Goodbye Civ, and thanks for the memories

[bluesboy67]

As a fellow Civ 5 player, I'm curious, are you playing vanilla, or with a modpack like Vox Populi? I think VP vastly improves the Civ 5 experience.

I'm playing with VP, great mod

 

[Glassmage]

As a fellow Civ 5 player, I'm curious, are you playing vanilla, or with a modpack like Vox Populi? I think VP vastly improves the Civ 5 experience.

I play Civ5 with Vox Populi mod and my TSL modpack. It has all the stuff from VP and extra things like unique abilities for city states like Civ6, Civ4 vassal system, and sukritact events and decisions like in EU4.

 

[Skojardu]

As a fellow Civ 5 player, I'm curious, are you playing vanilla, or with a modpack like Vox Populi? I think VP vastly improves the Civ 5 experience.

Vox Populi messed up my vanilla and other mod games and turned Social Policies OFF. How can I reinstall the mod and not have this problem? I had to delete nearly everything AND reinstall to fix it.

 

[moondog385]

Seeing the negative reaction to Civ 7 does disappoint me, not because I get personally offended on the part of Firaxis, but because I really really enjoy the game and the Age system and want it to succeed so that it gets more content and becomes a fuller experience. I also fear, in the current climate, that publishers will learn the wrong lessons and abandon rather than improve.

But everyone is absolutely entitled to their opinion on the game and I hope Firaxis is listening so that more players come back to the game/series.

 

[teccuk]

Civ 5/6 are still there. Civ5 is by far the purest, and perfected Civ iteration yet (imho). The mods massively improve 5 even further. Wait for a fix or 8. You don't have to give up on Civ entirely.

I got annoyed with the micromanaging of 6 and I'm not touching 7 until its fixed and half the price. If that never happens. Fine. I been playing since 2.

 

[Patine]

Civ 5/6 are still there. Civ5 is by far the purest, and perfected Civ iteration yet (imho). The mods massively improve 5 even further. Wait for a fix or 8. You don't have to give up on Civ entirely.

I got annoyed with the micromanaging of 6 and I'm not touching 7 until its fixed and half the price. If that never happens. Fine. I been playing since 2.

And 2 and 3 are still here, and the one I'm going to.

 

[teccuk]

And 2 and 3 are still here, and the one I'm going to.

I do have an itch to play 3 again. Not to forget Freeciv and Unciv (love unciv, good for phones and my work laptop).

 

[trev1972]

I’ve been such a long-time and hardcore player, it felt wrong to stop playing Civ without leaving a note for the devs. They worked really hard on Civ VII and obviously wanted it to be a hit. It’s not, for me at least. I didn’t make it through one game.

Everybody had their lists of things they want improved, or want added, or wish was different, and we don’t all get our own bespoke Civ game (unless we’re Sukritract, I suppose). To be very clear, what I’m trying to do here is give personal feedback, and not make any demands or throw any fits. If you like Civ VII, that’s awesome. Me? Unfortunately, I hate it.

I hate Civ switching. It’s bizarre. I tried to explain this in another thread and got shouted down (“Spain IS a successor to Rome,” they said; funny, I thought Rome was a successor to Rome). I hate the emphasis on leaders. I hate the start-over at each age.

Maybe I’m too niche of a Civ player. My go-to game was massive Earth true-start location on Epic pacing, ideally with an AI teammate who would make side deals when I’m at war (I found that doing two-player teams solved the problem of never-ending wars). I had some truly astounding games on V and VII using this setup. This is probably a very unusual way to play Civ, and the devs need to go where the most players are. Where they went with VII essentially makes this setup impossible.

Maybe I’ve moved on as a gamer. Like a lot of Civ players, I’m old. I work a job where I can keep a game going on the side - do a move here, tweak a thing there - and go back to emailing. Farthest Frontier is a lot of fun. Anno 1800 was fantastic. Cities: Skylines engrossed me. Good old-fashioned chess is nice, too. But I think I’m going to set aside Civ this point.

