Have you made peace with Civ 7?

[kaspergm]

I'm asking this sincerely, so if it comes off cheeky/rude, I apologise; it is a genuine question.
Did you find previous civ games, where Lincoln could enter a war with Kupe and Julius Caesar, to be historically immersive?

No, it's a fair question. I think the difference for me was that in the previous game, I didn't really identify as the leader, I identified as the civilization. So I played as America. Historical accuracy was never really an issue as such, I did not have any problem with America being available from 4000 BC or Aztecs surviving into the future era. The whole core of the game for me was that I was leading a civilization and forming an alternative historic path than our world, the leader was just sort of a flavor that represented a certain era of that civilization - and in the cases, where multiple leaders were available, this was a way of highlighting certain aspects and time periods of that civilization.

All that has been disrupted with the Civ7 game design. I understand the idea of wanting all civs to be relevant when they are in play, it's on paper at least a noble one (I always disliked civs with a strong modern focus, because these civs felt really bland to play). But the cost of this design has been massive in terms of lost immersion imo. I think a much better approach would have been to give each civ a new bonus for each era, or better yet a set of bonuses to choose for from each era, and possibly even a new leader for each era, but obviously the work load associated with such a design would be massive.

 

[Leucarum]

I've had an up and down relationship with Civ7. After Humankind I had said that another game would probably learn from it and implement its ideas better... So while Civ switching made me sad upon announcement, I definitely wanted to give it a fair try, and I came in with the intention of being positive.

I do think there was plenty to like, especially in antiquity, but Civ switching always feels like a loss (I definitely primarily identify with civ and not leader). Modern is awful, and exploration is mediocre. What saved Civ7 for me in the early stage is that it's great on Steam Deck, so playing an antiquity game while travelling is really good.

I've bounced off the latest patch though. I like what they are doing with more naval options, but balance - especially in antiquity - has been thrown off badly. There's enough other games coming out which I want to play, that I've put Civ7 down for a while.

I remain engaged out of curiosity/hope that they implement a fun version of civ continuity. But my biggest fear is that it looks like they do plan to add a 4th age. I think that has a very high chance of bouncing me off the game.

Either way, I guess I'm at peace with, but currently taking a break from, Civ7.

 

[sonicmyst]

I went from cautiously optimistic (during launch) to optimistic after 1.2.5 patch. The civ switching and ages system, I do not mind, and future plans to have other settings for one-civ across ages is welcome. My remaining hope is that the pricing for DLC will not be too exorbitant.

 

[timmychompchomp]

I have a really REALLY REALLY strong dislike for the whole mix-and-match leader/civ system. The fact that you can have leaders from a completely different civ and age lead a civilization completely kills immersion for me, and is what completely turned me off Civ7 in the first place. It doesn't help that I also have a pretty strong dislike for many of the leaders chosen for the game as well as the leader graphics in general. So each time I see the leader icons, I just completely lose any will I may have had to try the game.

Thanks for the reply. You’re obviously entitled to your opinion and I understand your position. The leader models do not bother me and I prefer them over civ vi. Immersion, for me, is about “one more turn”, very little to do with history. I connect with you regarding the leader choices. I am not a big fan of the leaders chosen. Civ switching is something I have wanted in the game since Civ V. However, this iteration and Humankind’s approach did not execute this in the way I was hoping for. The options for continuity between historically inspired civilizations is so loosely connected, it is as if the layers thing was actually scuttled half way through by marketing forcing representation on day one, instead of solid progressions through the ages. Rome, Norman, America doesn’t feel natural or interesting. A simple Britons or Anglo Saxons to England to America would have been more interesting and palatable. Of course, they could keep the unlock and ability to choose wild combinations, but the built in layers thing should have been more realistic and tied more into the Leaders background. I would have gone 15 leaders and close to 45 civs at launch. If they were going to do something so radical, they should have gone for it with clear intent. It released in a scattered, un instinctive way.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

Yes, I have but with conditions. I love the 3 more historic ages. Civ changing feels fun, but I don't want them to do it for 8. The top UI bar needs serious work because it is currently irrelevant. The city UI is atrocious, pure horror. Love the graphics (a huge step up from the Teletub--er, I mean Civ 6). Navigable rivers are lovely to play with, especially as Egypt. Please add Martin Luther as a playable leader and Finland, Romania and the Anglo Saxons as playable civs!

 

[bbbt]

Not really. I just gave the game another go for the first time in a couple months with the 1.3.0 patch.

