Civilization VII Update 1.2.4 - Patch 1 (Steam & Epic) - August 27, 2025

[j51]

I’ve really been wanting harsher crises and age transitions. It’s gonna make changing civs actually feel earned. Maybe it’ll actually stop snowballing and create more empty spaces on the map for the next age! It might not feel like a half measure like regroup does now. It’s good to make this a scalable feature for all kinds of play.

But yeah, they also need to get on those alternate legacy paths and early age victory conditions.

Two thoughts that crossed my mind when reading the patch notes and the additional remarks:
Presenting "sticky game options" as if it was some sensational new concept is beyond ridiculous in my opinion.
Developing a "collapse" option instead of making age transitions more bearable might indicate that some developers have lost contact to the real world of actual Civ players.

 

[Porry]

-Preserve all military units, but they are Obsolete and upgrading them costs the same as buying a new unit

This is a solution for continuity option. The option needs this!

For the first time, I disagree with the developers. The fact that they're spending time and resources developing alternative paths worries me. It's true that Civ 6 had various playable modes, such as zombies and heroes, but the very fact that they were playable made them feel unnatural, almost alien to the game.

 

[Elhoim]

I really like the sound of the collapse setting. The second era starting with feudal kingdoms, and the third one with new world civs sounds very interesting. I agree it would be nice to tie it with harsher crisis, but at this point I'll take it even if it's just a setting.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

I really wish they would emphasize changes to religion and Great works as these are areas that are seriously lacking. We don't need new game modes but a polishing and expansion of what we already have.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

Curious as to why this is called "Patch 1" since there have been many patches since February.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Curious as to why this is called "Patch 1" since there have been many patches since February.

It's the first patch to 1.2.4

So, numerically, it's like 1.2.4.1

 

[UWHabs]

I really wish they would emphasize changes to religion and Great works as these are areas that are seriously lacking. We don't need new game modes but a polishing and expansion of what we already have.

Odds are, it's different team members who are in charge of pacing/balancing, vs adding in new features and making some of the other changes. So it's quite possible that they're taking longer on one than the other.

But I do agree that a little balance through the legacies would be nice. Adding the new religious beliefs a few patches ago helped give another dynamic to them, but I would love to see a little more balance to religion, a little easier to open up those extra belief slots, and better integration to the rest of the game.

 

[cbum]

It's good to make clearly obvious changes that should have been thought about from a UX perspective from the start, like retaining settings you already selected, or making them easier to access.

I have no interest in yet more settings or variations on how the game should work. At some point the devs need to just take the lead and tell us how the game should work, giving us a bunch of options feels like throwing your hands up and admitting you don't know.

Disagree. Options are good.
Getting the AI to be able to deal with them is a different discussion.

 

[m_mus]

While I belong to that group who indeed thinks that "Regroup" hits the player (and their tendency to snowball) way too soft - so that a "collapse"-option seems to be in order for my playstile - I must admit that I nodded while reading this argument:

I have no interest in yet more settings or variations on how the game should work. At some point the devs need to just take the lead and tell us how the game should work, giving us a bunch of options feels like throwing your hands up and admitting you don't know.

FXS appears to be deeply worried by Civ7's reception (as they should be ...), but instead of deciding for one course by which to improve and deepen the game as is, they frantically appear to appease each remaining segment of the player-base, by providing options for completely opposed playstiles.
Here's hoping that these new options only serve as kind of a 'bandaid' to prevent the diminshed playerbase of bleeding out completely, while big and substantial changes are being worked upon and implementend in Fall and Winter. The last two months' patches being rather light, I do think this might be the case.
The UI, legacy paths (culture in exploration age and modernity especially) and the AI's tendency to swap away cities from their inner core are issues that need to be adressed by more than just incremental adjustments.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think whether the setting is needed or not depends on 3 main factors:

1. Whether it's considered "must have" by players. Map size changes break the game in many ways, but they are expected and everybody would hate the game if it wasn't there.
2. How much the game needs to be adopted for those settings. That's mostly about AI logic, but game balance should also look at this direction. Some civ/leader abilities could be much stronger/weaker depending on settings, some buildings and town specializations could become useless and so on.
3. How different experience it brings to players. Different map types are a lot of work to support, but the difference it brings to player experience is massive.

