First Game Impressions

[Vandlys]

So far Tall still barely seems to be an option. It's my idea after only 1,5 game but I already find myself wishing I could play on tiny with 6-8 civs instead of 4.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

o far Tall still barely seems to be an option.

Yes, it really feels a proper 4X game where you are encouraged to expand.

 

[Foulweather]

Cultural Victory with Hatshepsut: Egypt / Abbasid / Mughal.

First impressions (in addition to the obvious need for improvement on the UI and Civilopedia):

1. I tried to reach as many legacy path milestones as I could: building Wonders, finding Relics, unearthing Artifacts, transporting Treasure Fleets ad nauseum... This kind of regimented gameplay I don't think is going to end up being my favorite, and might hamper replayability. I wonder if I would have more fun just simming and ignoring the Paths for the most part and then sprinting to a victory condition in Age III (as long as it's not too difficult). The one I liked the most was the Enlightenment Path in Age II: managing Specialists and adjacencies was different and useful to learn.
2. There needs to be a way to turn down the disasters even more. I had it set to Light, and there were still volcanoes erupting every other turn, and catastrophic floods every other turn as well. As Egypt I had fishing boats on all my Navigable Rivers, and every time a flood came through, I'd have to monotonously purchase "Repair Fishing Boat" and "Repair Farm" for 16(!) Gold over and over and over again.
3. I appreciated being able to move and rename my capital in an age transition. Gives a different character to the new age. In mine, I moved from one side of the continent to the other and renamed it Delhi, as my overseas exploration was mostly in that new direction.
4. I could do without the "Pachacuti's Agenda has changed his opinion of you" and "Pachacuti got caught stealing a tech from you" notices almost every single turn.
5. I absolutely love the Narrative Events. I role played it, deciding "what would my Hatshepsut really do?" I especially liked the ones that continued later and didn't tell you the reward until after you made your choice. But the best were the ones specifically tailed for my leader or my civilization, that just added realism and flavor to the game. Love love love.

6. I still don't have a good grasp on overbuilding. Does the UI calculate what you're losing as well as what you gain? There were also glitches, sometimes I would hover over a tile and it'd say I was going to build over the Guildhall, even though it wasn't in that District.
7. I noticed a few Staatseisenbahns in my empire. I did not build them. Prussia wasn't even in my game. Hmmm.

8. I'm not going to miss Builders, but what I really do miss is the ability to CHOOSE what I'm putting on a rural tile. Sometimes I'd like to blanket a valley with farms, but oh no this one has to be a woodcutter and this one a mine because the ground is bumpy. Sigh.
9. Religion. Apart from the Exploration Age Legacy Path, is it even worth it? I just stopped caring about it.
10. The world needs to be a bit bigger. I feel like the landscape, mountains, and cities are at a larger scale than before, so it makes my empire feel smaller overall than in Civ 6.
11. I understand Potato's rant about color coding the buildings, but I can't agree. I love the realistic look of the cities. There needs to be a search function though. And if I select a unit that has to activate on a particular type of tile or building, for God sake highlight that tile or building for me.
12. Civ-switching is awesome, but I do think three is the magic number. Can't wait for more civs to come out so the combinations can be more natural and logical, including more stacks.
13. Game looks amazing, especially the water. Sometimes I would just zoom in and watch the ocean waves crash against the cliffs.

14. Music is so good. As usual.
15. Taj Mahal is so beautiful, I'm going to build it in every game, I don't care what it does. (But I do wish it told me on the wonder video).

 

[Vandlys]

Yes, it really feels a proper 4X game where you are encouraged to expand.

Your comment comes across rather snarky IMHO . Fxs said there would be more of a balance between the two. Also, you write as if the game needs to 'demand' expansion (I don't feel encouraged, I feel tall is no option, like said), yet Extermination one can forego entirely. By that logic this is a 3X game? Or does 4X mean giving you the options and freedom to do a set number of those 4?

 

[Qiubov]

First impressions are mostly negative.

Things I like

• Terrain/map graphics: I've heard many complain that the maps are not colourful enough, I disagree. I think Firaxis has done a splendid job so far.
• Overbuilding: Like the idea of overbuilding (will probably like it even more when I fully understand it)
• Scout option to reveal tiles (wish I had this in Civ6!)
• Army commanders: again, wish someone modded this in Civ6.
• Town focus: Ability to change focus on towns (eg mining/farming). Very cool.
• Diplomacy has some interesting options but not entirely sure how I feel about influence as the currency yet.

