Discussion On Why Civ 7 Doesn't Feel Like A "Civ" Game

[Core Imposter]

How about both have the same base gameplay loop?

Regarding that, I’d say that 1-UPT and unstacking cities have changed the turn to turn (and also long-term) gameplay loop much more than switching civs or mix and match leaders.

But hey, those also weren‘t in civ 4 and were not introduced in civ 7. Seems almost like a games franchise is actually slowly evolving over decades in some form. Who could have known?

That's entropy for you.

 

[Voidwalkin]

How about both have the same base gameplay loop?

Regarding that, I’d say that 1-UPT and unstacking cities have changed the turn to turn (and also long-term) gameplay loop much more than switching civs or mix and match leaders.

But hey, those also weren‘t in civ 4 and were not introduced in civ 7. Seems almost like a games franchise is actually slowly evolving over decades in some form. Who could have known?

That is a very rational argument. People aren't rational creatures, though.

You can see the reality of that, spoken in the reception and swift loss of player interest. People tolerated 1UPT, mostly. The fan base grew and expanded to less hard-core, narrative driven gamers(which I enjoy personally even if I also appreciate hard-core strategy)

Switching seems to bother the narrative makers. Or, maybe it's the resets. Both, undoubtedly. Just too far for too many; it can be safely presumed to be the most impactful change the franchise has yet to make, and that impact does not seem warmly received at present.

 

[itix]

I prefer 1UPT to doomstacks, but I also don't accept that those are the only two options. Sure, commanders help, but it's still 1UPT. Surely there is more of a middle ground that reins in the worst excesses of the doomstack while also generating the tactical gameplay of 1UPT.

1UPT would work better if you could compose armies, combining artillery, cavalry, and infantry to march over enemies. Something like commanders in Civ 7, but without having to unpack.

 

[0urBall]

Tbf, that kind of already exists in CivVI, if you consider that an Army/Armada can be joined with a support unit and a GG (I think) to potential have 5 units on the same tile(6 if you add a Religious Unit). It just doesn't happen from Turn 1, unlike SOD

 

[Nares]

Moderator Action: snip

1UPT is a board game mechanic. Real PC strategy gamers prefer more strategic stacks.

Real PC gamers prefer real-time battles. Creative Assembly is closer to the holy grail of Total War: Civilization than Firaxis is to Civilization: Total War, and Firaxis just left the door wide open.

I prefer 1UPT to doomstacks, but I also don't accept that those are the only two options. Sure, commanders help, but it's still 1UPT. Surely there is more of a middle ground that reins in the worst excesses of the doomstack while also generating the tactical gameplay of 1UPT.

I was a vocal supporter of 1UPT; doomstacks were silly. But, with however many hours in Civ5 and Civ6, I've come to the opinion that mixed-stacks would be a better solution. Let players assemble small armies, to which they assign up to 4 units of w/e type they want, with the army gaining stats/effects based on the combination of units assigned to it. It alleviates the doom-carpet effect of 1UPT without opening up the silliness of doomstacks, and still allows for tactical gameplay.

 

[aelf]

I was a vocal supporter of 1UPT; doomstacks were silly.

1UPT was a big departure from previous Civs. It's also very gamey. And, no, there's a long PC tradition of turn-based strategy almost from the beginning, so it was never just about real-time battles. But 1UPT is not a necessary ingredient.

 

[Nares]

1UPT was a big departure from previous Civs. It's also very gamey. And, no, there's a long PC tradition of turn-based strategy almost from the beginning, so it was never just about real-time battles. But 1UPT is not a necessary ingredient.

It's a shame we can't have a friendly conversation. I blame the studio, for accepting the Current Trend investment dollars, moreso than any specific member of this community.

 

[aelf]

It's a shame we can't have a friendly conversation. I blame the studio, for accepting the Current Trend investment dollars, moreso than any specific member of this community.

I don't know what you're talking about. My reply is not unfriendly by the standards of exchanges over the internet. I'm just disagreeing with you, and that has nothing to do with politics or creed.

 

[Gorbles]

Real PC gamers prefer real-time battles.

This is a wild thing to say on CivFanatics.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Are there any mechanics or features in Civ 7 that were present in Civ 4?

Basically, if you think of Civ 1-4 as Civ then Civ 7 simply isn't Civ.

I can think of a few ....

