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

[Civinator]

My experience has been the opposite- games which inspire such loyalty create veteran players who will buy subsequent versions ‘to support’ the company and work.

Sic! This exactly describes my motivation, too.

Only to add for me is, that I am also looking, if there are interesting new features in new versions of the Civ series, that I would want to add to my Civ 3 mods if this should be possible. About Civ 5 and 6 from my point of view there was nothing that I would have liked to add to my Civ 3 mods (https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...r-all-these-years.676431/page-2#post-16312711). From Civ 7 I would like to add the navigable rivers, but unfortunately this is not possible with Civ 3 (in Civ 2 ToT with TOTPP this is possible, but not working well).

But Civ 7 makes civs in my eyes next to obsolete with its handling of switching civs (and a dominant overinterpretation of immortal rulers, so I don´t like immortal rulers at all) - and a game called Civilization without civs as in Civ 1 -6 that at least are connected to the history in fixed places of the earth, in my eyes is a "no-go". So Civ 7 until now is the only version of the Civ series that I have not bought yet.

 

[MutilationWave]

I miss the uniqueness of city-state bonuses in Civ VI. I find collecting city-states in VII to be repetitive and dull. Ultimately, you're just going for a high number of them to buff specialists or whatever little policy card/tradition you have in your deck.

On the flip side of this, in 6 they were quite unbalanced. I agree the uniqueness was more fun though.

 

[0urBall]

They apparently introduced the eras at least in part to encourage players to finish the whole game, but personally unless i was losing so bad early game that there was no way to win i always finished all my games as i wanted my gameplay recorded in the hall of fame, which is something that should have been included in 7.

Which then seems counterintuitive to not have a hall of fame on launch if you're trying to encourage players to finish games by only having victory attainable in the last age

 

[queenpea]

On the flip side of this, in 6 they were quite unbalanced. I agree the uniqueness was more fun though.

I didn’t find them insanely unbalanced. Nothing in VII is perfectly balanced either I would have to add…

 

[CliffCo]

That's the beauty of automation - it's an option. I don't see how anyone can justify the removal of an option just because some people prefer to do everything manually. Your argument is also a problem related to the AI. It's not like the AI players have better scouts and exploration than our automated scouts - it's the same AI logic. They should improve the AI then, instead of removing automation.

This is a quote from a person on the official discord by the name of Eshock. It is coming at some point.

“keep in mind auto-explore isn't necessarily confirmed for June patch, it's just confirmed that it's on the radar.
Also based on the community feedback event, where we talked about multiple options for implementing auto-explore, and mentioned we'd ideally like to have the ability to choose from multiple options for how our scout would auto-explore ... based on that Ed mentioned they might be implementing auto-explore features in multiple waves *(i.e. easier/quicker to implement options coming sooner, and more complicated ones later)*”

 

[Xur]

This is a quote from a person on the official discord by the name of Eshock. It is coming at some point.

“keep in mind auto-explore isn't necessarily confirmed for June patch, it's just confirmed that it's on the radar.
Also based on the community feedback event, where we talked about multiple options for implementing auto-explore, and mentioned we'd ideally like to have the ability to choose from multiple options for how our scout would auto-explore ... based on that Ed mentioned they might be implementing auto-explore features in multiple waves *(i.e. easier/quicker to implement options coming sooner, and more complicated ones later)*”

Anyone wanna bet it’s initially going to be a direct copy of previous auto-explorers? Then they “forget” the more complicated ones later, because the criticism of autoexploration is gone.

I said it many times, but I dont trust Ed with anything. Let me see results - not vague promises.

At this point Firaxis has to over-deliver and outperform expectations of critics. Moderator Action: *SNIP* Flaming. -lymond - they have to win over those that does not like civ7, but loves the franchise. I doubt it’s going to happen if they cant even promise an autoexplore feature for a june patch.

 

[UWHabs]

I didn’t find them insanely unbalanced. Nothing in VII is perfectly balanced either I would have to add…

In 6 some of the suzerain bonuses are way more important than others.

In 7, I like the fact that there's a good first few options for most of the types, so you have a race to be first to get the top choice. I wouldn't necessarily hate it if each CS had a normal unique bonus, nothing too special, even just something on level with like a pantheon bonus. So like give me a reason to suzerain Meroe vs Gordium. Even if those secondary bonuses are not like fully unique, but based on some basic attribute of the CS. So if it's a CS that spawns on desert, maybe they give +1 gold on each desert tile as their base CS bonus.

I do think they could use a few more bonus options, and maybe even some that change things up even more. Like in 6 there's a couple CS like Kumasi or Auckland where the bonus is strong enough that I will mildly change my game if I think I can ally and keep them. Some imbalance is always good.

 

[McSpank01]

In 6 some of the suzerain bonuses are way more important than others.

In 7, I like the fact that there's a good first few options for most of the types, so you have a race to be first to get the top choice. I wouldn't necessarily hate it if each CS had a normal unique bonus, nothing too special, even just something on level with like a pantheon bonus. So like give me a reason to suzerain Meroe vs Gordium. Even if those secondary bonuses are not like fully unique, but based on some basic attribute of the CS. So if it's a CS that spawns on desert, maybe they give +1 gold on each desert tile as their base CS bonus.

I do think they could use a few more bonus options, and maybe even some that change things up even more. Like in 6 there's a couple CS like Kumasi or Auckland where the bonus is strong enough that I will mildly change my game if I think I can ally and keep them. Some imbalance is always good.