Firaxis, you were a good friend. You listened to fans and made (usually) smart changes. You have to survive as a business, and you have to try new things. The new thing here, sadly, is just not for me. Take care.

Just holding my hands up.as another primarily TSL earth player (I tended to play marathon)

Maybe we aren't as niche as we think

 

[Core Imposter]

Nobody here is a real civ aficionado because not one has acknowledged Civ 4ever as the pinnacle of strategy gaming.

 

[Maximo the Xth]

Nobody here is a real civ aficionado because not one has acknowledged Civ 4ever as the pinnacle of strategy gaming.

That's because it isn't

 

[Vandlys]

Not trying to boil your post down to half the sentence that I’ve quoted, but this argument has been used all over these forums, and I still find it strange. Leaders are still immortal in Civ VII. This part of the weird hasn’t gone away or been addressed. And they still wear a costume tied to their historical era. This doesn’t change either.

(Side note: I have long advocated for a return of the era-evolving and forever hilarious leader costumes from Civ III)

I have never said anything that it has changed in VII, and that I find it bad that it's that way. I just don't get the whole "realism" argument against Civ Switching, but then people still want a Civ to identify as Rome for 8000 consecutive years, whilst having an immortal leader wearing a single suit.

Personally, I don't mind either way. I wasn't bothered by Civ's lack of realism in any iteration before VII, and I'm not bothered about it now (e.i. I find the suits weird but I really don't mind at all). I just don't get the logic of people that try to argue that case. To me, it's just something they like vs they don't like, and they try to reason their way into making it seem like their wish has merit. But their wish has merit, because it's their opinion, and that's valid without explaining why.

 

[Vandlys]

Hey, hey now! Slow down there, buddy. In Civ III they change suits!

Haha, yeah true. But again, I'm not saying there aren't iterations where Civs don't change. I'm saying it's weird to me how people are okay with something utterly unrealistic, but then chide other things they deem as unrealistic, or they call it "roleplaying" where I think you can also roleplay that your civ has undergone changes?

 

[Gori the Grey]

In my mind, I agree with you, and I believe I've even argued the case here.

In my heart, I still feel there's something more unrealistic about Mississippi becoming Ming China than about Ghandi being born in 4000 BC and living 6000 years.

I realize that it is a challenge for those who feel that way to spell out why they do, and I will admit that I haven't yet found a way to do so.

 

[queenpea]

Haha, yeah true. But again, I'm not saying there aren't iterations where Civs don't change. I'm saying it's weird to me how people are okay with something utterly unrealistic, but then chide other things they deem as unrealistic, or they call it "roleplaying" where I think you can also roleplay that your civ has undergone changes?

In my opinion, it's just a matter of how much "weird" (to use the word you used) can you put in front of a player until credibility, or immersion, is broken. The limit does exist. For players who enjoy story-telling and role play, Civ 7 may just be a step too far.

To use the same framing that you used: what is weirder, immortal Roosevelt wearing his little three-piece suit in 4000 BCE leading the Americans; or immortal Roosevelt wearing his little three-piece suit in 4000 BCE leading the Khmer? For a lot of players, this extra layer of weird may just be enough to break their connection to the "civilization" they are leading.

In past games, America in 4000 BCE could just be considered to be the "tribal" ancestors of a fictional American civilization. One that eventually evolves into something that more closely resembles the United States that we are all familiar with. This evolution was communicated through changing city architecture, new technology and cultural civics, and access to new government types, ideologies, military units, what have you. Now everything is cut up into three chapters to more closely resemble human history, excepted with this added weird of the detached leaders and civ switching.

 

[kaspergm]

I play Civ5 with Vox Populi mod and my TSL modpack. It has all the stuff from VP and extra things like unique abilities for city states like Civ6, Civ4 vassal system, and sukritact events and decisions like in EU4.

Is there a mod that offers those extra things like city state bonuses and events without being forced to play TSL? Because I'm not a TSL player, but the other things would be nice.

