Civ 7 - why doesn't it look or feel like Civ?

The user interface is very cold. I hope it has changed because compared to civ you seem to have taken a step backwards.
It's also difficult to read. It needs a lot of work, but apparently they are still working on it.
 
You sure? from what I've seen the "founders" lol, make town's not cities , very like Millennia not like previous games

Yes but towns can be upgraded to cities. So it is basically the same as settlers creating cities, it is just a two step process. It is also similar to Humankind where you settle an outpost first and then convert the outpost into a city.
 
Yes but towns can be upgraded to cities. So it is basically the same as settlers creating cities, it is just a two step process. It is also similar to Humankind where you settle an outpost first and then convert the outpost into a city.
And this predates HK in Amplitude's designs; the same happens, I believe, starting in Endless Legends--at least, I don't recall it in the original Endless Space, but I didn't play that one as much as its sequel.
 
And this predates HK in Amplitude's designs; the same happens, I believe, starting in Endless Legends--at least, I don't recall it in the original Endless Space, but I didn't play that one as much as its sequel.

Beyond Earth also did this where your settlers would found outposts which would slowly expand their borders and become cities after x turns. You could send trade routes to them to speed up the process. So it is not new to the civ franchise (if we consider BE to be a civ game).
 
Beyond Earth also did this where your settlers would found outposts which would slowly expand their borders and become cities after x turns. You could send trade routes to them to speed up the process. So it is not new to the civ franchise (if we consider BE to be a civ game).
I played Beyond Earth but have very few memories of it so that's good to know. In Endless Space 2, it's essentially a way to keep a single civ from exploding across the map (because two civs can have outposts in the same solar system, which then becomes a race to develop), but I like Civ7's idea of using towns as a way to encourage expansion without overburdening the player with micromanagement.
 
but I like Civ7's idea of using towns as a way to encourage expansion without overburdening the player with micromanagement.

What I like about civ7's mechanic is that it creates two types of settlements now. Players can build towns, cities or a mix. And towns are useful in their own way, separate from cities since they lack build queues but convert production to gold and can secure resources. And we know that towns can be specialized too so players might use towns as military outposts to protect their borders or use a town as a trading post to secure an important trade route. So players have an interesting choice now. It is not just spamming cities like in previous civs. Players can use towns and cities in different ways. It is more than just a mechanic to slow down expansion, it adds strategy. For example, I imagine that players might try a tall strategy with one capital surrounded by lots of towns providing resources, gold etc... Some players might try a wide approach of spamming towns and making them into cities as soon as possible. Other players might try a hybrid approach with some cities, up to their cap, and towns to secure resources or add gold to their cities. The mechanic also adds realism since empires and nations are made up of large cities but also smaller towns.
 
I think having your leader change but not you civ would have a better appeal. If America gave you say George Washington or John Adams to choose from - then in medieval age (2nd era) you pick between Theodore Roosevelt or Abraham Lincoln - Then in the industrial era you get a choice between like FDR and JFK. I feel if they did this it would feel better than being Maya in 1st era, France in 2nd era and America in 3rd Era. Let Humankind have its gimmick to itself and be inspired by it instead of a copying from their paper. The concept of refreshing on an era change is good. It doesn't have to be EXACTLY like what they did. It is obvious there method leaves much to be desired by many and can certainly be improved upon even if you are like me and enjoy the idea. ( I actually like Humankind for this reason - but the system does have big drawbacks to go with its 'fun' approach and is not a mechanic worthy of copying by itself.) It can certainly be improved on in a bunch of different ways. Honestly, to just copy it just feels lazy and perhaps even as if they are insecure of Civ's unique brand.
 
I can't remember, have we seen if towns contribute to your total settlement cap?
My understanding is that they do not, but that may be an assumption.
 
I heard on Ursa's video that towns do contribute to the city cap. At least according to him. We'll see on that.

I just also heard from his video, something not mentioned in Firaxis presentation that barbarians are gone.

