That's already in the game.
Civ VII Developer Update - August 2025 | Here's what to expect in tomorrow's 1.2.4 update...
- Thread starter FXS_Sar
- Start date
- Status
Is it? Queueing is in the game, but you can't cue multiple different techs (or masteries) as goals afaik.
I wonder if Byrsa change is purely to increase the chance of grabbing it as Carthage. On current version it's early in the tree, and frequently targeted by the AI.
And pushing it later might make it better by default, anyway, as it increases the chances of having sizeable coastal city by the time it appears.
From the changes shown, the Borobudur one seems most significant by far. It was definitely one of the outliers in terms of impact, so it is understandable if they want them brought more in line with each other. I wonder if Notre Dome will see the same hit.
Last edited:
You can queue techs, but not multiple, no.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2011
- Messages
- 2,293
Don't be overexcited, the better map generation is "on the horizon", not in 1.2.4
stealth_nsk
Deity
From the context I assume it's planned for the September patch. Although, of course, planning isn't equal to doing.
ConspicuousFlower
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2025
- Messages
- 34
Can't say I'm a fan of all the changes to the Age Transition system. I get it has been unpopular, but every update seems to be further steps into neutering the whole point of the age system, which was to create a "soft reset" to curb snowballing and make the later stages of the game more challenging or less on rails.
Now we keep almost all our military units, merchants, settlers, gold, influence, obsolete buildings now don't lose as many yields... Seems like it's basically going in the opposite direction. I wouldn't mind some of these changes at all, but all of them together seems like neutering the entire concept of age transitions.
Now we keep almost all our military units, merchants, settlers, gold, influence, obsolete buildings now don't lose as many yields... Seems like it's basically going in the opposite direction. I wouldn't mind some of these changes at all, but all of them together seems like neutering the entire concept of age transitions.
Yeah, exploration and modern genuinely need a rethink of the gold buying prices, and tech and civic costs. The yield bloat since the launch is very noticable. Some golden age policies took unexpected hits, too. You can barely feel the difference when picking the ageless science & culture buildings, for example, and there's even less downside to going Whoops All Cities in antiquity and going for economic golden age, since the cities can now self-sustain.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 3,292
I don't think they went as hard as they needed to at launch to curb snowballing. But what they did do was so unpopular it looks like they've decided snowballing is here to stay. Trouble isn't just that that undermines the age system, as that in 7 everything is so interconnected that the knock-on effects undermine most of their new changes.
I don't like civ switching, but I do like the age system... I'm starting to worry that they might get rid of the good thing and keep the bad one...
Yeah now they are just ruining it and the changes won't probably sway the haters anyway.
stealth_nsk
Deity
In the current (pre-patch state) you spend any excess money on units which should be saved between eras, which is kind of gamey. The ability to save more money directly looks ok to me (I also wish the game communicate the limits better). Not sure how I feel about saving more influence, though - could be pretty abusable.
Other than influence I don't think those limits really helped fighting snowballing. Before all the patches, saving units with commanders actually allowed some civilizations to jump start next age with significant military power, so I wouldn't say current situation is worse. We still have auto-upgrade units, so civilizations which had lower-grade units (due to lack of tech and money) catch up, we also have degradation of the previous age buildings, so this works too.
stealth_nsk
Deity
I don't think the goal is to sway haters, IMHO, Firaxis just continue making a better game. The release was rushed, but they work hard now.
IMO, the biggest inflator in the game are Gold and Silver resources. Once you get a big empire, and have expanded or are trading all over the map, I've easily gotten 5 or 8 of each of them, which just makes gold buying so cheap. When I can buy a Granary for like 80 gold, while my empire is pulling in 3000 per turn, just makes it a joke.
Even just a simple take - compare Salt (antiquity)/truffles (exploration) vs Silver. Salt and Truffle are city resources, which need a resource slot. They impact one city only, or you have to move them around. And they impact production. VS Silver, which is an empire resource, and gives you a 20% bonus to purchasing and upgrading units. Honestly, Gold and Silver should probably be like 5% each to their boosts, rather than 20%. Even with that, they'd still have value, but at least then in a typical empire, you're not getting like twice the value for money than might be "expected".
You could even use the age structure of the game and have it decline. 20% in Antiquity, 10% Exploration, 5% Modern.
Or just make these not stack as much. It's "fine" for Iron and Oil to stack, but they have a limit (+6 CS?). Why not make a purchase limit at maybe -35% regardless of 10 gold and silver? Civ bonuses like Carthage's could still be applied on top to make things ridiculously cheap though. What if the reduction would actually be not a percentage, but a fixed value? E.g., 30 gold per resource?
I wonder whether empire resource slots would be fun to interact with or just a needless complication?
Even in antiquity 20% I think is too much, but yeah, you could do something like 10/5/5 if you want to give a little extra before the new world opens up.
sonicmyst
Emperor
Or have diminishing returns the more you have it.
That would be excessively complex.
I agree that uncapped gold & silver discounts are part of the problem. The other part of the problem, though, is you having 3000 gold per turn in late Exploration & Modern, compared to 100-200 in Antiquity, but the prices not changing accordingly. I'm not forced into thinking what to buy & where. I can easily fill the map with Explorers by turn 15. I can buy multiple Railroads and Factories the turn they unlock. More gold carrying over, and more of the yield inflation coming from the recent changes, just means that unlocking Explorers and turn 2 and immediately buying several will just become the norm, and tuning gold & silver alone will not solve it.
The more changes to Continuity options there are, the more pushed I feel into going back to Regroup, even with all its stupid quirks, because otherwise there's no complexity left beyond Antiquity.
Yeah, that was only one case where things seemed to get out of hand too easily, but there's definitely a turning point somewhere in the middle of the exploration age where it seems like things just explode. I do as best as I can, and often am in a great place, but I struggle to have enough cash to upgrade a 4th settlement to a city in antiquity, and if you get hit with the wrong crisis, you can actually be a little bit punished and just miss out on those last few pieces.
But in exploration, just about every game I get to the point where every few turns, I can just convert a settlement to a city and buy literally every building available for it, and then rinse and repeat that every few turns. I don't want to, but otherwise I don't know what to do with things. I don't want to buy 10 missionaries every turn and have to micro them, and it's not like the 6th army commander will do me any good either.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
