Civ VII Developer Update - July 2025 | What's coming in tomorrow's 1.2.3 update!

[evonannoredars]

I'm sorry, as soon as you invoked the mythical "average player" your argument unraveled.

The entire class of British Superdreadnaughts of which the Revenge was part were never upgraded after they were built, so they never got the multitude of antiaircraft mounts or separate turreted secondary armament shown on the game graphic - both 'left over' from the regular ship graphic in the game. In addition, the entire hull shape is that of a fast battleship of the 1930s, not the Revenge of 1915. Basically, the graphic doesn't look resemble the actual Revenge from either a top down view or in profile.

I do agree, however, that the appearance of the graphic has probably been blown out of proportion. What has not been blown out of proportion is the botched release of Britain as a Civ with no unique graphic for its Unique Unit. The only excuse I can think of for that is mis-management of the prerelease work schedule and lack of supervision and checking that everything that needed to be done was actually done. That in turn implies incompetence, and the state of other elements of the game upon release reinforces that view.

Okay, let me reword that in a way that's hopefully more acceptable to you - to a person possessing the average amount of knowledge about modern battleships that a civ player would have, the inaccuracies on the current model would not be obviously noticeable.

I think the fact it launched without a unique model just implies to me it suffered from the same rushed release that the rest of civ did, with one non-gameplay-affecting element sacrificed/postponed in order to get the DLC out by the time they had to. I think calling the entire release of Great Britain 'botched' over it is an overreaction.

 

[Lebo44]

Ottomans - Modern or Explo?

I think it is the same dilemma as in case of France that went Modern and represented by Normans in Explo.

Perhaps a more culturally distinctive choice would be to add something like the Turks in the Exploration era (mirroring the Normans), and the Ottoman Empire with the Modern era (paralleling the French Empire).

For example, in Polish historical records prior to the 19th century, the term "Turks" was likely used more frequently to refer to the Ottomans. The designation "Ottoman Empire" appears to have been a more formal label that gained prominence later, particularly in the Modern era. That's my impression, at least.

My bet is: Ottoman Empire goes to Modern

 

[socratic]

I would imagine Trung Trac would want to go for Da Viet, at least over the Majapahit.

I was thinking more about the new age transitions. Most players are likely going to be producing settlers and such right before the transition to get a head start on the new era. Is the AI going to follow suit or is it still programmed for the hard-reset transitions?

 

[Lord Lakely]

I've always been of the opinion that the Ottomans should be in the same era as the Byzantines. So, exploration.

You can have Turkey as the Modern Age equivalent to that. It doesn't quite follow the Modern Age design philosophy Firaxis have followed so far (which features the Civs at the start of the age, and adds references to what they later became (ex: the Prussian Stuka and Russian Katyusha), but I prefer it that way and I've got generally good taste soooooooo.

 

[Krajzen]

We can also have Seljuks in exploration and Ottomans in modern. So we have Turks fighting Byzantium (battle of Manzikert anyone?), Franks (Crusades), Abbasids (Arabs in general), Mongols (like irl) etc. And Seljuks would be an amazing civ on their own, I have always been sad at their nonexistence in civ series, given their titanic importance between early 11th and late 13th centuries, both in Iran and Anatolia. This way you also avoid the silly overlap of Constantinople and Istanbul existing in the same time - you can instead conquer it anew Seljuks are also a fantastic connector civ, feeling like a sensible middle point dynasty for like half of Eurasia, and having a ton of potential future enemies (Georgians, Armenians, Fatimids, Ghaznavids, other steppe peoples, other "crusader vibe" civs etc). Finally, they have always been not very possible in the typical civilization games, always beng eclipsed by the Ottomans.
And then we get Ottomans in the modern era to provide the final third step in the regional evolution of Turks/Anatolia/Greeks (), fight in ww1 and Balkans and not waste one of the few sensible Muslim civs of 1789-1945 period.

 

[Gen.Washington]

It was not fixed. They slightly modified an existing art asset to make Revenge visually distinct from other ships, but they didn't actually add a model for Revenge that looks anything at all like the actual ship.