Founding and Growing Cities

• Civ4 (following Civ3, differing from Civ2) separated settlers from workers. New cities were settled a minimum distance from each other. Cities produced buildings, wonders, or units. Buildings or units may also be purchased. Buildings affected the yields in cities; city specialization was considered strong play style.
• Civ7 uses settlers to found settlements; some become cities. New settlements must be a minimum distance from each other. Cities may produce buildings, wonders, or units. Towns may only purchase units or a subset of buildings.

Unit Types and Upgrades:

• Civ4 had melee, gunpowder, and siege units, as Civ7 does. Civ4 siege units could bombard from a distance, as Civ7 ranged and siege units do.
• Each unit type in Civ4 had its own upgrade path, as Civ3 did before it. In Civ7, units may be upgraded twice within an age. Many units from an age pass through into the next age, where they are upgraded as part of the age transition.

Religion:

• In both Civ4 and Civ7, unlocking a tech allows the player to found a religion
  • In Civ4, multiple techs could unlock a religion, but you had to be first
  • In Civ7, every player can found a religion, but choose unique beliefs which give buffs/bonus
• Both Civ4 and Civ7 allowed the player to build missionaries to spread their religion
  • Civ4 also featured passive spread (no units required) and diplomatic effects of adopting/converting/having no religion
  • Civ7 religion is only important in one age
• Both Civ4 and Civ7 linked religion indirectly to victory conditions; Civ6 had an explicit religious VC

Distinct Great People:

• Civ4 introduced Great People that had specific types and functions; Civ3 had just 2. These could be earned using Great People Points (GPP) from city improvements
• Civ7 has a smaller number of Great People types, with some only available to specific civs in specific ages.

Modification to Governments

• Civ4 introduced a mechanic where the player may update/modify the government using civics, which are unlocked on the tech tree. The player may switch civics often, with some limits or penalties for doing so.
• Civ7 offers choices of government in each age. The choice for a given age may be updated/modified using social policies, which are unlocked on the civics tree. Some policies carry over from age to age, as traditions.

 

[danjuno]

I was a vocal supporter of 1UPT; doomstacks were silly. But, with however many hours in Civ5 and Civ6, I've come to the opinion that mixed-stacks would be a better solution. Let players assemble small armies, to which they assign up to 4 units of w/e type they want, with the army gaining stats/effects based on the combination of units assigned to it. It alleviates the doom-carpet effect of 1UPT without opening up the silliness of doomstacks, and still allows for tactical gameplay.

I can't speak for the first 3 games, but siege units countered stacks pretty hard in IV. I do agree a soft limit would be a good compromise. Europa Universalis has supply limits for provinces, so the idea of something similar for tiles in Civ could be workable.

 

[Siptah]

I can't speak for the first 3 games, but siege units countered stacks pretty hard in IV. I do agree a soft limit would be a good compromise. Europa Universalis has supply limits for provinces, so the idea of something similar for tiles in Civ could be workable.

Speaking of supply, HK is introducing food upkeep for units. I would like if this came back to civ 7 as well in some form. The way it works in EU makes biomes and terrain more important. I think this isn‘t a good system for civ tbh - in civ an army should be able to walk through desert just like through grasslands. But food upkeep for units that increases in DL or far away from your cities/towns would be interesting.

 

[queenpea]

Speaking of supply, HK is introducing food upkeep for units. I would like if this came back to civ 7 as well in some form. The way it works in EU makes biomes and terrain more important. I think this isn‘t a good system for civ tbh - in civ an army should be able to walk through desert just like through grasslands. But food upkeep for units that increases in DL or far away from your cities/towns would be interesting.

I like the sound of this, but I don't trust the game (or its UI) to explain this well. Or at all.

 

[AD1730]

I can't speak for the first 3 games, but siege units countered stacks pretty hard in IV. I do agree a soft limit would be a good compromise. Europa Universalis has supply limits for provinces, so the idea of something similar for tiles in Civ could be workable.

I've wondered how this would work in Civ as well. You could vary the supply limits based on terrain type, technology, and perhaps even civ (i.e. Arabian Empire gets higher limit on desert, etc.). But, would it be too complex? I'm not sure. This is definitely something that would need to be tested.

One advantage Civ would have over the Paradox games is that different terrain types are much more easily identified in Civ than in EU4, CK3, etc.

 

[Yzman]

This is a wild thing to say on CivFanatics.

I think it was a gentle sarcastic no true Scotsman...