I enjoy the ancient era, but I find the game fundamentally boring and repetitive past ancient era basically. It still feels like repeating the same thing three times with sending merchants and overbuilding and the like. And the majority of new mechanics that do appear with ages - religion, treasure fleets, archaeology - I find more annoying micromanagement than fun.

My hope for the ages system was mechanics that evolved rather than just repeated. Honestly, I think my ideal game would be something that starts as 4X game in the ancient era and ends as closer to a Grand Strategy game in the modern era, but that's obviously beyond what Civ is. But basically, I think:
- Managing your empire in the modern era should feel different than managing it in the ancient era
- I don't want just more and more mechanics in each era, I want existing mechanics to change and require a different strategy.

 

[Leucarum]

And the majority of new mechanics that do appear with ages - religion, treasure fleets, archaeology - I find more annoying micromanagement than fun.

I definitely agree with this - there's too many minigames in the subsequent ages.

 

[ImmanuelRMS]

This is my first post in the forums, so forgive me if things come out odd.

I bought the Founder's Edition and was really looking forward to the game at early release. It took me less than a week to decide that I hated the game. It is not the new themes i.e. civ switching, legacy paths etc. that I don't like, but rather the mechanics they used to implement them. Two examples, First, is the era transition. It is like the leader goes into a centuries long coma only to wake up as the leader of a brand new civilization, with different armies, cities that are now towns etc. To me, this is the exact opposite of being immersive. The second has to do with the legacy paths and the paths to victory. These would be a good addition if there were multiple paths for each victory path and there was a limit to how many paths you could be working on at any given time. Since each game era allows you to move through all four victory paths and there is no reason you should not be doing so, every game plays the same. I would love to see maybe six to ten different goals to work on in each of the four paths to victory for each era. That way, as a player, you would be able to choose the play style you enjoy or maybe if your civ is strong in one area, you can choose the path that you see as being right for the leader/civ you are playing. As it is, every game plays the same and that is boring to me.

I hope with the expansion pack, they will improve these areas among others.

I do enjoy the leader advancement and the commanders. Those were excellent ideas for this game.

 

[kent77]

It is like the leader goes into a centuries long coma only to wake up as the leader of a brand new civilization, with different armies, cities that are now towns etc. To me, this is the exact opposite of being immersive.

I still find this jarring and don’t understand why they implemented eras like this vs. the approach used in Millennia, which I liked a lot. I wonder if I’d find it less jarring if the turns advanced the year differently—I’m not really sure there is that much missing tech/culture between each era…

 

[kaspergm]

Thanks for the reply. You’re obviously entitled to your opinion and I understand your position. The leader models do not bother me and I prefer them over civ vi. Immersion, for me, is about “one more turn”, very little to do with history. I connect with you regarding the leader choices. I am not a big fan of the leaders chosen. Civ switching is something I have wanted in the game since Civ V. However, this iteration and Humankind’s approach did not execute this in the way I was hoping for. The options for continuity between historically inspired civilizations is so loosely connected, it is as if the layers thing was actually scuttled half way through by marketing forcing representation on day one, instead of solid progressions through the ages. Rome, Norman, America doesn’t feel natural or interesting. A simple Britons or Anglo Saxons to England to America would have been more interesting and palatable. Of course, they could keep the unlock and ability to choose wild combinations, but the built in layers thing should have been more realistic and tied more into the Leaders background. I would have gone 15 leaders and close to 45 civs at launch. If they were going to do something so radical, they should have gone for it with clear intent. It released in a scattered, un instinctive way.

I think a tripple-layer system for every civ like you descripe (and like we see for a few civs in the game) would be completely uncontroversial. That is basically just giving the civ a new ability (and a new name) with each age. The controversy starts once you start allowing cross-overs and mix/matching with leaders from other nations.

I was not myself strongly against Civ switching, but I think it should be an active choice by the player: Do I want to continue as my old system, or take on a new civilization to accomodate the new age or changes brought on by the crisis. I made a long post about this way back before the game was released. I'm not hot on the forced change, however, and particularly not when many civs have extremely vague or even non-sensical transitions.

I'm absolutely stunned by the fact that not every civ has an associated leader. That is imo. absolutely criminal. How can they release a Civ game where I can start as Maya, but there's no Mayan leader? I can't wrap my head around that design choice - even less so when the game comes with ... how many french leaders is it?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'm absolutely stunned by the fact that not every civ has an associated leader. That is imo. absolutely criminal. How can they release a Civ game where I can start as Maya, but there's no Mayan leader? I can't wrap my head around that design choice - even less so when the game comes with ... how many french leaders is it?

That's the part which is viewed by many as positive, aince it allows civilizations without well-known leaders (or no known leaders at all like Mississippians) to appear in game.

 

[kaspergm]

That's the part which is viewed by many as positive, aince it allows civilizations without well-known leaders (or no known leaders at all like Mississippians) to appear in game.

Well, it's not like no Mayan leaders are known, is it?

I could accept it in those rare cases where no leaders at all are known, but as a default, a civ should have an associated leader.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Well, it's not like no Mayan leaders are known, is it?

I could accept it in those rare cases where no leaders at all are known, but as a default, a civ should have an associated leader.

I think there's a technical limitation. Leaders are quite expensive in production, so with the number of civs released for CIv7, the ratio of 1 leader per 2 civs seems like compromise.

Sure, you may dislike that many of those slots are taken by people who previously wouldn't qualify as leaders, but again, there are players who really like those new faces.

 

[timmychompchomp]

I think a tripple-layer system for every civ like you descripe (and like we see for a few civs in the game) would be completely uncontroversial. That is basically just giving the civ a new ability (and a new name) with each age. The controversy starts once you start allowing cross-overs and mix/matching with leaders from other nations.

I was not myself strongly against Civ switching, but I think it should be an active choice by the player: Do I want to continue as my old system, or take on a new civilization to accomodate the new age or changes brought on by the crisis. I made a long post about this way back before the game was released. I'm not hot on the forced change, however, and particularly not when many civs have extremely vague or even non-sensical transitions.

I'm absolutely stunned by the fact that not every civ has an associated leader. That is imo. absolutely criminal. How can they release a Civ game where I can start as Maya, but there's no Mayan leader? I can't wrap my head around that design choice - even less so when the game comes with ... how many french leaders is it?

I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment here. I think we are in agreement with most of your initial grievances with 2 exceptions. I don’t mind the character models, and the civ switch doesn’t impact my enjoyment as much as it does for you. I fundamentally agree with you on the implementation of the civ switch mechanics and leaders without a civ. Bizarre decisions that indicate to me disagreements and compromises between development teams and the distributors.

 

[Gori the Grey]

This is my first post in the forums

Welcome!

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

That's the part which is viewed by many as positive, aince it allows civilizations without well-known leaders (or no known leaders at all like Mississippians) to appear in game.

The Mississippians might not be the best example considering we know of Tuskaloosa.

I think there's a technical limitation. Leaders are quite expensive in production, so with the number of civs released for CIv7, the ratio of 1 leader per 2 civs seems like compromise.

Sure, you may dislike that many of those slots are taken by people who previously wouldn't qualify as leaders, but again, there are players who really like those new faces.

I do think some of those personas could have at least been new leaders instead. I'm not sure we needed two Napoleons or two Himikos. High Shaman could have been a Polynesian leader as that ability pairs well with both Tonga and Hawaii.

 

[pjotroos]

I do think some of those personas could have at least been new leaders instead. I'm not sure we needed two Napoleons or two Himikos. High Shaman could have been a Polynesian leader as that ability pairs well with both Tonga and Hawaii.

That's surely just a case of saving on the costs of modeling, rigging, animating and voicing another leader (especially since all five are linked to 2K and Firaxis trying to sell us something extra on release).

Personally, I'd take half the leaders and twice the personas for 20% more civs - especially in an edition of the game where leaders & civs are unlinked, so it really doesn't matter if I'm playing Ben Franklin or a Professor Machiavelli.

 

[marius_kaparius]

1.1.0 I accept the game but run out of steam due to the UX
1.2.5 It clicks - mostly due to UX changes and rebalancing
1.3.0 I’m addicted, my daughter is addicted (to being a pirate). We’re competing for play time

 

[reddishrecue]

I make peace when the amount of cities you can have with enough happiness is maxed out to the amount of cities you can possibly have on order to prevent rebellion.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I do think some of those personas could have at least been new leaders instead. I'm not sure we needed two Napoleons or two Himikos. High Shaman could have been a Polynesian leader as that ability pairs well with both Tonga and Hawaii.

Personas are a way to decimate development effort - they reuse models, animations, voices, etc. everything except gameplay mechanics and a couple of colors. They are not replacing leaders, they are kind of additional content.