Which is not acceptable imo. imagine if the roman legion unit was just a warrior with a different helmet and no other changes. this is honestly annoys me the most about the game so far, adding 1 model cannot be that hard.

 

[civfanatic4sure]

Did they give a release time?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Morocco would be... acceptable, though it wasn't exactly very spectacular or accomplished in the 19th century.

Well Morocco was the first country to recognize the U.S. as an independent country.
I feel like it's less about when the accomplishments were in real history and where the progressions fit best. Similar to how the Mughals and potentially the Ottomans fit in this age, Morocco could follow the Abbasids, Songhai, or even another North African Exploration civ in the future.

 

[Kenshiro70]

I'm confused....... they said buildings full base yields and maintenance would transfer now but no adjacencies or special effects.... isn't that what was happening already? What am I missing here?

Yes, this jumped out at me. Buildings retaining base yield but no adjacencies or special effects is what's documented in the Civilopedia. Did something else impair building base yields (e.g., happiness also being reset)? If so, was that intended or was it a bug?

Or was it just maintenance costs that changed? Were they previously not being applied after transition?

 

[Siptah]

Yes, this jumped out at me. Buildings retaining base yield but no adjacencies or special effects is what's documented in the Civilopedia. Did something else impair their base yields? If so, was that intended or was it a bug?

Maybe it's just confusingly worded. With "retaining their base yields" they meant the yields that the building provides by itself in the appropriate era. For example, that a university gives 5 science. These are now kept – whereas before, they would be reduced to a base yield of 3 science, iirc, wich is the same for all buildings of the science type. This would mean that while a university in the modern era would still be worth at least a bit more than earlier, even if you loose the 10+ science from quarter effects and adjacencies. It's not the best example, as universities still have another value in modern anyway (research artifacts), but it should show that it is now at least slightly more worthwhile to build mid- and late-age buildings than before. This is especially true for the ones that cost happiness upkeep and unlock very late, like hospitals, which were often net negatives before.

In short: previously, all buildings dropped their base yields to +2 (exploration) or +3 (modern); now it seems that they keep the base yield from their appropriate age.

 

[j51]

Yeah the Seljuks into the Ottomans would be awesome, but a generalized “Turks” into ottomans works too.

Also they should rename Qajar to just Iran. Then they can use civics and items from the safavids on. They already used just Persia for the antiquity civ.

 

[tedhebert]

I was thinking more about the new age transitions. Most players are likely going to be producing settlers and such right before the transition to get a head start on the new era. Is the AI going to follow suit or is it still programmed for the hard-reset transitions?

if past history is a teacher, then we know the answer to this… not really !

But we need to remember that you can’t really do anything useful with those settlers until cartography is reached anyways. I usually finish to produce my first settlers pretty much at the same time that I reach cartography, so at best I will save a very few turns on this by producing them in antiquity… I’m not totally convinced that it’s as much a game changer as I first thought when learning about this…

we’ll see

 

[civfanatic4sure]

Maybe it's just confusingly worded. With "retaining their base yields" they meant the yields that the building provides by itself in the appropriate era. For example, that a university gives 5 science. These are now kept – whereas before, they would be reduced to a base yield of 3 science, iirc, wich is the same for all buildings of the science type. This would mean that while a university in the modern era would still be worth at least a bit more than earlier, even if you loose the 10+ science from quarter effects and adjacencies. It's not the best example, as universities still have another value in modern anyway (research artifacts), but it should show that it is now at least slightly more worthwhile to build mid- and late-age buildings than before. This is especially true for the ones that cost happiness upkeep and unlock very late, like hospitals, which were often net negatives before.

In short: previously, all buildings dropped their base yields to +2 (exploration) or +3 (modern); now it seems that they keep the base yield from their appropriate age.

Also slightly diluting golden age science or culture for next era, making them less attractive. Hope they rework some of the golden age rewards/options — maybe something like allowing you to exceed the 2 attribute point limit for the golden age category.

