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

[McSpank01]

Also just to add, in Civ 6 there is a far broader scope in obtaining the Era score, that in some parts is driven by the type of game the player is playing. It's impossible to get every Era point available in the game, but it's also not necessary. There's also a slight buff for being the first to do something that gives Era score that gives a sense of competition between the player and the AI.
Ursa Ryan put it well in one of his recent videos that there's very little to stop the player from getting all of the legacy points for each different type of victory condition in each era, as there appears to be enough points to go around between all players in all games. Apart from the cultural legacy path, the only thing the player seems to be playing against is time, rather than the AI

Yeah exactly. I was never a huge fan of the Civ 6 system, but it wasn't completely intrusive in the way that Civ 7's feels. Yes there were times in Civ 6 where it felt like I needed to do something that wasn't part of my overall plan just to hit an arbitrary target, like if I had to build a galley for no reason other than to prevent myself hitting a dark age, but it was relatively rare. You could just make the era score work with how you wanted to grow your empire, not developing your empire with the goal of hitting an era score. That is an important distinction I think.

I could see how they might have wanted it to be a secondary system, but if that's the case I think they made a big mistake by implementing it so front and center as a quest and leader leveling system. It causes it to have an impression of being the most important thing to focus on, in the way it looks and works like an MMO where that leveling system is essentially the game. Lots of review feedback and comments seem to indicate people got the impression that this was something they were supposed to focus on.

It's hard to see how any playing the game could think the system was secondary, until they have completed a few games first hand. Everything about the way it is set up communicates that completing Legacy paths is your goal in each era. The era moves forward depending on how many you have completed, you are given visual reminders of just how well you are doing vs other players.

Also, as a Civ 6 player, there seems like a direct translation of victory conditions and legacy paths: I need to go through each type, see how well I am doing, how well are other players doing. Even subconsciously they feel the same, and if you are used to thinking in that way, it makes sense that the new system seems to be vital in how you win a game. That you can win games and not mess too much with legacy paths or optimise them is actually a weakness in the game itself.

 

[Von Falkenheyn]

I'm a CIV series veteran since the days of CIV II. Like many other grognards in here, I'll tell you that CIV IV was probably the best itteration of the series. I'm not adverse to change mind you and I do understand that change is always necessary in games. I pre-ordered the CIV VII deluxe edition really hoping that I'd enjoy this just as much as I did the previous versions. Departing from CIV IV, I will say that I liked CIV V more than I did CIV VI but again, both games were really engaging, each in their own way. With CIV VII...I just don't want to play anymore. I find it, just not enjoyable enough for a series of reasons which I'll explain bellow:

1. The game feels dumbed down: The game tries to cater to the needs of too many crowds and fails at pleasing all of them I fear. At the very least, I feel that this game fails to please those of us who still play on a PC. For me the game interface feels like a cheap port from a console game. Then there is the core of the gameplay at its essence; playing CIV VII feels like talking a walk in a forest path which is lined with too many guard rails left and right. It feels like an "open world RPG" which doesn't really let you explore everything that you can see. You can watch but you can stray from the path. This is not how I want to play CIV, this isn't a 4X, this is a maximization gimmick.
2. Civilization Switching/Leader Switching: I am not adverse to the change of civilizations over time however the way they chose to do this doesn't make sense. What Humankind and CIV VII are trying to emulate is a mechanic first introduced in an old Avalon Hill 80s board game named "History of the World". That board game tried to emulate 4000 years of human history and condense it in 4-5 gaming hours. To keep things interesting they had disected this timeframe in seven eras and whoever was the weakest player (taking into account civlization strength and player victory points) got to draft a civilization first for the next era. Thus if you had chosen the all mighty Romans in Era III, you would most likely end with the Khmers in Era IV who were quite weak. This worked fine for a board game and the limitations it faces but here we're talking essentially about a much more complex and time consuming historical emulation. In my view, the proper solution to this is the approach taken by the enldess space and endless legend series (of the latter, I've had the privilege of playtesting the closed beta version of Endless II). What they did was the assimilation of foreign populaces within your cities. Historically, populations integrated through three main methods: peacefull migration (Hellenic & Phoenician colonizations), invasions (4th Century AD great invasions) and mercenary integration (Normans, Varyags, etc). In the Endless series, each city has populace slots. Each population has different characteristics (advantages and disadvantages) and this game mechanic mixing I believe very well emulates historical intermixing of populations. Conquered cities would begin having exclusively foreign, hostile population but gradually the conquering civilization would introduce its own thus assimilating the conquered city. In the age of nationalism, assimilating foreign populations should become increasingly difficult unless you either follow an absolutist (read: dictatorial) approach or an "american dream" approach. As far as leaders are concerned, I believe that the current avatar system is obsolete and only exists for money-making DLC policies. I would migrate towards an Age of Wonders IV or Crusader Kings III approach towards leaders. This means, I would let the player create his or her own leader as he sees fit and if I wanted to profit from cosmetics and other such DLCs I would then introduce leader dress or palace customizations. Forcing static historical personalities on civilizations, even for just an age feels a bit out of touch nowadays.
3. Age Changing: I get that what the developers where trying to do was to make each age self contained and give incentives to players to see their games to the end but this is not the way to do it. First of all, the current age system feels half baked and it's practically common knowledge by now that they were planning for more ages but had to back out in order to meet publisher deadlines. Personally, I'm not so sore about the Atomic Age missing (post WWII content) as I'm particularly baffled by the jump from the Ancient Age to the Age of Exploration. As the game stands today, it feels like I'm plucked from 2nd - 3rd century AD straight to the early rennaisance era with nothing happening in between. All my progress is lost, all my units are swapped for something else or gone, all my choices are nullified. This is not what I want to play. Yes, I'm in favor of crisis events but not like this. This feels like running a lab test where the result is always the same.
4. Technology Trees: Linear tech trees are obsolete in 4X games period. Tech trees should be non linear. Make me choose my own path down history, you don't have to hand hold me with very simplistic linear trees. This doesn't feel like I'm making choices, I'm just clicking boringly clicking my way down a line. Make me choose X technologies for Y Age/Era in order to progress to the next set of technologies. Use prerequisites for some key techs if that's necessary. Technologies should be split in several broad categories forcing the player to make tough choices (is it bread or butter or something else?). As it is, you either min/max your techs or you boringly click on the next icon available and simply chug allong.

These are my main grievances with CIV VII. Yes I would love a better UI, yes I would love an optional turn based combat module such as Age of Wonders IV or Endless Legend II have, but these aren't game breakers for me. The game as it is, is very pretty to look at, has great music but it's just not engaging enough anymore. Maybe the problem is me, maybe I'm suffering from 4X fatigue, but I didn't feel angry about how CIV VII turned out; I felt sad.

 

[Gori the Grey]

One of the features they boasted about pre-release was that the game had more help for new players than any other civ.

Once I heard all of the complaints about the Civipedia and UI generally, I thought to myself "well, they didn't hit that target."

But I wonder if it was the legacy paths that they had in mind. By their giving the impression that this is how you are supposed to play the game, a novice player who did so would be making the kind of short-term choices that would be advantageous toward the long-term victory conditions.

 

[queenpea]

One of the features they boasted about pre-release was that the game had more help for new players than any other civ.

Once I heard all of the complaints about the Civipedia and UI generally, I thought to myself "well, they didn't hit that target."

But I wonder if it was the legacy paths that they had in mind. By their giving the impression that this is how you are supposed to play the game, a novice player who did so would be making the kind of short-term choices that would be advantageous toward the long-term victory conditions.

You are absolutely supposed to complete legacy paths. Doing so unlocks powerful bonuses that allow the player to cruise to victory/snowball in later ages.

