Lord Lakely
Idea Fountain
I finally got around to playing the game! Hooray! I have all the thoughts, which I will now share.
Generally, the impression is that the game's fun. I enjoy it significantly more than I did Humankind or Millennia, and definitely feels like a Civ game when you play it.
Let's start with the positives first, of which there are a few before I vent my frustrations with the Age system.
POSITIVES:
> Graphics - This map is absolutely gorgeous, even on the lowest level. The amount of graphic details, specifically in the unit sprites gives every Civilization a distinct identity.
> The Attribute tree - Not just in terms of the bonuses they add, but also the way atrribute points are earned via narrative events, and how they correlate to your Civ and Leader. It makes every game feel different, and makes the choice of Civ leave a profound impact in the later ages.
> Diplomacy - everything concerning Diplomacy is meaningful, and Influence is balanced in just the right amounts that you have to pick between supporting Endeavours and building relationships, or Suzerain Indeps. Only a select few leader/civ combos can achieve both, as they should.
> Army Commanders - Armies are still a bit fiddly, but nowhere near the extend they were before. Army Commanders can also mass-task units in their range to focus fire or fortify, which is neat.
> Gold & Balance - Units are fairly cheap, which makes it easier to buy them with Gold while you use production to construct the buildings. Buildings themselves aren't expensive either, which allows you to always develop your towns with Warehouse buildings. I like all of those things, even if it makes Gold one of the more powerful yields in the game. Settlements are also easier to capture. This creates an interesting dynamic where you as a player can be punished for neglecting your military, yet retain the possibility to bounce back and counterattack if you are rushed by the AI. This is especially true on Viceroy, which the difficulty I've played most of my games on so far.
> Narrative Events and Quests - As silly and gamey as they sometimes are, they give new players a clear direction in how to play the game, and I like the checklist that they provide. Gives you a goal to work towards to, which is useful for those that default to idly building everything they can, such as myself.
> Civ Selection - This roster is great, if a bit small. Every Civ has its own unique identity. I haven't tried them all yet, obviously, but the ones given to me by the randomizer (Maya, Maurya, Rome, Carthage) all were fun to play as.
> Settlements - Cities vs Towns is an inspired change, and the Settlement Limit isn't that punitive (thankfully). I regularly go over the cap, even as non-Dip civs and leaders, and have no real qualms. The only problems are when I go over the cap by a large amount (3 settles or more), and that's how it should be tbh.
And this is just a smattering of what I enjoy about the game.
However, there is one humongous elephant in the room for me that strongly dampens the game for me.
THE EXPLORATION AGE IS HORRIBLE.
The Antiquity Age and Modern Age are both perfectly fine to me, but Exploration is like an unpleasant domestic chore. I've read people criticising the Age system but truly, having tried the game for myself, the problem is that the main mechanics of Exploration are BAD, including the lead-up from Antiquity.
Crises are a contrivance. It's an annoying, convoluted system thrown into the end of an age to irritate the player for no reason other than Because We Can. Narratively, you're supposed to use crises to roleplay your empire's transition into the next era, but in practice I've found them both ineffective yet EXTREMELY irritating in my first game. Switched them off for my second game, and I will never switched them back on again.
Regular Age length is also a bit on the short side, at least in Antiquity which is easily the most fun Age in the game.
Anyway, Exploration sucks, because its victory conditions suck.
> Treasure Fleets bother me the least, but are entirely RNG dependent. I've had gamed where I spawned right next to a cluster of Distant Land Islands which had many Treasure Fleet resources, and easily hit my target. (the ONLY player in that entire game to earn even one Economic victory point). I've had a game where I found exactly ONE(!) viable Treasure location. Good luck getting points then. Treasure Fleets are also slow, and there's no escort button to protect them from random barbarian carracks that you may encounter along the way.
> Religion is vile - Pantheons are already a bit of a contrivance in Antiquity due to the painful UI (why are the unavailable pantheons shown at the top of the list? Why are they greyed out when the regular UI is silver on black? Choices.), but this reaches peak unsatisfaction in Exploration where you are forced to compete. Just spam missionaries, lmao!!!! You better!!! If you don't, you fall behind in TWO victory conditions, and Culture generation. Fun. The mechanics aren't difficult to figure out but feel counterintuitive. Why do my Missionaries IMMEDIATELY convert the entire country side or urban part of a city, like completely? Why are there two separate ticks? Why is there no passive spread? Why does Religion doesn't feel like actual religion, and more like an advert for strict state atheism? Why does everything hinge on Relics? It would also be nice if the game TOLD ME whether a conversion would trigger before I moved my missionary to the tile, or that it would tell me which Settlements
> Specialists feel like an hollow mechanic - You place them, and then forget about them for the rest of the game. I strongly dislike how all Specialists, irrespective of the quarter, give you Science and Culture. So every Specialist you have is like, what, a teacher and a craftsman? That makes them feel like generalists, rather than specialists. A specialist assigned to a Bank should not give you the same yields as one assigned to a Kiln. SOMETIMES you get a little bit of extra yields, but the game doesn't tell you where those yields come from. The bonus yields are obviously tied to the buildings on the tile, but are they influenced by the base yield, the adjacency or something else? Have fun figuring that out (I already know it's based on tile adjacency but only because I did my research before playing the game.)