 

[Pfeffersack]

Maybe it's just confusingly worded. With "retaining their base yields" they meant the yields that the building provides by itself in the appropriate era. For example, that a university gives 5 science. These are now kept – whereas before, they would be reduced to a base yield of 3 science, iirc, wich is the same for all buildings of the science type. This would mean that while a university in the modern era would still be worth at least a bit more than earlier, even if you loose the 10+ science from quarter effects and adjacencies. It's not the best example, as universities still have another value in modern anyway (research artifacts), but it should show that it is now at least slightly more worthwhile to build mid- and late-age buildings than before. This is especially true for the ones that cost happiness upkeep and unlock very late, like hospitals, which were often net negatives before.

In short: previously, all buildings dropped their base yields to +2 (exploration) or +3 (modern); now it seems that they keep the base yield from their appropriate age.

That (together with the welcome nerf in form of also kept maintenance costs - I tend to drown in Gold at some point in the Exploration age) would be a good change, as it makes building late in age more rewarding.

 

[Sagax]

if past history is a teacher, then we know the answer to this… not really !

But we need to remember that you can’t really do anything useful with those settlers until cartography is reached anyways. I usually finish to produce my first settlers pretty much at the same time that I reach cartography, so at best I will save a very few turns on this by producing them in antiquity… I’m not totally convinced that it’s as much a game changer as I first thought when learning about this…

we’ll see

Leave it to players to optimize fun out of the game. There is definitely a benefit to at least buying carryover units before your age ends if your treasury is overflowing. On Standard speed, you can only carry over 3000 gold and 350 influence. So anything in excess is use it or lose it - buying Settlers and maybe even levying CS navy seems like a no brainer in that case, freeing up your cities to pursue other things in the first turns of the new age.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Also they should rename Qajar to just Iran. Then they can use civics and items from the safavids on. They already used just Persia for the antiquity civ.

Yeah, for continuity's sake they should either do Persia and Iran or Achaemenid and Qajar.

 

[Hawke9]

Steam page for right to rule is up! release should be any second

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Okay, let me reword that in a way that's hopefully more acceptable to you - to a person possessing the average amount of knowledge about modern battleships that a civ player would have, the inaccuracies on the current model would not be obviously noticeable.

I think the fact it launched without a unique model just implies to me it suffered from the same rushed release that the rest of civ did, with one non-gameplay-affecting element sacrificed/postponed in order to get the DLC out by the time they had to. I think calling the entire release of Great Britain 'botched' over it is an overreaction.

Okay, I freely accept that not every gamer, and probably not the 'average' gamer has their own copy of Siegfried Breyer's Battleships and Battlecruisers on their bookshelf, or a reprint of the 1939 Jane's Fighting Ships handy (Full Disclosure: I have both, and I also freely admit that it can warp your thinking into watery directions)

However, plan views and photos of the Revenge class are readily available on wikipedia, so it's not much of a stretch to go compare.

More importantly, though, is the HMS Revenge as a prime example of a generally botched game release, in which obvious things like the UI, availability of explanations of game mechanics (throughout the game) and simple things like correct graphic images of Unique Units, were mis-handled. It might not be, to quote Bloom County, "bad beyond all previous expectations of badness", but multiple threads of complaints and attempts to fill in the gaping holes of knowledge left by the game on release indicate that at the least, it was Not Good.

 

[socratic]

Yeah the Seljuks into the Ottomans would be awesome, but a generalized “Turks” into ottomans works too.

Also they should rename Qajar to just Iran. Then they can use civics and items from the safavids on. They already used just Persia for the antiquity civ.

They might be avoiding name-dropping Iran for optics reasons

 

[stealth_nsk]

I wouldn't expect more than 2 Persian civs (Persia and Quajar) and more than 1 Turks (Ottomans in particular). The middle east is already crowded, has more diverse civs to place and other areas need representation too. For Ottomans predecessor in exploration I expect Byzantium to come at some point and it would be quite enough.