Things I don’t like (much longer)

• UI (for all the reasons people have mentioned).
• Leader and Civ bonuses: don’t have the same personality as Civ6. Maybe over time I’ll change my mind.
• Mixing Leaders/Civs: takes away from the historical identity but I think this idea has promise and I’ll get to like it more.
• Loyalty mechanic gone. Now I have opposing AI Civs settling in the tiny spaces between my cities/towns. And often the AI chooses to settle terrible cities in these gaps when they have acres of great land next to them. This is made worse by…
• City tiles never expand beyond 3 tiles out: they should’ve have allowed this, but only when the 3 rings from your city centre (not towns) is completely filled. And buying additional tiles does not culture bomb surrounding. Would be a nice differentiation between towns and cities.
• Adjacency bonuses and overbuilding: little help to the noobie on the full mechanics at play. Like the idea, but hard to fully understand, especially as you overbuild through the ages.
• Unit sizes: Way too small. Health bars also. I've had enemy units attack cities/towns that I couldn't see under it was under attack. And for all of the positive feedback I've heard around warfare in Civ7, I find it a little lacklustre currently.
• Units: No auto-explore option for scouts
• Units no longer capable of promotions: I like the Army commander addition, but removing individual promotions of units feels like a step back. They should’ve paired them.
• Religion, very tedious, very basic
• Trading, very tedious, very unintuitive, quite basic.
• Resource assignments: Blimey. No.
• Tech trees: Because we now have 3 ages, with tech trees customised for each age, it’s no longer possible to fast track towards a certain tech at the expense of others (eg. flight). Feels much more limiting.
• Tech trees: Tech tree stacking is gone
• Tech trees: No inspirations to Techs/Civics, was great in Civ6, created mini games.
• Age ends, everything ends abruptly - wars, cities revert to towns, techs/buildings stop.
• Modern age feels very, very light. This should be the grandest, coolest part of the game. Feels rushed in order to have something for the launch.
• Distant lands: forces a narrative that I may not want to go down.
• Map generation is terrible, mostly pole to pole squares.
• Limited game customisation options, can forgive this on a new launch though.

Overall feel of the game: feels a little soulless currently. If Firaxis had given me early access to an alpha version of Civ7, I’d be raving about it. So much promise, potential, and some lovely touches… but ‘young’ in its development.

Still optimistic about the future of the game. But I enthusiastically played Civ7 on Thursday when it was released, less on Friday, and not at all over the weekend. It’s just not ready yet. But I do appreciate that all of those among you who are persevering - you're doing the game a service because it does appear that Firaxis are paying close attention. And those of you who love it already, I envy you!

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I wonder if I would have more fun just simming and ignoring the Paths for the most part and then sprinting to a victory condition in Age III

That's what I'm trying in my second game for the reasons you outlined.

There needs to be a way to turn down the disasters even more.

I thought that after my first game, hardly seen them in my second lol.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Your comment comes across rather snarky IMHO . Fxs said there would be more of a balance between the two.

Apologies for that, bit of a sore spot for me as personally I feel the drive to make tall viable really spoiled the series for a while and I feel Civ VII is getting back on track.

 

[Psychotronics]

I was right about the things I wouldn't enjoy about Civ VII, having experienced similar mechanics in Humankind. I didn't enjoy the civ swapping: it makes the game feel blander to me. In theory, this should mean more flavor: in every era, you have a unique unit and unique building, what's not to like? Well... timing your game based on your civ's UU was a part of the game I enjoyed. If I'm playing with a civilization that has a medieval UU, I'm going to build up an army on classical to be ready to trot as soon as I unlock it. Since you have a new UU on every era, none of them felt special to me.
I really, really dislike how victory works in this game. It feels like playing for a score win in other games, the victory type I always disabled. The era objectives feel like ticking a checklist, not building towards a win condition. And the era transitions feel too abrupt, they interrupt the flow of normal gameplay.
All in all, I think this is going to be the game I dislike the most in the entire series (been playing since Civ III). I'm not optimistic about the game: I know the game will get better, but I'm usure whether it'll ever get to a place where I'll like it.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I was right about the things I wouldn't enjoy about Civ VII, having experienced similar mechanics in Humankind. I didn't enjoy the civ swapping: it makes the game feel blander to me. In theory, this should mean more flavor: in every era, you have a unique unit and unique building, what's not to like? Well... timing your game based on your civ's UU was a part of the game I enjoyed. If I'm playing with a civilization that has a medieval UU, I'm going to build up an army on classical to be ready to trot as soon as I unlock it. Since you have a new UU on every era, none of them felt special to me.
I really, really dislike how victory works in this game. It feels like playing for a score win in other games, the victory type I always disabled. The era objectives feel like ticking a checklist, not building towards a win condition. And the era transitions feel too abrupt, they interrupt the flow of normal gameplay.
All in all, I think this is going to be the game I dislike the most in the entire series (been playing since Civ III). I'm not optimistic about the game: I know the game will get better, but I'm usure whether it'll ever get to a place where I'll like it.

