Civ 7 vs Civ 1.
- Thread starter Bobolove
- Start date
No. I don‘t want to play as modern Iraq, America, Mexico, Italy, Libanon or India. I want Assyria, Shawnee, Maya, Rome, Phoenicians, and Maurya.
In an alternative history setting, there is no connection between modern countries and ancient civs. In Civ 1-6 Rome doesn‘t cripple for centuries and eventually fall. Hence, there is no connection to Italy, not even implied. If anything, the two would be competitors. It’s really good that we are loosing the multi-age blob civs, like India, China, Germany, and Japan now for that very reason. Even in civ 7, there is no connection, necessarily. If Rome turns into Mongols, why should it become Italy of all possibilities and not Qing?
King of Prussia
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2011
- Messages
- 324
No, Even if Civ 7 was some how a failure, the ages and civs system they made is not going to be removed. Its core to the game. You wouldnt see this removed until Civ 8 or a new spin off civ game.
As controversial as the Ages/Civ system is, there would have to be a lot of other stuff going wrong for Civ 7 to fail.
While i am skeptical of the new system, i have to admit that there are so many new possibilities for civs now, that we would of probably never got. Same for many leaders. This is probably the most exciting part for me, in the long term. Getting to know more civs/leaders i dont know much or anything about.
As controversial as the Ages/Civ system is, there would have to be a lot of other stuff going wrong for Civ 7 to fail.
While i am skeptical of the new system, i have to admit that there are so many new possibilities for civs now, that we would of probably never got. Same for many leaders. This is probably the most exciting part for me, in the long term. Getting to know more civs/leaders i dont know much or anything about.
I look at the trend -- from Civ1 to Civ7 -- of increasing the representation of civs from around the world. While most of the core group of civs from Civ1 and Civ2 were carried forward into Civ6, they added more. More in Civ5 and LOTS more in Civ6. The driving force behind the Civ7 civ choices is to increase visibility for empires and peoples across time and across space/geography. The "blob" civs like India and China, which were comprised of distinctly different leaders and cultures through the centuries have been separated into distinct civs. It's a bold step.
Yes, if Civ7 were to have the same market reception as Beyond Earth, they might consider a change in direction. I expect Civ7 to be more like Civ6, which continues to grow, expand, and add more capabilities. I don't expect them to revert. I expect them to have both expansions and "season passes" as they did in Civ6. Growing the number of choices in each age; expanding the pallette of civ traits, giving us many 3-civ-progressions to make our way to victory.
Yes, if Civ7 were to have the same market reception as Beyond Earth, they might consider a change in direction. I expect Civ7 to be more like Civ6, which continues to grow, expand, and add more capabilities. I don't expect them to revert. I expect them to have both expansions and "season passes" as they did in Civ6. Growing the number of choices in each age; expanding the pallette of civ traits, giving us many 3-civ-progressions to make our way to victory.
Aeon221
Lord of the Cheese Helmet
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,959
I don’t really care about representation so that part isn’t super meaningful to me personally. I like the age mechanics and think they’re neat and I think the civ switching and age stuff is tastefully done and allows for player narrative about the game world and state which is what I care about.
This game looks way more attractive than any past Civ game and I am hype for the city building and especially to see the dramatic changes in cities that the modern era will definitely bring. The sole exception in the beauty department is the unit portraits when they’re in a commander or being selected. It is heeeeeeeedeeeeous. I assume that is programmer art because wow! That is not good!
As far as Civ 1 comparisons I’m curious how they’ll handle global warming since it’s a series staple that dates back all the way. My hope is that because disasters are integrated into the base game they’ll be a lot more sensible with them in the first two ages but we’ll see some wild stuff in the third one… although hopefully not the super death blizzards of gathering storm on release
The big disappointment for me is that they’re moving further and further from the Panzer General inspiration for the combat system in Civ 5 (specifically mentioned by Trip back then). I’d like to see a big emphasis on military engineers rather than promotions for obstacle clearance and river crossing for example, and I hope we don’t lose too many of those supporting assets we got in 6.
This game looks way more attractive than any past Civ game and I am hype for the city building and especially to see the dramatic changes in cities that the modern era will definitely bring. The sole exception in the beauty department is the unit portraits when they’re in a commander or being selected. It is heeeeeeeedeeeeous. I assume that is programmer art because wow! That is not good!
As far as Civ 1 comparisons I’m curious how they’ll handle global warming since it’s a series staple that dates back all the way. My hope is that because disasters are integrated into the base game they’ll be a lot more sensible with them in the first two ages but we’ll see some wild stuff in the third one… although hopefully not the super death blizzards of gathering storm on release
The big disappointment for me is that they’re moving further and further from the Panzer General inspiration for the combat system in Civ 5 (specifically mentioned by Trip back then). I’d like to see a big emphasis on military engineers rather than promotions for obstacle clearance and river crossing for example, and I hope we don’t lose too many of those supporting assets we got in 6.
Similar threads
