor broken, so no community can evolve around it either...
All the wrong choices at the right moment...
I cannot comprehend the Direction line how can you get almost everything wrong this big...
HK had not a small budget behind...
NO TLS map.
Not a single scenario.

Why Deny the fact that is the unique variety of scenario the moment that Civ III skyrocketed above the competition?
It sparkled the super community unique scenario mods that are todays the HARD CORE of Civ fanatics...
How can you fail so BIG in not recognising the importance of it???

 

[Kimurae]

The game becomes meh after Antiquity.

I'd almost prefer if the Crisis and the next age was leaned in harder.

- City populations shrink, due to plague, drought, or abandonment and you have to fight it.
- Maybe you have to defend against massive hordes of barbarians whom pillage and sack.

Beating the crisis could unlock some civs, like Rome surviving with all their cities intact could unlock the Byzantines.

Succumbing could unlock others like the HRE.

Nonetheless, at the new age — its victory paths should be defined by the crisis, and focus on the survivors rebuilding and then the next age is when they become a nation.

I personally think there should be more ages as well, China and Europe have differing ages before 1400 but I still think there is enough that you'd have one between Antiquity and Exploration, and it should be the Crisis Age maybe?

But then you have:
1492 - 1918 Exploration/Imperial Age
1918 -> Modern Age

 

[Smegger213]

The game becomes meh after Antiquity.

I'd almost prefer if the Crisis and the next age was leaned in harder.

- City populations shrink, due to plague, drought, or abandonment and you have to fight it.
- Maybe you have to defend against massive hordes of barbarians whom pillage and sack.

Beating the crisis could unlock some civs, like Rome surviving with all their cities intact could unlock the Byzantines.

Succumbing could unlock others like the HRE.

Nonetheless, at the new age — its victory paths should be defined by the crisis, and focus on the survivors rebuilding and then the next age is when they become a nation.

I personally think there should be more ages as well, China and Europe have differing ages before 1400 but I still think there is enough that you'd have one between Antiquity and Exploration, and it should be the Crisis Age maybe?

But then you have:
1492 - 1918 Exploration/Imperial Age
1918 -> Modern Age

Nah. Stuff Crisis's.
I turn them off. The game is bad enough with volcano eruptions, storms, blizzards and floods etc. Which you cannot turn off.

 

[King Flevance]

Tile swapping between settlements would be fantastic in 2026. It actually irritates me that this has not been addressed yet.

 

[cinattra]

The game becomes meh after Antiquity.

I'd almost prefer if the Crisis and the next age was leaned in harder.

- City populations shrink, due to plague, drought, or abandonment and you have to fight it.
- Maybe you have to defend against massive hordes of barbarians whom pillage and sack.

Beating the crisis could unlock some civs, like Rome surviving with all their cities intact could unlock the Byzantines.

Succumbing could unlock others like the HRE.

Nonetheless, at the new age — its victory paths should be defined by the crisis, and focus on the survivors rebuilding and then the next age is when they become a nation.

I personally think there should be more ages as well, China and Europe have differing ages before 1400 but I still think there is enough that you'd have one between Antiquity and Exploration, and it should be the Crisis Age maybe?

But then you have:
1492 - 1918 Exploration/Imperial Age
1918 -> Modern Age

I agree. I believe they should lean harder into the ages as well and have more of them. Doesn't make sense for "Antiquity" to last until "Exploration." I'm no historian but a lot of history happened between those two eras. Medieval?

Then sort of melding "Exploration" and "Colonization/Imperial."

Crisis could be constant throughout the age, even if it is just one crisis.

 

[cairnsy44]

It will probably be paid considering a whole new age feels like expansion material.

1) I don't think England is happening unfortunately, considering we have the Normans. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Saxons which could be a mix of the continental Saxons and the ones who migrated to Great Britain.
2)It's more likely we'd get an HRE/Teutonic State civ for Exploration.
3) I'm fine with this, though Florence might be Venice again or any other city-state, like Genoa.
4)Kyivan Rus' makes more sense for Exploration.

I wouldn't be surprised if we got Ireland instead in this game. They fit in with more of the Exploration vibe this game has.

Would love to see Alfred and the Saxons.

Religion definitely needs an overhaul. It's just an annoyance at the moment, like Whack-a-mole.

 

[cairnsy44]

I would love to see more North/South/Central American civs for the Ancient Era. Tough as that may be. TSL makes a start over there pretty quiet.