This is huge for me because barbarians have been in the games since the beginning. It will be strange not having them in the game. Who remembers opening a goodie hut to be surrounded by 8 barbarians? Or getting eaten by a bear? Okay maybe not the most positive examples, but you get my drift.

Now independent peoples will replace them. I'm not sure if they start off hostile. I know one streamer got attacked by them. And there simply isn't enough influence to get suzerain with them all which is perhaps a good thing since it wasn't that difficult to do in Civ 5 and Civ 6. I do like the importance of diplomacy in this game.

But it still seems strange not having any barbarians. Even worse thinking they did this for politically correct reasons. Oh well, times change. They definitely kept you on your toes in the early game. By late game they were more an annoyance than anything, and it will be good to get them out of there in the late game.
 
None of the streamers Firaxis sent to their headquarters to play for three hours seemed excited about it. They almost seem defensive.
I think they were guarded for the most part, IMHO.
---------
As for towns, I generally like the idea. They will slow down REXing and they will be a bit of a financial burden at first.

Will wait for more information on them, though.
 
Last edited:
I just also heard from his video, something not mentioned in Firaxis presentation that barbarians are gone.

This is huge for me because barbarians have been in the games since the beginning. It will be strange not having them in the game. Who remembers opening a goodie hut to be surrounded by 8 barbarians? Or getting eaten by a bear? Okay maybe not the most positive examples, but you get my drift.

Now independent peoples will replace them. I'm not sure if they start off hostile. I know one streamer got attacked by them. And there simply isn't enough influence to get suzerain with them all which is perhaps a good thing since it wasn't that difficult to do in Civ 5 and Civ 6. I do like the importance of diplomacy in this game.

But it still seems strange not having any barbarians. Even worse thinking they did this for politically correct reasons. Oh well, times change. They definitely kept you on your toes in the early game. By late game they were more an annoyance than anything, and it will be good to get them out of there in the late game.

Yes barbarians are gone, replaced by independent powers. They are adapted from the barbarian clan mode in civ6 but much deeper and more interesting. Some independent powers can be hostile and will attack you, similar to barbarians, while others will be friendly. You can spend diplomatic influence to befriend them or incite them to attack other civs. One thing that is super cool is that when you spend enough influence to become the suzerain, you get to pick the city-state bonus. In other words, you get to decide if the independent power becomes a science city-state or a cultural city-state etc... It is not pre-determined anymore like in civ6. Frankly, I think this system sounds amazing and much better than the barbarian system of previous civs which were essentially just canon fodder to slow down the player in the early game.

PotatoMcWhiskey has an excellent discussion of how independent powers will work in civ here:


PotatoMcWhiskey really loves the independent power feature. Specifically, he loves that you can determine their city-state bonus. He feels that it makes the player much more invested because you spend time and influence to build up this independent power into an ally city-state. Also, if you pick a strong city-state bonus, you might make the city-state a prize for other civs to want to conquer. So you are invested in protecting that city-state.
 
No builders
And that's good, they were tedious.
an insidious grey on grey UI
UI is, like, the thing that can change the most, I wouldn't make an opinion on it. After all, Victoria 3 was hideous on the first screenshots, and now it's gorgeous.
hideous leader inter actions
Do you remember what the Civ 6 leaders looked like in the first looks? They were hideous as well. Once again, graphics are things that are the most prone to change and amelioration. Judging on it is literally judging a book on its cover, and its colloquially a bad decision, especially if the book hasn't been published yet.
No settlers as such
Just because it changed names doesn't mean they don't exist. Were you also complaining that Civ 6 had "no workers" to speak of?
You sure? from what I've seen the "founders" lol, make town's not cities , very like Millennia not like previous games
But your cities must start as towns. You don't found a city right away, your first found a settlement that, if becoming wealthy and urbanized enough, will become a city. But, thematically, you still have units (settlers/founders) that create your first sedentary settlements (towns/cities).
 
Top Bottom