Civilization VII - Features at launch: speculation and discussion

[vorlon_mi]

Moderator Action: We need to get this thread back on track.
So, I would like to ask my fellow Civfanatics 3 questions:

1) Which features existing in Civ VI should be present at launch in Civ VII, in your opinion?

2) Which features existing in Civ VI do you realistically see happening in Civ VII at launch?

3) Should game companies introduce a new iteration without basic features (up to you to argue what those features entail) present in previous iterations?

Back to topic please

1) and 2)
I expect to be able to found cities, build units with production (both military and civilian), and conduct diplomacy with other civs (declare war, make peace, strike trade deals). I expect some sort of district system to carry over from Civ6 to Civ7. I expect some way to improve tiles to be in Civ7 at launch, though I would prefer to build roads with workers, not traders. I expect Civ7 to launch with either builders (with charges) or workers (no charges). I expect Civ7 to launch with "N" units per tile, where N might be 1 or might be 2 or 3. I expect Civ7 to launch with some kind of city states.
I expect that realisitically Civ7 might launch *without* espionage, without a world congress/UN, and without any of the "modes" that have been added to Civ6 during the New Frontier Pass. I expect that Civ7 might launch without climate change. I expect Civ7 to launch with a tech tree, but that some techs might be added later. I expect many, many leaders and/or persona packs to be added later.

3) Yes, I think it's OK to save some important features for an expansion pack or later DLC. For Civ, the basic features of empire management have to be there, have to be tested for balance. As an empire builder game, with influences and inspirations from world history, some abstractions and simplifications have to be made in order to deliver a fun-to-play game rather than a software package that is intended for a classroom. It should be possible to lose the game, if the human player doesn't play well. In my earlier post, I listed some of the important (not "basic") features that have been added later, which I agree with. I would be very disappointed if Civ7 launches with an economic model that doesn't scale up; if the tech tree does not include a path to space; if the game doesn't include a military victory condition. Those are part of the Civ franchise DNA, for me.

 

[Haig]

Districts are definately returning in some form, they were such a big Civ VI mechanic.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Moderator Action: We need to get this thread back on track.
So, I would like to ask my fellow Civfanatics 3 questions:

1) Which features existing in Civ VI should be present at launch in Civ VII, in your opinion?

2) Which features existing in Civ VI do you realistically see happening in Civ VII at launch?

3) Should game companies introduce a new iteration without basic features (up to you to argue what those features entail) present in previous iterations?

Back to topic please

Before I reply to it, is the current discussion about having a public works system in addition/in place of builders off topic?

For your questions, I think the “basics”, the things that have been in all civ titles like founding cities with settlers, a map with a grid to regulate movement, an Immortal Leader for each Civ etc will come back.

Districts will definitly be back in some form. Civ6 has a very strong “play the map” element in it’s design, and it also has a very strong “telescoping map” abstraction where it is trying to use the same map to represent both a strategic and tactical focus.

The other “play the map” factors like adjacensies etc will most likely be back

Introducing a new iteration without basic features present in previous editions seldom ends well. The most recent example of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory being Bethesda’s decision, on the heels of the gigantic money printer that the Fallout series had become, to do just that by removing several of the basic features that make Fallout Fallout. The resulting Fallout 76 debacle was so bad it *bankrupted the company* and they were consumed by the Microsoft Monolith.

A move like this alienates your existing fanbase and forces you to build a new one. It’s particularly egregious in Fallout’s case because the overal trend for the “modern” Fallouts was almost a 45 degree upward slope. Fallout 4’s success was so extraordinary it easily overcame the slight dip in sales caused by New Vegas and Obsidian not being *fudging game developer Jesus*. God their fans are the worst.

You do a move like that when alienating the existing fanbase is irrelevant because the series itself has become irrelevant, not when you are knocking it out of the park. The sad thing is that Bethesda did it succesfully when they did Fallout 3 and reinvented the game from a top down isometric turn based game into a real time FPS one, and this may have made them think they could do that again. Thing is, that only worked because the existing genre (turn based isometric) and fanbase (NMA neckneards) were irrelevant, so in essense nothing of value would be lost

Civ6 is in the Fallout 4 position, not 3. Sales I believe have been excellent, there is a strong fanbase, it has the additional benefit of modding to attract a lot of “marginal” fans like myself who may hate certain elements of the game but will buy it if mods can alter that.

Now is NOT the time to make major paradigm shifts. Now would be the time to take the existing features and systems in 6 and refine their implementation based on feedback. An example would be Fallout 4 taking the idiotic weapon degredation system and flushing it.

 

[leif erikson]

Before I reply to it, is the current discussion about having a public works system in addition/in place of builders off topic?

Instead of taking over this thread, start a new thread on the topic.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Instead of taking over this thread, start a new thread on the topic.

OK thank you for the claification.