FXS needs to put out a new roadmap - direction of the game is unclear

[Krikkit1]

The devs have confirmed that they are working on updating how we identify with Civs as a high priority. I'd say it's fair to expect/hope for tweaks or updates to Civ switching in the roadmap. I'd expect them to be pretty intertwined unless the devs don't want to spill any beans.

Personally I'm hoping for the ability to transcend your civ a-la Humankind.

I'd say first ability to choose civ name (so my Antiquity Americans just happen to have Legions, or my Modern Romans have Marines)..
with the later possibility of having "out of age civs"... ie you can start with "Antiquity Spain" (which has generic Antiquity Expansionist & Military bonuses)..it unlocks regular Spain with its unique bonuses, and regular Spain is the only unlock for "Modern Spain" (which has generic Modern Expansionist & Military bonuses)

Both of those are important so that someone can say
my "Roman Empire" changed in response to the times (even if they were still Roman)
OR
my "Roman Empire" had a very minimal change in response to the times. (it kept the Cultural Militarism)
OR
my "American Empire" was once called Roman, but the name has changed as our practices have changed

Giving the player that level of control over the identity would improve the identity.


But also hoping for....
Hotseat
per Era victory conditions
Improving Exploration and Modern pacing (and in general)*** they have mentioned working on religion
and honest UI that actually provides information

And Post and in game information/Decorations.... we need a Customizable Palace/Throne Room and a Full Map Replay with Demographics, etc.
If we are going to build something we believe in.... then let us see the Thing we have built when we are done.

 

[Leucarum]

I'd say first ability to choose civ name (so my Antiquity Americans just happen to have Legions, or my Modern Romans have Marines)..
with the later possibility of having "out of age civs"... ie you can start with "Antiquity Spain" (which has generic Antiquity Expansionist & Military bonuses)..it unlocks regular Spain with its unique bonuses, and regular Spain is the only unlock for "Modern Spain" (which has generic Modern Expansionist & Military bonuses)

Both of those are important so that someone can say
my "Roman Empire" changed in response to the times (even if they were still Roman)
OR
my "Roman Empire" had a very minimal change in response to the times. (it kept the Cultural Militarism)
OR
my "American Empire" was once called Roman, but the name has changed as our practices have changed

Giving the player that level of control over the identity would improve the identity.

I think that would be a sticking plaster. Better than nothing, but I doubt it would fix the issue.

Improving Exploration and Modern pacing (and in general)*** they have mentioned working on religion

This one has me worried. I've never enjoyed religious gameplay in Civ. I have very little optimism that they can implement a fun set of religious mechanics while putting out this many fires.

I really want some alternative legacy paths ASAP so that if we don't want to then we don't have to engage with religion at all.

 

[Gorbles]

I agree there were reasons for everything the devs did. Good reasons even.

But having goals and achieving goals are very different things. Like if your goal was to lose weight, but instead you gained 10lbs...

Sure. But I wasn't debating (at all) whether or not goals were achieved. I was (gently!) correcting another poster who claimed there was no reason for doing what the devs chose the do.

 

[Leucarum]

Sure. But I wasn't debating (at all) whether or not goals were achieved. I was (gently!) correcting another poster who claimed there was no reason for doing what the devs chose the do.

Ok. My bad then.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think that would be a sticking plaster. Better than nothing, but I doubt it would fix the issue.



This one has me worried. I've never enjoyed religious gameplay in Civ. I have very little optimism that they can implement a fun set of religious mechanics while putting out this many fires.

I really want some alternative legacy paths ASAP so that if we don't want to then we don't have to engage with religion at all.

One option is to make the paths more difficult (and possibly extending the Ages) so that you aren't Expected to get all 4 paths without fully engaging with them. Instead you Focus and complete 2 and get part way in to one or two more.

 

[Ornen]

I think that would be a sticking plaster. Better than nothing, but I doubt it would fix the issue.



This one has me worried. I've never enjoyed religious gameplay in Civ. I have very little optimism that they can implement a fun set of religious mechanics while putting out this many fires.

I really want some alternative legacy paths ASAP so that if we don't want to then we don't have to engage with religion at all.

IMO they should have saved religion for the expansion instead of half-assing both religion & culture

 

[WillK96]

One option is to make the paths more difficult (and possibly extending the Ages) so that you aren't Expected to get all 4 paths without fully engaging with them. Instead you Focus and complete 2 and get part way in to one or two more.

Agreed, something like increasing the cost of techs/civics by ~40%, increasing the difficulty of completing the paths (for example, perhaps Tokshana should be 24 or 30 relics & 50% of the world following your religion; non sufficit orbis could be 20 points; Enlightenment probably needs an entire rework), while keeping everything else the same. I'd also probably add "victory" projects for each legacy path that would not move the age timer but would be required to get the "golden age" option for the next age. That way each age would feel a bit more developed, like a stand alone chapter.

