Civ VII Developer Video - November 2025 | What's coming with tomorrow's update!

[Krikkit1]

The more I think about it, they could just combine the two into an "Information Age" if technology wise, they start around 1970 with the invention of home computers and the Internet later.

Well the datamined 4th Age was referred to as Atomic Age. (Which seems reasonable since nukes are The Big thing in terms of pre v post 1950)
However I’d imagine it going from ~1960-2060 (ie going to near Future…Tier 3 military being Drone Focused…Mars Colonization being the science win)

So it should include “Information Age” themes (multinational companies, information warfare, population collapse) but also have earlier Cold War theme (no direct war between civs just proxy wars, decolonization, etc)

 

[King Flevance]

All I think of when I hear/read 'Atomic Age' is the Brotherhood of Steel and Super Mutants.

This update does feel like last weeks update told to us all over again. We still didn't get a roadmap but some stated direction was kind of nice even if half of that direction is a 'scattered buckshot' in a generalized direction with seemingly no plan with the classic mode stuff. I like that they are focusing on legacies though as that is actually some clear direction. Perhaps we may see a patch by January that addresses them a little. They already have touched on Culture Victory in modern a few months ago. It will be interesting to see what we get in these next patches over the next few months.

 

[disjointaccount]

Well the datamined 4th Age was referred to as Atomic Age. (Which seems reasonable since nukes are The Big thing in terms of pre v post 1950)
However I’d imagine it going from ~1960-2060 (ie going to near Future…Tier 3 military being Drone Focused…Mars Colonization being the science win)

So it should include “Information Age” themes (multinational companies, information warfare, population collapse) but also have earlier Cold War theme (no direct war between civs just proxy wars, decolonization, etc)

Proxy wars (as in, strictly wars where you don't formally commit your own troops and instead just back a local side) are an interesting one because they're a very defining part of the time period conflict-wise and I definitely think there'd be ways to implement them and have them be engaging (in particular it feels like it'd open doors to have good gold and influence generation support a military path, which would be nice as the military paths currently in the game are some of the most narrow in terms of the different ways you can build an empire to benefit them). I'd definitely be into the idea and I'm sure lots of other players would too. That said, the final-age endgame of a military game not having direct conflict where you control your own troops could definitely feel weird.

Ideally, being able to engage in conflicts on a sort of spectrum from strict proxy wars, to more involved proxy wars where you commit your own troops (which isn't really precluded by the implementation of proxy wars since I'd Vietnam-esque scenarios are definitely included in how most people conceive of "proxy wars"; but really this post is just me rambling just thinking about how to make "true" proxy wars engaging), to still having direct wars, but more interventionist against a smaller enemy than big power vs. big power, to keep the theme of nuclear powers not clashing directly intact. The more I think about it the more I like the idea of having a wider array of options to contribute towards the military path, so long as they're all thematically appropriate (and crucially, fun and engaging).

 

[King Flevance]

Man, if they could pull off proxy wars with good endeavor/espionage diplomacy gameplay tied to yields and gold, that could make modern age feel very exciting. I feel like we could see the world congress return, which would probably sour me on it but if they managed to create a way for proxy wars and even information warfare to come in without world congress making it all "grey out" into nothing, it would be awesome. But the diplomacy system is very far from there now. I would love to see corporations make a return in 7 and have it work like a more high stakes version of "improve trade relations. I always find it funny that Modern Age always has so much potential for awesome game mechanics and it always gets design & implemented as basically "Ancient age but with planes and battleships". As I have said many times before, this is how the age mechanics really bring something to the table, but they have to utilize it.

 

[canadamufc]

Have they said how to claim the DLC yet? Just go to the website, connect 2k account, and hit claim button? Or do we have to fulfill some requirements first?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Have they said how to claim the DLC yet? Just go to the website, connect 2k account, and hit claim button? Or do we have to fulfill some requirements first?

The FAQ says to do it through your platform's game page. So, like Steam's page for Tides of Power. It looks like once it becomes available, you just go there and "buy" it for free.

 

[Evolena]

This update does feel like last weeks update told to us all over again. We still didn't get a roadmap but some stated direction was kind of nice even if half of that direction is a 'scattered buckshot' in a generalized direction with seemingly no plan with the classic mode stuff. I like that they are focusing on legacies though as that is actually some clear direction. Perhaps we may see a patch by January that addresses them a little. They already have touched on Culture Victory in modern a few months ago. It will be interesting to see what we get in these next patches over the next few months.

I wouldn't hope for January if the legacies/victories rework is due to be playtested in a Workshop that will not start before after the end of year holidays.

 

[moondog385]

This says more about me than the update, but the thing I was most excited about was the name change for Achaemenid Persia. That kind of inconsistency really bugs me so I’m glad it got fixed.

Generally, my mind has really been put at ease, despite the non-specificity of the plans — just the fact that they have ambitious plans at all is promising to me.