All of this comes on top of a UI that isn't good at what its supposed ot be doing. The main issue issue is that the Tooltips either don't exist, and when they do, barely give you information. Tutorial pop-ups really aren't enough. If your game is complex (which Civ7 still is, despite its attempts to simplify itself), you need to remind players ALL THE TIME what the consequences of their decisions are going to be, and WHY these effects are what they are. It's easy to lose track of what you're doing and this can be amended by improving the UI .
Of course, this is then compensated for by menus that come with GIANT WALLS OF TEXT that are a migraine to read through, because screw having any sort of middle ground, let alone formatting.
Merchants, which I haven't written about yet, also suffer from convoluted mechanics - the only unit across all three ages to do so. Why is the trade route not established immediately when you activate him, like we did in Civ5 and Civ6? Beats me. Maybe the system designers at Firaxis love fiddlingly around uselessly on Governor difficulty to kill time, as if Civ7 is naught but a homebrew history sim.
The Modern Age, which I've only played a bit (to the extend that my laptop can run it), goes back to being a more fun experience, thankfully. Since it's the final age, it also tends to be too short, but its systems are decently well-designed.
Archaeology, which I hear was overtuned before, isn't anymore, though I don't know whether it's winneable if you haven't spread across the map like a cancerous growth (and if you've done that, you should be able to win anyway).
Militaristic and Economic Victories both seem playable (both mechanically and in fun factor), and the Ideology system is - in my opinion - fantastic. It really upends the diplomatic balance of the first two ages, and can turn your life-long rivals into new friends (kind of how the UK and France went from mortal enemies to each other's closest ally during the Great War). I don't mind that the third age is War focused - normally you run out of room to expand by the endgame anyway so the best thing to do is go for an uncomplicated military push. Shame for the Modern Civs that have unique Civilians or (hahahahaha) Tile Improvements.
Overall, I enjoy the game. I would rate it about a 7.5 out 10. Antiquity and Modern are both very fun to play and nail the heart of Civ. However, Exploration is a massive game-ending failure. I don't know whether Civ7 can recover from that unless they DRASTICALLY overhaul almost all of its mechanics. The mandatory expansion pack will have to do exactly that, or else they're better off making more content for Civ5 & Civ6.
Generally, the impression is that the game's fun. I enjoy it significantly more than I did Humankind or Millennia, and definitely feels like a Civ game when you play it.
Let's start with the positives first, of which there are a few before I vent my frustrations with the Age system.
POSITIVES:
> Graphics - This map is absolutely gorgeous, even on the lowest level. The amount of graphic details, specifically in the unit sprites gives every Civilization a distinct identity.
> The Attribute tree - Not just in terms of the bonuses they add, but also the way atrribute points are earned via narrative events, and how they correlate to your Civ and Leader. It makes every game feel different, and makes the choice of Civ leave a profound impact in the later ages.
> Diplomacy - everything concerning Diplomacy is meaningful, and Influence is balanced in just the right amounts that you have to pick between supporting Endeavours and building relationships, or Suzerain Indeps. Only a select few leader/civ combos can achieve both, as they should.
> Army Commanders - Armies are still a bit fiddly, but nowhere near the extend they were before. Army Commanders can also mass-task units in their range to focus fire or fortify, which is neat.
> Gold & Balance - Units are fairly cheap, which makes it easier to buy them with Gold while you use production to construct the buildings. Buildings themselves aren't expensive either, which allows you to always develop your towns with Warehouse buildings. I like all of those things, even if it makes Gold one of the more powerful yields in the game. Settlements are also easier to capture. This creates an interesting dynamic where you as a player can be punished for neglecting your military, yet retain the possibility to bounce back and counterattack if you are rushed by the AI. This is especially true on Viceroy, which the difficulty I've played most of my games on so far.
> Narrative Events and Quests - As silly and gamey as they sometimes are, they give new players a clear direction in how to play the game, and I like the checklist that they provide. Gives you a goal to work towards to, which is useful for those that default to idly building everything they can, such as myself.
> Civ Selection - This roster is great, if a bit small. Every Civ has its own unique identity. I haven't tried them all yet, obviously, but the ones given to me by the randomizer (Maya, Maurya, Rome, Carthage) all were fun to play as.
> Settlements - Cities vs Towns is an inspired change, and the Settlement Limit isn't that punitive (thankfully). I regularly go over the cap, even as non-Dip civs and leaders, and have no real qualms. The only problems are when I go over the cap by a large amount (3 settles or more), and that's how it should be tbh.
And this is just a smattering of what I enjoy about the game.
However, there is one humongous elephant in the room for me that strongly dampens the game for me.