​

 

[Leucarum]

One option is to make the paths more difficult (and possibly extending the Ages) so that you aren't Expected to get all 4 paths without fully engaging with them. Instead you Focus and complete 2 and get part way in to one or two more.

I think I favour having generic legacy paths. Leaving the old ones as an optional choice. Antiquity has the best because they feel like what you would do generically while still requiring some thought to implement...

 

[WillK96]

I think I favour having generic legacy paths. Leaving the old ones as an optional choice. Antiquity has the best because they feel like what you would do generically while still requiring some thought to implement...

For sure - Antiquity's legacy paths reward you for playing the game "well" in a traditional sense. You don't really have to focus on trying to achieve them, because they quantify things that were fundamental to how Civ is played (Expand, Gather Resources, go to war, research techs (though this is the weakest imo) and build wonders). The Exploration and Modern legacy paths feel a bit off because the devs failed to capture what playing a good mid and late game consists of in previous civ titles.

 

[Leucarum]

For sure - Antiquity's legacy paths reward you for playing the game "well" in a traditional sense. You don't really have to focus on trying to achieve them, because they quantify things that were fundamental to how Civ is played (Expand, Gather Resources, go to war, research techs (though this is the weakest imo) and build wonders). The Exploration and Modern legacy paths feel a bit off because the devs failed to capture what playing a good mid and late game consists of in previous civ titles.

One thread I'd genuinely like to do is a proper side-by-side comparison with Humankind. I do think overall Civ7 is way out ahead of HK, but there are some things - e.g. legacy paths/era stars/age progression - where I think HK did it better...

I guess the devs wanted each age to have different gameplay, but that has probably led to the complaints about railroading, and if all the ages have different legacy paths, you're going to end up with a "weakest link" among the ages.

 

[WillK96]

For sure - Antiquity's legacy paths reward you for playing the game "well" in a traditional sense. You don't really have to focus on trying to achieve them, because they quantify things that were fundamental to how Civ is played (Expand, Gather Resources, go to war, research techs (though this is the weakest imo) and build wonders). The Exploration and Modern legacy paths feel a bit off because the devs failed to capture what playing a good mid and late game consists of in previous civ titles.

To piggy back on this briefly, the Exploration age is hampered by the distant lands railroad. An alternative would be to provide all civs a way to achieve the legacy paths without engaging in the distant lands mechanic (similar to Tokshana), but to provide additional bonuses for players who choose to engage. For example, perhaps the Non Sufficit Orbis legacy path should still reward for homeland settlements and conquest, but could provide modifiers for civs who choose to engage in distant lands conquering and warfare (2x modifier). Additionally, the treasure resources could be exploited on your homelands via conquering/pillaging, or taxing existing trade routes by settling in key locations, while also maintaining the ability to provide larger benefits to the player willing to take the risk and settle overseas.

Right now, it feels as if the Exploration and Modern (to a lesser extent) legacy paths are like a tutorial system - "Please interact with this new feature, distant lands" which feels like a gamey railroad.

 

[WillK96]

One thread I'd genuinely like to do is a proper side-by-side comparison with Humankind. I do think overall Civ7 is way out ahead of HK, but there are some things - e.g. legacy paths/era stars/age progression - where I think HK did it better...

I guess the devs wanted each age to have different gameplay, but that has probably led to the complaints about railroading, and if all the ages have different legacy paths, you're going to end up with a "weakest link" among the ages.

Agreed, I did not play HK, so I would be interested in such a thread. The legacy paths seem designed to force you to interact with the new systems, rather than allowing organic interaction with their development.

 

[bladex1200]

Additionally, the treasure resources could be exploited on your homelands via conquering/pillaging, or taxing existing trade routes by settling in key locations, while also maintaining the ability to provide larger benefits to the player willing to take the risk and settle overseas.

I think a natural piggyback here would be modifying the exploration-era treasure mechanics into a "colonialism" vs "mercantilism" mechanic. Points are awarded for acquiring a certain number of existing resources on the homelands as a way of "cornering the market" (the implicit outcome being that you can acquire treasure resources by simply being the dominant trade partner for non-treasure resources that other empires need to trade with to get access to basics like fruit, camels, horses, etc). And treasure resources provide fleets which are worth points the way they are now.

This way, if you choose to focus on the homeland regions, you get much more land military pressure (but more geographic than Pax Imperatoria / Non Sufficit Orbis, since it would value cities based on available resources and not just for their own sake) and this naturally encourages settling for treasure fleets as the "peaceful" (as it would've historically appeared to Europeans, actually quite accurately mirroring their colonial ambitions) alternative for exploration-era economic legacy.