Yes, you don’t have to complete the legacy paths to win the final sprint. It’s not a requirement. But you are at a disadvantage if you arrive in Modern without having stacked legacy points in previous ages.

 

[Gorbles]

You are absolutely supposed to complete legacy paths. Doing so unlocks powerful bonuses that allow the player to cruise to victory/snowball in later ages.

Yes, you don’t have to complete the legacy paths to win the final sprint. It’s not a requirement. But you are at a disadvantage if you arrive in Modern without having stacked legacy points in previous ages.

I would say that the game should be completable without completing Legacy Paths. They're a bonus if you get them, but they're not absolutely mandatory.

We've even seen complaints that snowballing is still effective in Modern due to Legacy points. So the way I'd phrase is it that they're an advantage to have, but not necessarily a disadvantage not to. The neutral state (e.g. with few / no Legacy points) is still meant to be winnable. vs. Legacy points being required to even achieve a victory.

 

[queenpea]

I would say that the game should be completable without completing Legacy Paths. They're a bonus if you get them, but they're not absolutely mandatory.

We've even seen complaints that snowballing is still effective in Modern due to Legacy points. So the way I'd phrase is it that they're an advantage to have, but not necessarily a disadvantage not to. The neutral state (e.g. with few / no Legacy points) is still meant to be winnable. vs. Legacy points being required to even achieve a victory.

Right I didn’t say they are mandatory. However, if you are playing at a higher difficulty, you will want some buffs to your yields (gold/happiness/science/culture, etc.).

That said, the game pushes you towards them without question (at the end of each age you are shown on a bar graph measured against opponent progress). The ages are designed to offer you the option of which path(s) to pursue at the start of each age by civ choice and the memento reset. Then the game, or the advisors if you have them enabled, push you down the road.

 

[Gorbles]

Right I didn’t say they are mandatory. However, if you are playing at a higher difficulty, you will want some buffs to your yields (gold/happiness/science/culture, etc.).

That said, the game pushes you towards them without question (at the end of each age you are shown on a bar graph measured against opponent progress). The ages are designed to offer you the option of which path(s) to pursue at the start of each age by civ choice and the memento reset. Then the game, or the advisors if you have them enabled, push you down the road.

Sure. I'm just emphasising the difference between "actually necessary" and "feels necessary", because that's a very relevant distinction for any improvements that need to be made.

 

[queenpea]

Besides tweaking buffs and the legacy point system, I would rather see new legacy paths generally and new legacy paths for civs specifically—like what Mongolia has currently.

It would be interesting to see more individual legacy paths—and I think the devs could look at EU IV mission trees for some inspiration, though implementation would be completely different.

 

[aelf]

You are absolutely supposed to complete legacy paths. Doing so unlocks powerful bonuses that allow the player to cruise to victory/snowball in later ages.

Yes, you don’t have to complete the legacy paths to win the final sprint. It’s not a requirement. But you are at a disadvantage if you arrive in Modern without having stacked legacy points in previous ages.

There were previously complaints that one barely had to actually play until the Modern Age and one could still win on Deity. So which is true?

 

[queenpea]

There were previously complaints that one barely had to actually play until the Modern Age and one could still win on Deity. So which is true?

They buffed AI opponents, mainly with food yields. Did you miss that update?

 

[Siptah]

They buffed AI opponents, mainly with food yields. Did you miss that update?

Did they actually increase the food yields for AI? I thought it was just the mechanical change to growth that benefits the AI's way of settling and managing cities.

 

[protocol7]

I’m not sure what they changed, but I recently tried to shift-enter through ancient and exploration and wasn’t able to win modern on deity like I could a couple months ago.

It’s a pretty low bar, but they’ve at least addressed that

 

[aelf]

They buffed AI opponents, mainly with food yields. Did you miss that update?

So the food buff actually makes it necessary to complete legacy paths? I haven't been playing much so I really don't know, but somehow I doubt it.

 

[queenpea]

Did they actually increase the food yields for AI? I thought it was just the mechanical change to growth that benefits the AI's way of settling and managing cities.