 

[Siptah]

I like the sound of this, but I don't trust the game (or its UI) to explain this well. Or at all.

Oh, you know, you get a pop up once a unit died because you didn‘t have enough food to supply it…

 

[kaspergm]

I've wondered how this would work in Civ as well. You could vary the supply limits based on terrain type, technology, and perhaps even civ (i.e. Arabian Empire gets higher limit on desert, etc.). But, would it be too complex? I'm not sure. This is definitely something that would need to be tested.

One advantage Civ would have over the Paradox games is that different terrain types are much more easily identified in Civ than in EU4, CK3, etc.

I’ve promoted a wild idea a couple of times. I know it’s not super popular, but I actually think it would be a good solution to this within the civ framework. What I’ve suggested is that when you train a military unit, it occupies a population point from the city. Not just decreases population by one (as Ottoman Jannisary did in … was that in 5 or 6?), but becomes an assignment for the citizen, similar to how they can be assigned to work a tile or work as a specialist in a building. This would open up for several options that I think would be interesting, such as, a) drafting units in times of crisis, b) assigning units back as workers in times of peace, and c) and easy way to include a sort of supply chain for your armies, I.e. the soldiers consume food so you can’t just build an infinitely large army.

 

[Siptah]

I’ve promoted a wild idea a couple of times. I know it’s not super popular, but I actually think it would be a good solution to this within the civ framework. What I’ve suggested is that when you train a military unit, it occupies a population point from the city. Not just decreases population by one (as Ottoman Jannisary did in … was that in 5 or 6?), but becomes an assignment for the citizen, similar to how they can be assigned to work a tile or work as a specialist in a building. This would open up for several options that I think would be interesting, such as, a) drafting units in times of crisis, b) assigning units back as workers in times of peace, and c) and easy way to include a sort of supply chain for your armies, I.e. the soldiers consume food so you can’t just build an infinitely large army.

While I think that this is a good idea (and could be used for a more historical unit management for the first 5000 years of the game), it's particularly hard to integrate into civ 7, in which each population is also fixed to a tile within the settlement. It would be much easier for previous titles in which population was flexibly assigned to tiles, and population could decrease. What would happen in civ 7 if a unit dies? You loose an improvement or building until the city grows again? That could go out of hand or frustrating really quick, especially if you cannot decide which improvement or building gets unoccupied (and deciding which does would be a lot of micromanagement).

 

[UWHabs]

While I think that this is a good idea (and could be used for a more historical unit management for the first 5000 years of the game), it's particularly hard to integrate into civ 7, in which each population is also fixed to a tile within the settlement. It would be much easier for previous titles in which population was flexibly assigned to tiles, and population could decrease. What would happen in civ 7 if a unit dies? You loose an improvement or building until the city grows again? That could go out of hand or frustrating really quick, especially if you cannot decide which improvement or building gets unoccupied (and deciding which does would be a lot of micromanagement).

We had that (in a way) back in the civ 1-3 days, where each unit had a support cost from the city. Generally speaking, it was an annoying cost to deal with, you had some awkward balance issues, and you get a weird imbalance of which cities "supported" each unit when you moved them around the map.

I do think having some maintenance beyond gold could be interesting. We already have the notion of towns sending food to cities - maybe units should simply pull food maintenance from basically the closest settlements too? It wouldn't steal a full population point, but maybe it means you need to convert a town to a farming town on the border of your empire if that's where your army is stationed.

Otherwise for stack vs 1upt, I'd be marginally curious to see how civ 7 played if units within a commander basically had their full power. If they could shoot, defend, etc.. and basically turns an army commander into like a mini-4upt option for you. You'd probably need a level of balance within that, maybe you don't just have army commanders but you have a "division commander" which would let you stack 2-3 units in, but doesn't gain XP, but that could be a way to give you a little flex on the 1upt without fully breaking the system.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

I find it interesting that people on this forum keep harping about 1UPT as if that's among the chief reasons of what's plaguing the game.
Probably some very long time players who can't seem to let go of this pet peeve of theirs ever since 2010.

Just to remind everyone: We're now in a situation where civ 7 has flopped so bad that it has a lower player count than civ 5(!) and civ 6, both of which had 1UPT.
It's blatantly obvious that this game's main problem is how utterly disjointed it feels compared to earlier iterations, with hard era resets, arcadey MMO-style "quests" instead of a proper fleshed out victory condition etc., and lack of coherence between civs, eras and leaders.