If it helps, I've been playing this first time just building my cities, etc., first, and grabbing the "winning" stuff as they come along. I've been doing good enough (kind of rolled in exploration though, need to up the level a bit after this learning game).

For more things I've noticed is the huge number of buildings that open up during that age. At first glance a lot of them seemed to do almost the same thing. It got to a point where I was having a little analysis paralysis trying to decide what and when, though I guess I'll pick up a little more on that as things go along.

 

[AD1730]

Your comment comes across rather snarky IMHO . Fxs said there would be more of a balance between the two. Also, you write as if the game needs to 'demand' expansion (I don't feel encouraged, I feel tall is no option, like said), yet Extermination one can forego entirely. By that logic this is a 3X game? Or does 4X mean giving you the options and freedom to do a set number of those 4?

Civ V was too tall oriented. Civ VI was too wide oriented. If you have to lean one direction in development, I prefer that the game be a bit more tall-biased. The reason for this is that expansion can end up being the overwhelming factor, as expansion feeds your ability to exploit more resources and exterminate the competition. This can make the game more of a 2x game (explore and expand) rather than hitting all 4 Xs.

 

[StargazingDog]

Should I be avoiding having my towns get too big? When to upgrade a town to city and when to specialize are the two things I just have no idea about in this game.

The tutorial recommends specializing as soon as you can, and I feel this is a good recommendation. I only delay if I want to quickly grow a 1-2 more tiles to reach a specific tile (a resource, high-yield, or to keep it from a neighbour). Keep in mind that, even after specializing, you can always switch back to growth mode at any time. The only downside to specializing is that you have to commit to one, and can never change it.

As for when to upgrade to city, I do that once I feel I need to increase my production of units/buildings. Towns can create these as well, but it requires a lot of gold. Cities can also grow much larger than towns (assuming they are being fed from other towns), and allow specialists. The game recommends a 1:1 ratio of towns:cities and this is a good rule of thumb.

So far Tall still barely seems to be an option. It's my idea after only 1,5 game but I already find myself wishing I could play on tiny with 6-8 civs instead of 4.

The way to play "tall" is to have few cities and many towns. The towns feed the cities, which allow you to fill the cities with urban districts and specialists.

 

[Melkus]

The AI is doing quite alright, I think - this is Himiko with the Hawaiian dream map (her Mississippian era was strong too, but more focused on science), going crazy in Exploration. Is it the happiness bonus for fishing boats?
And this is on Sovereign - imagine her on Deity.

This looked close, but under control - I had more culture, she had more science - so I thought I could fool around a little and try different mechanics. But she has now beaten me to nearly every wonder in this age - including the three-relic House of Wisdom by two turns when I had 7 relics already, argh - and she's pulling away. The religion game of Hawaii is absurd, too. And the overextension hurt me more than I noticed, I think.

Great Fractal map, btw (if you overlook the stamp of water in the left continent). In the distant lands I was greeted by Isabella - with the Abassids and a strong Frederick - with Spain, of course - still getting confused by that. They were allied, too.

 

[StargazingDog]

We may need to make a "second impressions" thread. My first play saw the potential, but I was just blindly following the economic advisor, placing buildings wherever gave the highest yields, and just plowing straight ahead. I won handily (governor difficulty).

I am on my second play, viceroy difficulty, partially through exploration age. Dudes. This is it. I haven't had this much fun with a Civ game in a long time. Things are clicking now. I feel I have a handle on enough of the mechanics that I am making informed decisions. Every turn feels as though it matters. I'm actually "losing"! It's fantastic. Fortunately, I have Ben Franklin on my side to help with the (currently) Inca menace led by Pachacuti. Napoleon led the Mayans in antiquity and were a major threat until my legions were able to rein him in.

Great game. If you want the old Civilization style, it's still legitimate to go back to play any Civ game made in the past 25 years. However, this iteration is fresh, fun, and engaging.

 

[queenpea]

The AI is doing quite alright, I think - this is Himiko with the Hawaiian dream map (her Mississippian era was strong too, but more focused on science), going crazy in Exploration. Is it the happiness bonus for fishing boats?
And this is on Sovereign - imagine her on Deity.

This looked close, but under control - I had more culture, she had more science - so I thought I could fool around a little and try different mechanics. But she has now beaten me to nearly every wonder in this age - including the three-relic House of Wisdom when I had 7 relics already, argh - and she's pulling away. The religion game of Hawaii is absurd, too. And the overextension hurt me more than I noticed, I think.

Great Fractal map, btw (if you overlook the stamp of water in the left continent). In the distant lands I was greeted by Isabella - with the Abassids and a strong Frederick - with Spain, of course - still getting confused by that. They were allied, too. View attachment 718982

Will be interesting to see if Himiko doesn't just run away with the game at this point. Would be interested in you sharing an update later on.

I quit a game last night because Revolutionary Napoleon was just crushing it on Turn 1 of the Modern Age as Prussia. He had 800 culture and science per turn, and nobody else was even close, including me.

 

[AntSou]

I'm actually "losing"!

Nice!

I'm going through threads and yt videos hoping for reassurances about the AI. This is good to hear.

 

[James_Champagne]

This kind of regimented gameplay I don't think is going to end up being my favorite, and might hamper replayability.

This is kind of my big concern as well. Never mind the fact that civs are locked down to specific ages, so that Egypt can only be ever used in Antiquity, Mongolia can only ever appear in Exploration, and so on. But having things like religion only being able to be unlocked in Exploration, the ability to cross the ocean only unlocked in Exploration, you can only win the game in the Modern era, every era will always end in a crisis, it's a very lockstep and formulaic approach I don't care for. Like previous Civ games I felt had more spontaneity and flexibility to how you could approach things. Like I had some CIV VI games where sometimes I would get religion in the first age or sometimes in the Classical Era, there were some games where I won in the very final era but other games where I won in an earlier age, you know what I mean? And the way things gradually unfolded felt, to me, more organic, whereas here, they feel very artificial and staged, if you know what I mean.

 

[Vandlys]

Apologies for that, bit of a sore spot for me as personally I feel the drive to make tall viable really spoiled the series for a while and I feel Civ VII is getting back on track.

Thanks! I get how that must feel. I liked playing V but VI was my favourite. I don't mind wide as a strategy but the clicking eventually gets to me. I find myself going through the same motion per city so I wouldn't mind having fewer of them.
Hope they can find a happy balance eventually (which for me is easy; just allow us to add more civs per game).

Civ V was too tall oriented. Civ VI was too wide oriented. If you have to lean one direction in development, I prefer that the game be a bit more tall-biased. The reason for this is that expansion can end up being the overwhelming factor, as expansion feeds your ability to exploit more resources and exterminate the competition. This can make the game more of a 2x game (explore and expand) rather than hitting all 4 Xs.

Very well put, and it sums up my feelings exactly. I rarely get around to Exterminate.

The way to play "tall" is to have few cities and many towns. The towns feed the cities, which allow you to fill the cities with urban districts and specialists.

Yeah that doesn't feel at all tall to me. It still has me clicking so often through so many screens. Maybe specialising instead of focussing on growth would stop it a bit? But then there is more land to settle which the AI might do (so far games end with a lot of room on the map).

 

[playshogi]

Don't think I'll miss loyalty, but yeah this is a problem. At the very least it looks very "messy". The solution would be to put cities closer together, but with the settlement cap, and the desire to get new resources makes this difficult. The settlement cap is just so strict right now.

My suggestion to solve this is no settling within 6 tiles of a foreign city unless you also have a city within 6 tiles. That would force everyone to settle outwardly from a core rather than whatever random spot a settler happened to find.

 

[Sagax]

Yeah that doesn't feel at all tall to me. It still has me clicking so often through so many screens. Maybe specialising instead of focussing on growth would stop it a bit? But then there is more land to settle which the AI might do (so far games end with a lot of room on the map).

Isn’t that the default trade off for playing tall, though? You give up on territorial expanse, and that free real estate is fair play for everyone else. If your desire is for everyone to play tall, then I’m not sure that’s something I’d like.

And yes, specializing will slow down the clicks for towns.

 

[Fluphen Azine]

I'm on the fence. It doesn't look like something I would enjoy compared to Civ 4, 5 and 6. But I was searching around, and I could buy a Founders Edition CD Key for 95 bucks. Saving 35 dollars almost gets me to buy it. Still undecided. I guess I just keep watching Twitch and YouTube Videos until I either give up or crack under the pressure.