Civ IV denizens discuss Civ VII thread (One 7 thread Only Please)

[lymond]

Moderator Action: CIVILIZATION 7 thread for discussion of the new game scheduled to release in February 2025. In the past, threads are usually started to discuss the features of the new Civ game. Please keep the topic to this thread only. (Any new thread opened will be deleted) More importantly, please keep the discussion civil. All opinions are welcome, but everyone must be respectful to members and current/former developers of Civ games. The thread is a friendly place. Thank you - me

Guidelines:

1) If you have been participating in the 7 forum discussions, please don't quote posts from that forum here.
2) I posted some images in the OP from the live PAX show with Firaxis today to make it spicy . However, if you want to post pics please place them in spoiler tags. Page loading can lag in a thread with a lot of images.

*Please read the above mod text before joining this discussion.*

 

[user330977]

As with all new games, I'll keep an open mind and I'm happy to learn more about it. I'm not sure about the civ-switching mechanic and how the game is split into three seemingly distinct eras rather than one continuous flow, but I'm sure we'll learn more soon.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I'm not convinced by some of the design choices but I take heart that they have identified some of the key pain points in terms of the game being most fun in the first 100 turns and the end being decided long before you can actually achieve it.

(The latter doesn't bother me - I'm quite happy to play 1250 turns of a Marathon Time game with my only remaining opponent exiled to an iceball city - but I accept I'm in a small minority!).

 

[drewisfat]

I'm not sure it does more to help or hurt unwillingness to finish games. If I was in the middle of Shaka smashing my neighbor and the game said STOP, you are now Dutch or Somali and you must explore... I'd probably stop playing then and there.

Denuvo and removing workers are awful, but rational financial decisions. Copying the worst part about Humankind is just a dumb own goal. Age of Exploration is a very western European centric idea that shouldn't be historically deterministic. Heck, it didn't even work out for the colonizers in the end, and it assumes peace, and large unexplored land across the ocean, etc. This creates a whole bunch of potential issues to overcome:
- Choosing appropriate culture shifts. There's always going to be some gripes around the edges, but bungling one of the easiest examples with Romans to...... Normans really suggests this will be a gripe with every civ. They're probably viewing this as advantageous for adding new DLC but it might backfire.
- Exploration age means bye bye pangaea and fractal, it's all Terra maps now?
- How are you going to force me to drop the sword and set sail? (or will there be a choice between exploration age and something else?)
- What happens to New World civs? Are they stuck on backwardsville island, gone from the game, or are they old world civs now?
- How do you prevent the player from getting a massive advantage on colonizing? This obviously is going to depend on the entire game, but in civ 4 it's more than possible to block the AI from much of the new world on a terra map. I actually wouldn't mind Terra-ish maps popping up in a fractal or shuffle script. It's knowing ahead of time from turn 0 that it's race to the new world that's problematic. They're going to have to take away a ton of player agency or introduce some hard caps to stop some similar meta from developing. I think it's either going to be too easy or too "automated".
- Isn't this going to get very boring very quickly? It seems like they're relying on increasing the number of civs and their uniqueness to maintain interest, but forcing midgame exploration is going to make all campaigns feel very similar.

Take this all with a grain of salt, as I'm clearly not the intended audience. Civ 5 and Civ 6 are both big enough red flags that I'm not casting my vote for a Firaxis product again unless there's a huge paradigm shift. Hopefully this age thing is prophetic. Civ 1-4 antiquity, Civ 5-8 the awkward "exploration" and we get back on track with Civs 9-12

 

[Thrasybulos]

removing workers [is] awful

Why?
I have zero interest in Civ7 but that's one change (the only one?) that I thought justified.
The "charge" workers of Civ6 were imo idiotic, but the only reason I can see for Civ1-5 workers is building improvements beyond city limits. Once that notion is gone, what's the point of workers?

 

[mycophobia]

Why?
I have zero interest in Civ7 but that's one change (the only one?) that I thought justified.
The "charge" workers of Civ6 were imo idiotic, but the only reason I can see for Civ1-5 workers is building improvements beyond city limits. Once that notion is gone, what's the point of workers?

Greater flexibility. You can build a city that's a worker factory and have it support your whole core, for example. Granted, I don't really know how 7's workerlessness is going to work exactly, but if it's something like putting hammers directly into tile improvements I'd say that's a step down

 

[Noble Zarkon]

The "charge" workers of Civ6 were imo idiotic

They made you have real strategic choices, I worry there won't be enough to do in Civ 7 especially early on.

 

[drewisfat]

Knowing which improvements should go on which tile is relatively easy. It's combining that with the logistical concerns and the opportunity cost of the worker(s) that results in emergent complexity. I might go so far as to say that while always slightly different, "workers" have been a unifying vessel for decision making throughout the series. I'm sure feelings about their removal will break down into the predictable camps of "dumbing down" vs "tedious micro". I strongly suspect that the main motivation behind the change wasn't gameplay considerations but to make the game more portable to consoles.

 

[Thrasybulos]

Thanks for the answers.

I'm not convinced, but at least I can see where you're all coming from.