Overall, looking at those Continuity/Regroup/Collapse options, I think:

1. They clearly aren't "must have" as they don't correlate with anything from previous games.
2. I don't think those settings require significant changes in game balance. Sure, it affects some things like the military balance between having walls and attacking armies, but it's not that big, compared to other effects. AI needs to be heavily tweaked, though - its priorities in the late part of the age should be totally affected by this.
3. I think having two very polarized options (Continuity and Collapse) could be fun for both gameplay and immersion reasons. Pair collapse with crises on and for some people it could justify civilization change. The third option (Regroup) will be kept as legacy option for people who don't like changes in those new two. I don't think keeping it makes sense in a long run, but Firaxis seem to tread carefully now to now anger people who aren't angered yet.

 

[Berrern]

@tedhebert continuing on from the previous thread - I just finished my second playthrough on 1.2.4, and the AI certainly isn't any better in my games...

This time I played a Medium size Continents game on Deity.

This is on turn 74, when I'm 1 turn away from launching the manned space shuttle. I could've won using the Great Banker some 25 turns ago, but I wanted to play on and get within 1 turn of each win condition, also to see if the AI could catch up. They certainly couldn't!

 

[stealth_nsk]

@tedhebert continuing on from the previous thread - I just finished my second playthrough on 1.2.4, and the AI certainly isn't any better in my games...

This time I played a Medium size Continents game on Deity.

This is on turn 74, when I'm 1 turn away from launching the manned space shuttle. I could've won using the Great Banker some 25 turns ago, but I wanted to play on and get within 1 turn of each win condition, also to see if the AI could catch up. They certainly couldn't!

View attachment 741126

1. Do you use an mods which affect AI or gameplay?
2. Did you conquer most of the AI settlements already?

What you show here is absolutely terrible and doesn't match my experience at all. Unless you already tramped AI to dirt in exploration, no way you could beat them that heave in artefacts, for example.

 

[cbum]

A new bug after the 1.2.4.1 update: The Battersea Wonder no longer gives you a second ship for each completed ship.

 

[UWHabs]

I think whether the setting is needed or not depends on 3 main factors:

1. Whether it's considered "must have" by players. Map size changes break the game in many ways, but they are expected and everybody would hate the game if it wasn't there.
2. How much the game needs to be adopted for those settings. That's mostly about AI logic, but game balance should also look at this direction. Some civ/leader abilities could be much stronger/weaker depending on settings, some buildings and town specializations could become useless and so on.
3. How different experience it brings to players. Different map types are a lot of work to support, but the difference it brings to player experience is massive.

Overall, looking at those Continuity/Regroup/Collapse options, I think:

1. They clearly aren't "must have" as they don't correlate with anything from previous games.
2. I don't think those settings require significant changes in game balance. Sure, it affects some things like the military balance between having walls and attacking armies, but it's not that big, compared to other effects. AI needs to be heavily tweaked, though - its priorities in the late part of the age should be totally affected by this.
3. I think having two very polarized options (Continuity and Collapse) could be fun for both gameplay and immersion reasons. Pair collapse with crises on and for some people it could justify civilization change. The third option (Regroup) will be kept as legacy option for people who don't like changes in those new two. I don't think keeping it makes sense in a long run, but Firaxis seem to tread carefully now to now anger people who aren't angered yet.

I kind of see those options as the equivalent of like the Dramatic Ages mode in civ 6. They're not essential - you could easily run the game and balance it around any of those variations. But some games you might want more than others.

The interesting question going forward is how well maintained all those options will be, and what balance comes around them. Dramatic ages came relatively late in the civ 6 cycle, and while a few civs had a special interaction with it, it was always pretty much considered as a "hey if you want a kind of crazy balance shift to play with, here you go." I do wonder if one of these continuity modes will become the default, with the others as the "wild" variations on them. Or whether they will try to maintain them in the same way that map sizes or online speed/marathon speed are "common" alternate options.

 

[Berrern]

1. Do you use an mods which affect AI or gameplay?
2. Did you conquer most of the AI settlements already?

What you show here is absolutely terrible and doesn't match my experience at all. Unless you already tramped AI to dirt in exploration, no way you could beat them that heave in artefacts, for example.

No gameplay mods, just UI mods.
I played with Harriet for the first time, which turned out to be a massive advantage. I did indeed trample Amina and Xerxes in Antiquity, and Amina and Genghis in Exploration - but didn't bother anyone else.