THE EXPLORATION AGE IS HORRIBLE.
The Antiquity Age and Modern Age are both perfectly fine to me, but Exploration is like an unpleasant domestic chore. I've read people criticising the Age system but truly, having tried the game for myself, the problem is that the main mechanics of Exploration are BAD, including the lead-up from Antiquity.
Crises are a contrivance. It's an annoying, convoluted system thrown into the end of an age to irritate the player for no reason other than Because We Can. Narratively, you're supposed to use crises to roleplay your empire's transition into the next era, but in practice I've found them both ineffective yet EXTREMELY irritating in my first game. Switched them off for my second game, and I will never switched them back on again.
Regular Age length is also a bit on the short side, at least in Antiquity which is easily the most fun Age in the game.
Anyway, Exploration sucks, because its victory conditions suck.
> Treasure Fleets bother me the least, but are entirely RNG dependent. I've had gamed where I spawned right next to a cluster of Distant Land Islands which had many Treasure Fleet resources, and easily hit my target. (the ONLY player in that entire game to earn even one Economic victory point). I've had a game where I found exactly ONE(!) viable Treasure location. Good luck getting points then. Treasure Fleets are also slow, and there's no escort button to protect them from random barbarian carracks that you may encounter along the way.
> Religion is vile - Pantheons are already a bit of a contrivance in Antiquity due to the painful UI (why are the unavailable pantheons shown at the top of the list? Why are they greyed out when the regular UI is silver on black? Choices.), but this reaches peak unsatisfaction in Exploration where you are forced to compete. Just spam missionaries, lmao!!!! You better!!! If you don't, you fall behind in TWO victory conditions, and Culture generation. Fun. The mechanics aren't difficult to figure out but feel counterintuitive. Why do my Missionaries IMMEDIATELY convert the entire country side or urban part of a city, like completely? Why are there two separate ticks? Why is there no passive spread? Why does Religion doesn't feel like actual religion, and more like an advert for strict state atheism? Why does everything hinge on Relics? It would also be nice if the game TOLD ME whether a conversion would trigger before I moved my missionary to the tile, or that it would tell me which Settlements
> Specialists feel like an hollow mechanic - You place them, and then forget about them for the rest of the game. I strongly dislike how all Specialists, irrespective of the quarter, give you Science and Culture. So every Specialist you have is like, what, a teacher and a craftsman? That makes them feel like generalists, rather than specialists. A specialist assigned to a Bank should not give you the same yields as one assigned to a Kiln. SOMETIMES you get a little bit of extra yields, but the game doesn't tell you where those yields come from. The bonus yields are obviously tied to the buildings on the tile, but are they influenced by the base yield, the adjacency or something else? Have fun figuring that out (I already know it's based on tile adjacency but only because I did my research before playing the game.)
All of this comes on top of a UI that isn't good at what its supposed ot be doing. The main issue issue is that the Tooltips either don't exist, and when they do, barely give you information. Tutorial pop-ups really aren't enough. If your game is complex (which Civ7 still is, despite its attempts to simplify itself), you need to remind players ALL THE TIME what the consequences of their decisions are going to be, and WHY these effects are what they are. It's easy to lose track of what you're doing and this can be amended by improving the UI .
Of course, this is then compensated for by menus that come with GIANT WALLS OF TEXT that are a migraine to read through, because screw having any sort of middle ground, let alone formatting.
Merchants, which I haven't written about yet, also suffer from convoluted mechanics - the only unit across all three ages to do so. Why is the trade route not established immediately when you activate him, like we did in Civ5 and Civ6? Beats me. Maybe the system designers at Firaxis love fiddlingly around uselessly on Governor difficulty to kill time, as if Civ7 is naught but a homebrew history sim.
The Modern Age, which I've only played a bit (to the extend that my laptop can run it), goes back to being a more fun experience, thankfully. Since it's the final age, it also tends to be too short, but its systems are decently well-designed.
Archaeology, which I hear was overtuned before, isn't anymore, though I don't know whether it's winneable if you haven't spread across the map like a cancerous growth (and if you've done that, you should be able to win anyway).
Militaristic and Economic Victories both seem playable (both mechanically and in fun factor), and the Ideology system is - in my opinion - fantastic. It really upends the diplomatic balance of the first two ages, and can turn your life-long rivals into new friends (kind of how the UK and France went from mortal enemies to each other's closest ally during the Great War). I don't mind that the third age is War focused - normally you run out of room to expand by the endgame anyway so the best thing to do is go for an uncomplicated military push. Shame for the Modern Civs that have unique Civilians or (hahahahaha) Tile Improvements.
Overall, I enjoy the game. I would rate it about a 7.5 out 10. Antiquity and Modern are both very fun to play and nail the heart of Civ. However, Exploration is a massive game-ending failure. I don't know whether Civ7 can recover from that unless they DRASTICALLY overhaul almost all of its mechanics. The mandatory expansion pack will have to do exactly that, or else they're better off making more content for Civ5 & Civ6.
Last edited:
