Getting your money's worth

[KayAU]

I think for me the biggest issue is that these minigames drag you out of the game. It breaks immersion for me more than civ switching does. I'm sure they have been done well - they just aren't for me.

Yeah, that's fair. I think it depends on the overall design of the game. For a game like Age of Wonders, the tactical battles are the main course, and the 4X map stuff is there mostly as a frame to support combat. The battles there are often long, and the tactical combat system is complicated. For a Civ-style game, the gameplay is mostly on the world map, with the occasional trip into some menus. I can see how an involved tactical combat system could take you right out of it.

Fallen Enchantress is interesting to me, because it falls somewhere in between, and I really liked the balance. There's a solid 4X component, and tactical battles are of medium complexity and length. Perhaps the mix is more suitable for a fantasy 4X than a historical one spanning thousands of years though.

 

[lander]

Nope. I have been robbed. Civ 7 is not at all compatable with the way i enjoy playing and was deleted after a few hours. I bought civ 6 on my new ps5 then found out that you can't buy the gathering storm expansion on its own anymore, you have to spend £45 on a bundle containing everything, which most of it it useless civs and junk i have no interest in playing or using. My excitement for the new civ release has cause me to be robbed £85, I'm beyond furious at civ now

 

[Leucarum]

Yeah, that's fair. I think it depends on the overall design of the game. For a game like Age of Wonders, the tactical battles are the main course, and the 4X map stuff is there mostly as a frame to support combat. The battles there are often long, and the tactical combat system is complicated. For a Civ-style game, the gameplay is mostly on the world map, with the occasional trip into some menus. I can see how an involved tactical combat system could take you right out of it.

Fallen Enchantress is interesting to me, because it falls somewhere in between, and I really liked the balance. There's a solid 4X component, and tactical battles are of medium complexity and length. Perhaps the mix is more suitable for a fantasy 4X than a historical one spanning thousands of years though.

For me, even in the total war games I've tried I prefer being able to skip the battles, so I think I come down pretty strongly on the "no battle minigames" side even when the game is the minigame. It's the one thing which had firaxis introduced into Civ7 would have made me not buy.

 

[KayAU]

For me, even in the total war games I've tried I prefer being able to skip the battles, so I think I come down pretty strongly on the "no battle minigames" side even when the game is the minigame. It's the one thing which had firaxis introduced into Civ7 would have made me not buy.

I understand, to each their own. I wouldn't mind seeing a tactical combat system in Civ, although a good auto-resolve would be needed. They could also have an option to remove tactical combat, and just auto-resolve automatically every time, for those who prefer that.

Whether they add tactical combat or not, I think a concept of armies would be an improvement, better than both 1 UPT and unit stacks.

 

[Ornen]

if I could get back the money or the time I spent on civ 7, I would much rather get the time back