 

[marius_kaparius]

Could the masked figure in the bottom left behind Ed be Baldwin IV?

 

[SeelingCat]

Could the masked figure in the bottom left behind Baldwin IV?

Pretty sure it's the Machiavelli board game:

 

[Kenshiro70]

I don't think ages are going to be affected somehow. The wording is pretty specific about civilization switch.

Oh, I forgot to mention - you called it right in the 1.2.5 thread about Ed reappearing when there was something PR-worthy. Nice one.

 

[gdr_willter]

The World Wars can be the greatest option for the crisis of the 3rd Age. And if so, the Cold War will be the first stage of the 4th Age as the logical following.

 

[cuc]

Pretty sure it's the Machiavelli board game:

And the box spine on the bottom right, with a large stylized Roman numeral "III" is the board game Age of Empires III: The Age of Discovery.

 

[marius_kaparius]

Can anyone identify this poster and if these are leaders?

 

[pjotroos]

To give a more charitable judgement on this, I do think it is valid to point out that the everlasting civs feature would benefit from some input from those for whom civ-switching is such a big deal that it prevented them from buying the game.

I just can't see a way where that input wouldn't be superficial. You need a full game or two just to come to grips with all the new systems and idiosyncracies; to figure out what all the different currencies do. And understanding the different currencies and mechanics is just the start of it; it takes time to build up appreciation of their relative importance and scarcity. I started my second ever game as Greece and found them somewhat underwhelming, because at that point it wasn't clear to me just how powerful playing pokemon with the city-states is.

The big challenge of the same-civ version of the game will be in the tuning. What do you do instead of unique culture trees, units and the narrative events that still feels satisfying to play, but doesn't become the default best way of playing the game? And I don't think you can answer it well if you're comparing it to nothing. If I come across a bit territorial about this, it's because I think the central design concept of Civ VII ages works, but I found that it already got dilluted with the continuity mode, which is being treated as the new default. I don't want to see a repeat of that; I want to see a single-civ version that compliments the existing systems, not one that works against them.

 

[Siptah]

Can anyone identify this poster and if these are leaders?

View attachment 746760

I can't identify the poster, but it looks to me as if this is three different versions of Richard I.

Which I think is one of the most obvious leader picks that we've never had in any civ games, as he's certainly one of the most famous kings in popular history.

 

[disjointaccount]

I just can't see a way where that input wouldn't be superficial. You need a full game or two just to come to grips with all the new systems and idiosyncracies; to figure out what all the different currencies do. And understanding the different currencies and mechanics is just the start of it; it takes time to build up appreciation of their relative importance and scarcity. I started my second ever game as Greece and found them somewhat underwhelming, because at that point it wasn't clear to me just how powerful playing pokemon with the city-states is.

The big challenge of the same-civ version of the game will be in the tuning. What do you do instead of unique culture trees, units and the narrative events that still feels satisfying to play, but doesn't become the default best way of playing the game? And I don't think you can answer it well if you're comparing it to nothing. If I come across a bit territorial about this, is because I think the central design concept of Civ VII ages works, but I found that it already got dilluted with the continuity mode, which is being treated as the new default. I don't want to see a repeat of that; I want to see a single-civ version that compliments the existing systems, not one that works against them.

Yeah, I think there are scenarios in which feedback from turned-off players could be useful, but when what they're (presumably) looking for is testing and feedback on changes to the existing game - testers who are already familiar with that existing game just make way more sense.

If someone's answer to "what put you off Civ 7?" is "civ switching", then the feedback from that person has already been heard and acted upon. By the sounds of things, the stage they're at now is the nitty-gritty of implementing one-civ playthroughs in a game that wasn't necessarily initially designed for them (though FWIW, I do think some kind of one-civ mode would always have been coming sooner or later, even if it was just a bullet point on a brainstorming list for late-cycle DLC prior to the backlash) - making sure it feels like it fits in the game, is well balanced, and matches up to "regular" gameplay in terms of the engagement and challenge it offers. That's the stuff where people who know Civ 7 well already are useful.

 

[FXS_Ed]

Can anyone identify this poster and if these are leaders?

View attachment 746760

It's actually two posters made at Firaxis, one over the top of the other. The foreground poster with the leaders is from an old Civ scenario that's one of my all-time favorites. Now which one??!!

EDIT: LOL, hadn't posted here in ages. Forgot I was still a Chieftain!

 

[Ryansinbela]

I only recognize Casimir from Civ V
I think

 

[Leucarum]

Civ3 conquests had a Middle Ages Scenario I believe? Looking at the wiki it had Casimir... But no Richard I as far as I can see...

Civ3 had the best scenarios from what I remember - which isn't much it would appear. I mostly remember playing WWII, Napoleon and Mesoamerica to death... But if I was gonna bet on anyone having a favourite scenario in a Civ game it would be from there. .