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

[Gorbles]

I assert that you have never read an entire book of short stories straight through and I assert that when you stopped for the day it was almost always at the end of a story and I assert that your total page count read per day is/was higher for novels than collections of short stories.

You assertion incorrectly. Wrongly, even. Sorry.

 

[Skojardu]

I've said a few times now that I don't think it's binary whether I associate primarily with a civ or a leader. Augustus for example is so connected with Rome in my mind that he can be playing Hawai'i and I'll still refer to him and his civ as Rome. I found that one out in MP where I thoroughly confused everyone. Ditto Confucious and China - even though China isn't in the game. On the other hand, Xerxes and Tubman don't seem to produce such a strong automatic connection for me and I'll refer to them by their character. In each case giving an example of someone who did and didn't lead their civ...

I think it would have been confusing if either civs or leaders switched... Hence I favour the idea of evolving civs rather than switching outright.

Am I alone on this one? Do you guys associate certain leaders/civs so strongly it overwrites the civ switching/mixing? If so are they different leaders?

To me, Tubman is clearly American as a former slave and abolitionist, and Xerxes is clearly Persian as an ancient enemy of the Greeks. I don't know if getting a History degree has me particularly prickly, but hearing "Napoleon of the Huns" or "Abraham Lincoln of Arabia" makes me sick. It feels like a symptom of youngsters struggling to learn to read. If the devs really wanted to legitimize their mixing and mashing of nations, they would have chosen only leaders with plausible connections to other nations like the Marquis of Lafayette (US, France) or William of Orange (Netherlands and England), although they may be part of such a small club of multi-national leadership figures that such a legitimizing set-up was impossible.

 

[Gorbles]

To me, Tubman is clearly American as a former slave and abolitionist, and Xerxes is clearly Persian as an ancient enemy of the Greeks. I don't know if getting a History degree has me particularly prickly, but hearing "Napoleon of the Huns" or "Abraham Lincoln of Arabia" makes me sick. It feels like a symptom of youngsters struggling to learn to read. If the devs really wanted to legitimize their mixing and mashing of nations, they would have chosen only leaders with plausible connections to other nations like the Marquis of Lafayette (US, France) or William of Orange (Netherlands and England), although they may be part of such a small club of multi-national leadership figures that such a legitimizing set-up was impossible.

They did build that kind of link in. That's what the favoured paths are for, which the AI should also favour.

 

[Dedrytus]

And for me no patch will be enough to buy this game. I like to play with my own goals like no exploration, no travel beyond my continent, never build wonders or opposite build as many as possible, always war or never declare and so on. Design of VII don't allow me to play this way so I will skip this iteration.

 

[UWHabs]

And for me no patch will be enough to buy this game. I like to play with my own goals like no exploration, no travel beyond my continent, never build wonders or opposite build as many as possible, always war or never declare and so on. Design of VII don't allow me to play this way so I will skip this iteration.

I mean, you can play those ways. You won't get the legacy points, and sure, some of those strategies would be sub-optimal, but you could still get to victory those ways if you wanted to.

 

[Krikkit1]

And for me no patch will be enough to buy this game. I like to play with my own goals like no exploration, no travel beyond my continent, never build wonders or opposite build as many as possible, always war or never declare and so on. Design of VII don't allow me to play this way so I will skip this iteration.

That just means the Legacies you get in
Antiquity
Military definitely...Economic and possibly Science depending on how you buildup those conquests
Exploration
probably none there unless you do Mongols
Modern
Scientific and possibly Economic Legacies.. Science you can achieve the Victory without even contacting anyone else

You can definitely play "Clear my Continent Turtle" in Civ7... its probably the most reliable

 

[aelf]

Misinformation rules in this day and age. Which is why what people say has an impact on reception.

 

[Bug Repellent]

I mean, you can play those ways. You won't get the legacy points, and sure, some of those strategies would be sub-optimal, but you could still get to victory those ways if you wanted to.

I can never purposefully play a 4X game suboptimally. Mastering optimization on deity or higher difficulties for me is the whole point of playing Civ. If the game sets up some big rewards in front of me, not going for them would drive me nuts.

 

[Krikkit1]

I can never purposefully play a 4X game suboptimally. Mastering optimization on deity or higher difficulties for me is the whole point of playing Civ. If the game sets up some big rewards in front of me, not going for them would drive me nuts.

The problem is "suboptimally" is uncertain. Those rewards are big, but it important to realize what the opportunity cost of pursuing them is. More good settlements is probably the most important part of any civ game and spreading religion or researching codexes instead of getting new settlements is possibly not worth it.