Basically, I think most people would agree that "playing the map" should be one of the most important parts of the puzzle, and how you choose to exploit (improve) the land should be part of the player's answer.
Civ6 tried to bring a new solution to the table with limited charge workers and building placement minigames.
Civ1-5 failed to provide an adequate answer (choosing improvements is trivial) but worker management provided an alternate, linked puzzle.

Now, that puzzle (worker management) is limited to the early game, but that's not an issue for Civ4 high-level veterans: the early game is the only part they actually play anyway.

I find neither Civ6's minigame puzzles nor the earlier Civ's worker unit management satisfying. But I willingly admit that I don't have a clue about what should replace them to make "playing the map" feel satisfying.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

that's not an issue for Civ4 high-level veterans: the early game is the only part they actually play anyway

Not if they're Game of the Month or Hall of Fame players ....

 

[Thrasybulos]

Just to be clear: that wasn't a jab at those players.
Civ's economy game is basically of the engine-building type.
And the most efficient engine is the one you don't need to build.
They've simply "cracked the puzzle".

Another game I've played a lot, TW Shogun 2 has the same issue. The economy there is even simpler, where roughly everything you can build is of the "invest now for greater returns later" type. As you get better and better at the game, you win faster and faster, and the "later" part ends up always as "too late": completely ignoring your economy is the correct choice. Probably not what the designers had in mind.

 

[Plains-Cow]

Will there be plains-cow tiles in CIV VII?

 

[elitetroops]

but forcing midgame exploration is going to make all campaigns feel very similar.

I think you read that too literally. Age of exploration is just the name of the era. Pretty sure nothing in there will force you to do that, except maybe some small circumnavigation bonus, which there also is in Civ4.

Based on what I've seen about civ 7 so far, it seems it's all about reducing micro management, but instead it crammed with micro decisions. There's no workers and no city management. When the city grows you assign a tile to work and that choice is final. No moving citizens around between tiles. Instead there's a ton of leader traits and whatever small level-ups, where you get to choose some small bonus, but all these choices are also final. How do you adapt your empire to changing circumstances?

I haven't seen anything yet that would cover more in detail what happens when you advance to the next age. Only thing I read was that the entire world advances at the same time. Seems pretty odd to me, does that mean no more runaway civs? No more having my modern armor destroyed by Monty's spearmen? Actually quite curious how this is going to work.

Also, apparently some dev said it would be way harder than previous Civ games. I sure hope it is harder than 6, but doubt it will come even close to Civ4.

 

[lymond]

From what I've read and heard, I believe there is far more to the age advancement. Yes, everyone advances at the same time but pretty sure how you performed in the first age has a big impact on the state of your civ/leader through legacy bonuses and just the overall state of your empire. Also, I believe some civs will not advance to the next age based on not meeting certain metrics, and I think new ones will also appear. But I don't know much and still a lot not explained yet. Those who got to demo only were allowed to play the first age.

I'm casually optimistic about the ages mechanic in 7, and that is coming from an official Humankind beta-tester that thought their mechanic was borked big time.

 

[Nick723]

I have to say I’m quite excited, from what I’ve seen so far!

I would get it to try it out, but I’ll have to wait until the system requirements are revealed (I doubt I have a capable machine).

 

[Thormodr]

Some ambitious ideas. The ages mechanic will work immersion wise provided they have hundreds of Civs and logical progressions. Navigable rivers are cool. Cities and towns have potential to be interesting. Some cool narrative events. Barbs are now independent people who can become city states. Commanders lead Armies.
Graphics are pretty nice, IMHO.

Overall, it has the potential to be excellent or a big flop.

Denuvo drm is an auto non buy, however. This will be the first Civ I have not bought immediately. Maybe try to wait it out for it to go away and get it on sale as a bonus.

Anyway, Civ IV is still the best Civ. Will have to fire up a game again.

 

[The_Reckoning]

None of the design choices matter to me if there isn't a competent AI which can play the game properly. And the business philosophy seems to have moved away from modding, they won't release the DLL/provide a deep SDK.

99.9% chance this game is dead in the water for me.

 

[lymond]

Firaxis did mention at PAX that they put a lot more emphasis on AI development for Civ 7. I believe they said they expanded the team to nearly double the size.

I believe there will be more gameplay/decisions involved with the leaders in 7, like in Old World, which I have been playing some. A bit like Crusader Kings. I'm not sure on that point though.

I think it is safe to say now that the Civ series will not be returning to the old glory days of Civ IV that we all love here. I found some value in playing Civ V eventually. As mentioned, I treated it more as a war game. Civ 6 did nothing for me at all. Civ 7, so far, seems quite a departure from anything previously, and in some regards, that inspires a bit of hope and interest. I give up on the idea of a IV-type game, so I just want something interesting that has some strategic depth to it. But ultimately, just something fun to play that Civ 6 certainly was not for me.

(oh..but I will certainly not buy the game until at least several dlcs/patches are released and likely not until the first expansion DLC. Ofc, my willingness to buy depends on the overall response to the game)

 

[Eauxps I. Fourgott]

The facts that this installment will probably cost over $50 for just the base game, and then see something like 50 DLCs released, are enough to rule out my interest in it quite apart from any other considerations.

 

[antimony]

Yeah the DLC in VI were a bit of an issue for e.g. forum games when people need the same version of the game to play so with the same DLC loaded.