Due to my extreme war support of +11, nobody dared declare on me since, so I played peacefully throughout modern (didn't choose an ideology). All other civs were involved in a world war during most of Modern though, that could have something to do with it...

I ended the game with only 19 settlements (9 cities and 10 towns) and a cap of 27.

This experience was very similar to my previous playthrough on 1.2.4, which you can see here.

 

[McSpank01]

FXS appears to be deeply worried by Civ7's reception (as they should be ...), but instead of deciding for one course by which to improve and deepen the game as is, they frantically appear to appease each remaining segment of the player-base, by providing options for completely opposed playstiles.
Here's hoping that these new options only serve as kind of a 'bandaid' to prevent the diminshed playerbase of bleeding out completely, while big and substantial changes are being worked upon and implementend in Fall and Winter. The last two months' patches being rather light, I do think this might be the case.
The UI, legacy paths (culture in exploration age and modernity especially) and the AI's tendency to swap away cities from their inner core are issues that need to be adressed by more than just incremental adjustments.

True, these feel like bandaids, but at some point you need to stop constantly trying to treat symptoms, and actually get around to treating the causes of the problem. That I think would require much more work and much braver decisions than the ones being made now.

1. Whether it's considered "must have" by players. Map size changes break the game in many ways, but they are expected and everybody would hate the game if it wasn't there.
2. How much the game needs to be adopted for those settings. That's mostly about AI logic, but game balance should also look at this direction. Some civ/leader abilities could be much stronger/weaker depending on settings, some buildings and town specializations could become useless and so on.
3. How different experience it brings to players. Different map types are a lot of work to support, but the difference it brings to player experience is massive.

Adding map types when it was kind of predictable it would create issues is also symbolic of the Firaxis approach here. I doubt they were unaware of the issues larger map types would have before they released them, and that was probably the reason they were not included in the original release. They seem to have to pushed them out anyway and then made a large fanfare about it, to try and win back public support (hey we gave you what you wanted!).

I think there is a big issue around communication here, which I think this sums up. A more honest reaction from Firaxis would be to say 'hey we aren't going to release larger maps yet, because we don't think the AI can handle it and it fundamentally doesn't work with some of our systems, but it will be something we want to add once that is understood'.

There is just too much corporate speak in much of the communications, they are too often trying to sell us on these changes as a way of warming us up. I would prefer more honesty and a clear vision of what they think the game is destined to be. The lack of vision is kind of crippling.

 

[Leucarum]

Well, they definitely have balance implications for subsequent ages. One big question is how much people are using Regroup vs Continuity (vs Collapse). If there'a a clear weighting one way or another Firaxis won't have much choice but tl balance ages around that mode. I feel like this deserves a poll?

Even though it definitely wasn't intended to be... I found the comment about not using the continuity mode much weirdly condescending... Like telling us how we should enjoy the game? Even though I prefer to use Regroup, it kind of made me want to use continuity just to be contrary...The irony being that I very rarely play past Antiquity anyway so neither matters?

 

[Berrern]

I loaded up my only save from my previous Modern game (Medium Archipelago map with 8 players), and timed the turn time there, and it's a massive 51 seconds! With all mods disabled, it dropped to 48 seconds.

Following up on this post from the previous thread, I'm happy to say that they've fixed the extensive turn processing times with this latest patch!

To make sure, I loaded up the savegame referenced above, and a turn there now processes in 7 seconds, quite the change from 51 seconds!

 

[tedhebert]

I own a recent (1 year) Alienware i9-14900F, 32G ram, RTX 4070 12G GPU, 2TB SSD and I was still getting turn times over 30 seconds in my last game which was with 1.2.4.1 but started with 1.2.4

I also have a much older gaming laptop which gets around the same turn times but my graphics are set to low on that one (doubtful it makes any kind of difference on turn times though)

I'm not overly annoyed by this, but I must say that it's a deception

 

[MrRadar]

• AI now has more reasonable logic in the Peace Deal menu.

Well, let's say I haven't seen any improvement here. AI gave me away a city in a peace deal, which had 12 medieval walled districts and I only had broken into 3 at the time, with 9 more to go and 1 turn remaining until the age end. Zero reasonable logic. My opponent's ally who had joined into the war and we had no action between us to speak of, gave me away 2 distant lands settlements in a peace deal after 10 turns of war, 1 turn before the age end. Zero reasonable logic. Oprah mode continues. You get a city. And you, and you...