The Suzerain game in Civ 7 is just not very interesting, and an obvious downgrade from 6. If you meet a City State that was next door to another civ, it's very hard to compete for their loyalty, the amount of influence to do so is pretty restrictive and there are better uses for it. The rewards are also not very interesting, and mostly are useful for civs who want to specialise in grabbing all the city states. Again, it was another minigame in Civ 6, that has been replaced by something less good. Whereas before there were numerous ways to get sway with city states, and there was some strategic choice for trying to win them, and something you can do all game, now if you lose out, then there is nothing you can do, and it also doesn't really even matter all that much if you get them or not.

 

[queenpea]

My strategy with IP’s is pretty much always the same regardless of which civ I’m playing. I suzerain the first scientific IP I see and collect the free technology bonus. Then I push to suzerain as many IP’s as possible. If you have strong influence, you can suzerain 6-10, depending on the map size. Hard to beat ten free techs.

 

[UWHabs]

My strategy with IP’s is pretty much always the same regardless of which civ I’m playing. I suzerain the first scientific IP I see and collect the free technology bonus. Then I push to suzerain as many IP’s as possible. If you have strong influence, you can suzerain 6-10, depending on the map size. Hard to beat ten free techs.

It varies a little game to game. I think generally that's my strategy too, use them to pile in a bunch of free techs. But at the same time, I've also had some games where I use my influence to make friends with others, and haven't had any left to go after the CS, and have just kind of ignored them, or even use them to farm XP on.

 

[agonistes]

The unpacking of the cities has made the maps feel much smaller. Gone are the days of truly grand strategy and empire building. The game plays more like a city builder, with zero challenge and way too much map clutter.

But I do like several of the new mechanics, including treasure fleets - its just too bad the oceans are 5 hexes across.

Removing stacks, or armies, was a huge mistake too.

Maybe cities and battles should have windows independent from the main window.

We need more diplomacy. Much bigger tech trees with organic discovery. More military options. Involved economics.

VI really took the game in a new direction, and not a good one imo. VII is even further away from what civ was. I enjoyed it for about a week. Then booooring.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Map Size "Feel" and Empire Size: I have always loved painting the mini-map with my civ's color, especially in Civ3 and Civ4. Civ5 (BNW, not Vox Populi) was/is my least favorite because of the penalties for having more than 4-5 cities. BERT gave me tools to eventually grow my way out of a 4-5 city start. Winning a Civ3 game usually means my empire has 50 cities or more, with most of them producing "Wealth", to convert production into gold.

Civ6 unpacked the cities, yes, but encouraged me to found more cities and allowed me to conquer even more. Painting the mini-map again!
Civ7 has a more paced, deliberate approach. I can take over a chunk of the homelands mini-map in Antiquity, claim a chunk of distant lands and islands in Exploration, while not worrying about the Civ6 Loyalty mechanic or distance from my capital. In Modern, I need to be a bit more thoughtful about which AI settlements to take over... compared with my steamroller / snowball attacks in Civ3.

If I look honestly at my Civ3 maps, yes, I have many more cities which have one tile each. But every tile that a city works has been improved with a railroad and either a mine or irrigation. One either considers that map clutter or just background noise... YMMV.
Civ7 still gives me an empire to manage, much more than Civ5 did. I expect that we will get larger maps in Civ7, with settlement limits that scale with map size.

 

[Atchulhu]

I think it feels plenty like a Civ game, it just isn't good. Never really understood this obsession with declaring that X thing is not actually X thing because you dislike it. This is a Civ game, it has all the things that make it a Civ game, but simply isn't a well-made Civ game.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Well, in that case, it's not a Civ game.

Because Civ games are well-made, dangnabbit!

 

[CliffCo]

I think it feels plenty like a Civ game, it just isn't good. Never really understood this obsession with declaring that X thing is not actually X thing because you dislike it. This is a Civ game, it has all the things that make it a Civ game, but simply isn't a well-made Civ game.

To me it’s much more fun to play than Civ6 was, and just needs more patches and DLC, I love the new mechanics, graphics, etc.

 

[kaspergm]

On the flip side of this, in 6 they were quite unbalanced. I agree the uniqueness was more fun though.

Being unbalanced is not inherently a bad thing, however. Sure, a few outliers were off the scale in both directions, but random elements like starting close to a crucial city state is great for increasing replayability and making the game less predictable.

 

[protocol7]

I actually much prefer an unbalanced game that’s unique every time, where the map is a puzzle to solve instead of being something consistent I can plan around from the first move. I have chess to scratch that itch, I play civ similarly in some ways, but also appreciate it for its randomness and information assymetry.

 

[queenpea]

I actually much prefer an unbalanced game that’s unique every time, where the map is a puzzle to solve instead of being something consistent I can plan around from the first move. I have chess to scratch that itch, I play civ similarly in some ways, but also appreciate it for its randomness and information assymetry.

Map balance is one thing, but unbalanced and overpowered civ and leader combinations that are easily taken advantage of by AI is another thing entirely.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I believe many of the (poor) design choices in Civ 7 flow from an inability to improve the AI.

Yeah. The resets seem to me to flow quite obviously from that.

I feel sometimes when playing that there is an unhealthy quality to the game. As if they decided to cut excess weight via prescriptions, dehydration and crash dieting rather than do the harder yet often healthier work of building a competitive AI through old fashioned work and discipline.

 

[protocol7]

Map balance is one thing, but unbalanced and overpowered civ and leader combinations that are easily taken advantage of by AI is another thing entirely.

I don't mind strong AIs really, I find losing way more fun than winning because something interesting happened there in my opinion. I'm pretty much used to AIs needing overpowered combos to compete at all so it doesn't bother me too much, though I know a lot of people will only play on difficulties where the AI has no advantages and I get where they come from.