 

[Vandlys]

In my opinion, it's just a matter of how much "weird" (to use the word you used) can you put in front of a player until credibility, or immersion, is broken. The limit does exist. For players who enjoy story-telling and role play, Civ 7 may just be a step too far.

To use the same framing that you used: what is weirder, immortal Roosevelt wearing his little three-piece suit in 4000 BCE leading the Americans; or immortal Roosevelt wearing his little three-piece suit in 4000 BCE leading the Khmer? For a lot of players, this extra layer of weird may just be enough to break their connection to the "civilization" they are leading.

In past games, America in 4000 BCE could just be considered to be the "tribal" ancestors of a fictional American civilization. One that eventually evolves into something that more closely resembles the United States that we are all familiar with. This evolution was communicated through changing city architecture, new technology and cultural civics, and access to new government types, ideologies, military units, what have you. Now everything is cut up into three chapters to more closely resemble human history, excepted with this added weird of the detached leaders and civ switching.

I completely get you, absolutely. But I just don't think the comparison should be made that way, but hey, that's me.

I'd say: which is weirder, Roosevelt leading a civilization that never changes throughout 8000 years, or Roosevelt leading a civilization that develops into different identities over those years?

It's all a matter of perspective, because the argument for storytelling and roleplay can also be viewed the other way around. Civ VII might be argued to give you more storytelling possibilities because your Civ actually develops. In literary terms, you could argue that Civ VII has "round characters" as their civs whereas Civ VI has "flat characters".

But yeah, the amount of weird is indeed the deciding factor, which brings me back to my original point. To people it might feel wrong, whatever the "it" is, but their reasoning (rationalising) often falls flat -to me-.

 

[queenpea]

I'd say: which is weirder, Roosevelt leading a civilization that never changes throughout 8000 years, or Roosevelt leading a civilization that develops into different identities over those years?

Yeah, I get what you're saying. To me, the civilizations were always changing. They weren't static. Tribal America could evolve into the Kingdom of America and then the Union of American Soviet States. Yes, it was still called "America" and you were stuck with Teddy and his wool suit, but, to me, the previous iterations allowed civs to be dynamic, just in a more subtle fashion. I've mostly gotten used to civ switching, but I still don't love the more radical switches -- "Revolutionary Napoleon" leads Khmer to Inca to French Empire.

 

[Gorbles]

In past games, America in 4000 BCE could just be considered to be the "tribal" ancestors of a fictional American civilization. One that eventually evolves into something that more closely resembles the United States that we are all familiar with.

They still can. If it required headcanon before, it still requires headcanon now. What is making it more difficult, if you can eventually evolve into a modern America regardless? The explicit codification of prior Ages isn't jiving with what you considered to be the proto-name you evolved from?

I get not liking the more out there switches, but that's not something you have to engage with.

 

[Nikolai II]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. To me, the civilizations were always changing. They weren't static. Tribal America could evolve into the Kingdom of America and then the Union of American Soviet States. Yes, it was still called "America" and you were stuck with Teddy and his wool suit, but, to me, the previous iterations allowed civs to be dynamic, just in a more subtle fashion. I've mostly gotten used to civ switching, but I still don't love the more radical switches -- "Revolutionary Napoleon" leads Khmer to Inca to French Empire.

I find that no more weird than America being the "same" civ for all of the game tbh. But I hope the devs make some kind of option for renaming your civ for those who struggle with this. I guess that would make it a little more acceptable?

 

[Krajzen]

I don’t think I’ve heard anyone demand the removal of commanders, navigable rivers, independent peoples changes, influence currency… hardcore AI welfare resets (Ages) and some who don’t like civilization swapping are hardly the only things keeping the game unique from 6.

Fantastic graphics (perhaps apart from the city sprawl), the removal of builders, towns, dyplomacy as a whole, military as a whole...

I also love the idea of fewer ages but heavily impactful for the gameplay mechanics and separated by crises; what I don't love is the way those (hardly impactful) gameplay mechancs and transitions between ages are handled