I'm not sure, but increasing AI difficulty was a highlighted aspect of one of the major patches.

"AI behavior has improved, since they can now leverage high-Food starts and avoid bottlenecks that used to limit their expansion. You may find you even need to turn your difficulty settings down a notch."

 

[protocol7]

Is the idea that the game has been balanced for the average player to be winning on deity while skipping legacy paths, and you should only use them if you want it to be more trivial? And in this way eras are optional, despite how they are presented?

 

[queenpea]

So the food buff actually makes it necessary to complete legacy paths? I haven't been playing much so I really don't know, but somehow I doubt it.

I have already said they aren't necessary to win the game. I have also said that when playing on higher difficulty, it is advisable to be awarded legacy points for yields (read snowballing). I'm not sure what else you want from me on this topic.

 

[aelf]

My own sense is that getting 3 points on the legacy paths is not that much better than getting 2 points. Attribute points, if accumulated strategically (i.e. if you land on good bonuses), can make a significant difference in yields. There are also some pretty strong 2-point bonuses like Fealty that might make sense depending on your strategy. Golden Ages, however, don't feel like they're terribly game-changing. That's just my sense, though.

And there's also the fact that legacy paths aren't the only source of attribute points.

I have already said they aren't necessary to win the game. I have also said that when playing on higher difficulty, it is advisable to be awarded legacy points for yields (read snowballing). I'm not sure what else you want from me on this topic.

Oh dear, you've taken an unnecessarily adversarial tone here, so I'll just bid you good day!

 

[queenpea]

My own sense is that getting 3 points on the legacy paths is not that much better than getting 2 points. Attribute points, if accumulated strategically (i.e. if you land on good bonuses), can make a significant difference in yields. There are also some pretty strong 2-point bonuses like Fealty that might make sense depending on your strategy. Golden Ages, however, don't feel like they're terribly game-changing. That's just my sense, though.

And there's also the fact that legacy paths aren't the only source of attribute points.


Oh dear, you've taken an unnecessarily adversarial tone here, so I'll bid you good day!

I see what you did there. I'm afraid I'm not being adversarial at all and am keeping things quite collegiate.

 

[protocol7]

This place is getting more and more bonkers the longer it takes them to fix the game, hehe.

 

[ehecatzin]

For me It's two main things: the era changes, and the lenght of time it leaves out (I'm also on the camp that ancient into exploration is the worst offender), I think having most unlocks being about just building x number of things, instead of being tied to narrative events is a missed opportunity so far. And second, allow us to research techs and civics from the next era at a higher cost, that way we could get a bit of a headstart on exploration, religion, or military. (while we are at it, make it so that the last unit upgrade on ancient is the starting one on exploration, poor phalanxes nobody cares about them)


Civ choosing should happen before the era ends and be tied to quests and crises: It could help alleviate the hard switch, what If I'm getting my ass kicked by the crisis, or a neighboor, Then a band of north men offers to take one of my cities but fortify it hard and add units to defend it, now you have locked in The Normans, and you can start to Normanify your empire on the last stretch of the crisis.

It could open a lot of narrative choices tied to legacy traits, for example, the exploration dark age that turns you into a horde, what if instead of just choosing that and call it a day, you got a narrative event about your settled people embracing the nomad lifestyle and granting you a few early Khans to start getting the horde going at the end of the crisis.

Maybe you want to get a head start on religion, letting you build up your shrines into temples, maybe you could start conversion of your own empire (and would avoid the awkardness of rushing your missionaries into other civs before your own)

Also, for all the game design sins Humankind commited, narrative events with beautiful art wasn't one of them, but civ just gives us a window of text? cmon.


and finally for me, either make eras larger, or start filling the gaps, Ancient into Exploration is criminal.

EDIT: Oh and another thing!....just make civ switching optional, leave it there for people that want the challenge of beating the game with only 1 set of bonuses. (heck it adds interesting options for narrative events)