Do you think the civilizations have too many bonuses ans uniques?

[Nic@Melbourne]

When everything is special, nothing is special.

That's how Civ VII feels to me after 100+ hours of playing. Everything is unique and special all the time: terrain improvements (civ and independent power), units, buildings, quarters, policy trees, mementos. It was cool initially, but feels just overdone at this point.

Agree there is too much going on and it can feel weightless.
I’d get ride of the attribute trees and the narrative bonuses

Think the amount of Civ abilities is great but sometimes you are most the way through the age before it’s online and then you have to start again.
Don’t like some abilities hidden in the narrative.

 

[UWHabs]

Agree there is too much going on and it can feel weightless.
I’d get ride of the attribute trees and the narrative bonuses

Think the amount of Civ abilities is great but sometimes you are most the way through the age before it’s online and then you have to start again.
Don’t like some abilities hidden in the narrative.

It's slightly weird, since at some level, I think the civ-specific attribute trees and legacies are one of the best parts. But at the same time, I see the feeling that when everything is unique, it almost feels like nothing is anymore. Like if 1/2 the civs have a unique infantry unit in one era, that makes each one individually not feel special. I do think part of the fun before was knowing that when you hit your legion you had a relatively short window to get the most use of it.

Maybe the answer is that each unique unit could maybe get one bonus that lasts through the entire era, but maybe their should have a secondary boost that's only valid for one tier. So maybe Tercios get the combat bonus vs cavalry the entire era, but only their T3 variation gets the base combat strength boost (or vice versa). If you do that, then you can probably lean even more - so maybe the T3 version is +5 strength over the base version, rather than just +2. So basically you get some bonus to it always, but your ideal Spain plan should be to rush to the T3 version and use that for a late era domination. Maybe Hawaii's Leiomano gets the opposite - they always get culture, but the combat boosts are only the T1 variation. So they're good for an early rush, but T2 isn't really that much better than T1.

 

[Siptah]

Maybe the answer is that each unique unit could maybe get one bonus that lasts through the entire era, but maybe their should have a secondary boost that's only valid for one tier. So maybe Tercios get the combat bonus vs cavalry the entire era, but only their T3 variation gets the base combat strength boost (or vice versa). If you do that, then you can probably lean even more - so maybe the T3 version is +5 strength over the base version, rather than just +2. So basically you get some bonus to it always, but your ideal Spain plan should be to rush to the T3 version and use that for a late era domination. Maybe Hawaii's Leiomano gets the opposite - they always get culture, but the combat boosts are only the T1 variation. So they're good for an early rush, but T2 isn't really that much better than T1.

Without differentiating these unit tiers by names and graphs, this would be hard to keep track of though. "Was it T2 or T3 where I have my window of advantage?" compared to "Tercios > Pike & Shot" because X.

 

[queenpea]

When everything is special, nothing is special.

That's how Civ VII feels to me after 100+ hours of playing. Everything is unique and special all the time: terrain improvements (civ and independent power), units, buildings, quarters, policy trees, mementos. It was cool initially, but feels just overdone at this point.

Yes, this is how I feel, too. Often times the map is just carpeted with so many unique units that they really don’t feel special at all. It’s also too many special abilities / buffs to keep track of, and the game does a poor job at explaining essentially everything. Especially in warfare, the battle preview gives you a novel-length description of buffs and debuffs affecting the proposed battle and does nothing to make any of it feel special or memorable.

I’m bothered much less by the unique buildings/districts/improvements. These at least have staying power and visually reinforce the civilizations are built in layers narrative. Obviously the unique units come and go as is their nature.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Agree there is too much going on and it can feel weightless.
I’d get ride of the attribute trees and the narrative bonuses

Think the amount of Civ abilities is great but sometimes you are most the way through the age before it’s online and then you have to start again.
Don’t like some abilities hidden in the narrative.

I think Narrative Rewards need to be more like Millenia, in that they actually give meaningful bonuses, either pernamently or until the end of age, getting a boost in Science/Culture/Gold all the time gets really repetitive.

 

[Sagax]

I think Narrative Rewards need to be more like Millenia, in that they actually give meaningful bonuses, either pernamently or until the end of age, getting a boost in Science/Culture/Gold all the time gets really repetitive.

Some events do exactly that, but they are in a minority and sometimes have specific triggers. The ones that come to mind are the Colosseum event in Exploration and Shawnee UI event in Modern.

 

[Siptah]

On the other hand, when people complain that it's hard to keep all their bonuses in mind, bonuses from quests or goody huts increase this problem. Especially as they can't be seen on the map (unlike wonders and buildings) nor in the policy screen (unlike traditions).

 

[queenpea]

On the other hand, when people complain that it's hard to keep all their bonuses in mind, bonuses from quests or goody huts increase this problem. Especially as they can't be seen on the map (unlike wonders and buildings) nor in the policy screen (unlike traditions).

This has been a problem in other iterations. In VI, for example, with the yield porn and adjacency bonuses. I wish there was a way to *explain* the bonuses *visually* for the player. Perhaps it's set of "bonus" cards that could be displayed similarly to the policy cards, or perhaps these bonus yields could glow on the map when highlighted.

 

[Captain Lime]

I mostly had trouble keeping track of all the stuff I had. A lot of the abilities are decomposed into get +X yield when you get the Y civic or something, or your civ unit gets Z keyword or something. At any given time it's hard to know what exactly my civ was capable of doing, what it would be capable of doing when I made certain decisions, and that made it hard to plan.

Could be inexperience, but I would prefer a format where we had fewer, more impactful abilities that came online in one go rather than this stacking thing. Or maybe the stacking thing would feel less confusing if I didn't have to scrap it and rebuild three times. It feels at odds with civ switching (especially since civ switching was ostensibly designed to combat the snowball effect while this aspect of the game is very snowbally) and I was never particularly onboard with either system to begin with. So maybe they both suffer from being in the same game as the other. I dunno.

An additional fridge thought: the fact that it could be inexperience is also not great. Ideally your mechanics would be simple enough to pick up intuitively while at the same time providing depth. Even the best game in the world is a complete failure if nobody can understand it.

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

On a few points of discussion.
Think the need for every Civ to have special units needs to be looked at. Some are very forgettable (mainly civilian units. Otherswould work better with more directed play around the unit.
Having things more visually on the map is good but also just make them appear less random and more open strategic planning. It’s a strategy game. Don’t think most of play for the narrative, we play for the strategy and historical power fantasy.
I’d make the leader and Civ narrative events and some of the unique Civ abilities, more like the Civ VI tech boost. The requirement is explicitly stated, e.g. build 3 of x and get y. Hidden narratives ruin the game for me.

 

[sixty4half]

I Weber when the game first came out. All the youtubers were releasing videos and saying this leader or that leader is OP. Isabella is OP. Catherine is OP. Tubman is OP. Xerxes is OP. Everyone was OP.

And I'm thinking to myself; if everyone is OP then none of them are.

 

[pmarc]

I Weber when the game first came out. All the youtubers were releasing videos and saying this leader or that leader is OP. Isabella is OP. Catherine is OP. Tubman is OP. Xerxes is OP. Everyone was OP.

There seems to be a big incentive for youtubers to be hyperbolic. (Although I would tend to agree for Isabella.)

Could be inexperience, but I would prefer a format where we had fewer, more impactful abilities that came online in one go rather than this stacking thing. Or maybe the stacking thing would feel less confusing if I didn't have to scrap it and rebuild three times. It feels at odds with civ switching (especially since civ switching was ostensibly designed to combat the snowball effect while this aspect of the game is very snowbally) and I was never particularly onboard with either system to begin with. So maybe they both suffer from being in the same game as the other. I dunno.

An additional fridge thought: the fact that it could be inexperience is also not great. Ideally your mechanics would be simple enough to pick up intuitively while at the same time providing depth. Even the best game in the world is a complete failure if nobody can understand it.

It's fair for people to have different preferences. The stacking of moderate bonuses for a gradual snowballing effect is something I enjoy in this game. I agree with the comments before though that the game needs to show them more clearly throughout the era. As far as I know the bonuses gained from narrative events cannot be consulted later, and the ones from civics (passive bonuses, not cards) could be consolidated somewhere for easier reminding.

On a separate note, regarding the unique units not being limited to a tier, I assume this might have to do with lacking the time to use them, such as the UU were only tier 3. One drawback of the age structure is that anything that is a late unlock in the era is unlikely to be of much use. For me that's especially true in modern, where it's very desirable to progress to ideology fast, so going for the civ-specific civics early is hard to justify.