 

[GeneralZift]

IMO they should have saved religion for the expansion instead of half-assing both religion & culture

Or a secret alternative, where they full-arse both and get them both right

 

[WillK96]

I think a natural piggyback here would be modifying the exploration-era treasure mechanics into a "colonialism" vs "mercantilism" mechanic. Points are awarded for acquiring a certain number of existing resources on the homelands as a way of "cornering the market" (the implicit outcome being that you can acquire treasure resources by simply being the dominant trade partner for non-treasure resources that other empires need to trade with to get access to basics like fruit, camels, horses, etc). And treasure resources provide fleets which are worth points the way they are now.

This way, if you choose to focus on the homeland regions, you get much more land military pressure (but more geographic than Pax Imperatoria / Non Sufficit Orbis, since it would value cities based on available resources and not just for their own sake) and this naturally encourages settling for treasure fleets as the "peaceful" (as it would've historically appeared to Europeans, actually quite accurately mirroring their colonial ambitions) alternative for exploration-era economic legacy.

Yes, similar to the monopolies and corporations mode in Civ VI, controlling a certain % grants a certain amount of "points" per benchmark. A privateer option to steal other civ's treasure fleets would also be welcome (and it seems like it is coming), though the AI would need to more aggressively pursue distant lands treasure resources for this to work (I have played ~200 hours, mostly on Deity, and only 1 single time has another civilization ever breached the 10 point mark in the treasure fleet path).

 

[Krikkit1]

One thread I'd genuinely like to do is a proper side-by-side comparison with Humankind. I do think overall Civ7 is way out ahead of HK, but there are some things - e.g. legacy paths/era stars/age progression - where I think HK did it better...

I guess the devs wanted each age to have different gameplay, but that has probably led to the complaints about railroading, and if all the ages have different legacy paths, you're going to end up with a "weakest link" among the ages.

I think that is a little part of the problem, the gameplay isn't quite unique enough in each age... Say for example if Wonders were only in Antiquity.. then having a Wonder Legacy there makes a lot more sense.

The Distant Lands should have been areas with no civs at all, only IPs and maybe independent CS to really make Military Expansion in Exploration different

Trade Routes+ City Connections shouldn't ever cross Ocean in Exploration, if you want Any Resources from over the Ocean you get Treasure Convoys. (Treasure resources give you points, but you need Convoys if you want that Iron or Clay or Camels from the New World as well)

Religion is different but too limited, it should have a Much bigger impact than it does, the fact that you can ignore it is a problem, ignoring Religion in Exploration should be like ignoring Trade or War.

 

[WillK96]

I think that is a little part of the problem, the gameplay isn't quite unique enough in each age... Say for example if Wonders were only in Antiquity.. then having a Wonder Legacy there makes a lot more sense.

The Distant Lands should have been areas with no civs at all, only IPs and maybe independent CS to really make Military Expansion in Exploration different

Trade Routes+ City Connections shouldn't ever cross Ocean in Exploration, if you want Any Resources from over the Ocean you get Treasure Convoys. (Treasure resources give you points, but you need Convoys if you want that Iron or Clay or Camels from the New World as well)

Religion is different but too limited, it should have a Much bigger impact than it does, the fact that you can ignore it is a problem, ignoring Religion in Exploration should be like ignoring Trade or War.

It would be nice if it worked both ways as well - want to provide your distant lands cities with additional growth/food/materials/etc... - you should be able to have supply ships from the homelands do those things. That would make the gameplay more distinct. Something like Civ IV's colonization (which I played when I was 10 but have not touched since).

 

[Lord Lakely]

I think I favour having generic legacy paths. Leaving the old ones as an optional choice. Antiquity has the best because they feel like what you would do generically while still requiring some thought to implement...

There should be more of them, and the combination of legacy paths you see should be different in every game you play. Either you pick them randomly via the seed, or hard-code them based on map settings or the Civ you chose, it doesn't matter. The game needs goals than just the generic ones you fill in to pass the time.

 

[Leucarum]

There should be more of them, and the combination of legacy paths you see should be different in every game you play. Either you pick them randomly via the seed, or hard-code them based on map settings or the Civ you chose, it doesn't matter. The game needs goals than just the generic ones you fill in to pass the time.

I'd most like for the culture minigames (religion/archaeology) to have alternatives.

An alternative would be more wonders like Rila to get alternative ways to progress paths.

 

[queenpea]

In Exploration, I actually find the Economic victory path to be much more engaging than science (place specialists) and culture (micro manage missionaries and click an action button).

I know there are issues with the treasure fleets with map generation especially; but it’s obvious that more of the budget/energy went into its development than other paths in Exploration.