Have you SEEN these bonuses?

[Leyrann]

Here's the thing.

If you put enough modifiers and stuff on a single choice (namely, the choice of civ), it stops being 'compare all the modifiers', and instead becomes 'pick based on what feels right'.

It's like an event in Crusader Kings or similar where all you've got to go off of is three different sentences which you can select, without the tooltip clarifying. You don't know what your choice is going to do, so instead you're going (applying this to civ choosing now) 'okay if I choose Mongolia I'll be good at cavalry and conquest, if I choose the Normans I'll be prioritizing exploration [I imagine], if I choose the Abbassids I'll probably have religious bonuses'.

If the system becomes too complex to evaluate, it turns around to being very simple, but also nearly impossible to optimize. I think that's a good thing.

 

[Big J Money]

More asymmetry and uniqueness between civs is absolutely needed. I never feel like I’m playing as a fully-flavored civilization; I always feel like I’m playing the exact same game ad nauseum, albeit with just a dash of Greece or a pinch of Rome.

Yeah, but the bonuses must be impactful for asymmetry to be impactful. I'd rather have 3 interesting bonuses than 10 small ones. I just don't see something like "+1 happiness and +1 culture for each adjacent wonder" on a unique improvement to be very interesting. How much does that really stand out versus, "+1 gold and +1 science for each adjacent wonder" that some other civ gets for their unique improvement? Or when choosing between a civ's social policies? Not trying to complain, it's just that there are a lot of little bonuses like this in Civ VI and they often feel like they ultimately lead to the same place in the end.

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

Yeah, but the bonuses must be impactful for asymmetry to be impactful. I'd rather have 3 interesting bonuses than 10 small ones. I just don't see something like "+1 happiness and +1 culture for each adjacent wonder" on a unique improvement to be very interesting. How much does that really stand out versus, "+1 gold and +1 science for each adjacent wonder" that some other civ gets for their unique improvement? Or when choosing between a civ's social policies? Not trying to complain, it's just that there are a lot of little bonuses like this in Civ VI and they often feel like they ultimately lead to the same place in the end.

That’s pretty much exactly the point that the rest of my post made

 

[GeneralZift]

I'm really wary about this, this is Civ6's Civ-bonus bloat issue turned up to 1000, but it's spread across the era rather than in one huge paragraph in your face at the start of the game.
Maybe some people see some fun about 40 different bonuses that are 5% effective on your Civilisation, but I am personally chuffed with 5 bonuses that are 20% effective for example.

Not talking about meta or multiplayer / gameplay balance but instead about this effectively strange design where the main game is more simple, but they add this sense of apparent complexity by adding adjacency bonuses everywhere.

 

[Republic of San Montuoso]

"The civ-switching is taking away the uniqueness of each civ! Look at Humankind: each faction was bland and generic!"
"Oh, right, that's true. Well, don't worry, because each culture in each age will truly feel unique!"
"Wait, no, not like that!"

Slight friendly mockery apart: one of the reasons why the boardgame Root: A Game of Wooland Might and Right is quite a popular and successful game, despite it being quite complicated especially for newbie entry-level boardgame players, is that each faction truly feels unique and different from the others. In fact, the amount of actions they have in common is lower than their specific abilities. The Marquise de Cat, the Eyrie Dynasties, the Woodland Alliance and the Vagabond all feel truly distinct, and makes you want to play another game trying another faction. And when you factor in the expansion factions, you have a wide variety of truly unique ways to play.

And I feel -and hope- that Civ VII is kinda going this path. Each civ will feel unique and you'll be encouraged to try new ones. Civ VI already did that, kind of, but there are dozens of civs in Civ V that I never tried because they basically boiled down to: "Civ A is Civ B, but slightly to the left". Here, we'll have to see more precisely what each civ brings to the table, but it's already quite satisfying to see that choosing your civ will really have an impact.

Moreover: you will also have to adapt and be encouraged to adapt yourself as the age goes down. No more endless relaunched because you started as the Incan in the middle of the plains, or the Mali deep down in the tundra! You'll have basic starting bias, the the truly environmental civs will come later and will be more satisfying. I think. Well, at least I hope.

 

[Kev1916]

I'm really wary about this, this is Civ6's Civ-bonus bloat issue turned up to 1000, but it's spread across the era rather than in one huge paragraph in your face at the start of the game.
Maybe some people see some fun about 40 different bonuses that are 5% effective on your Civilisation, but I am personally chuffed with 5 bonuses that are 20% effective for example.

Not talking about meta or multiplayer / gameplay balance but instead about this effectively strange design where the main game is more simple, but they add this sense of apparent complexity by adding adjacency bonuses everywhere.

Wary be understatement , and hopefully the sheer number of "civs" is not a marketing ploy to flog more "civs".

 

[Kev1916]

"The civ-switching is taking away the uniqueness of each civ! Look at Humankind: each faction was bland and generic!"
"Oh, right, that's true. Well, don't worry, because each culture in each age will truly feel unique!"
"Wait, no, not like that!"

Slight friendly mockery apart: one of the reasons why the boardgame Root: A Game of Wooland Might and Right is quite a popular and successful game, despite it being quite complicated especially for newbie entry-level boardgame players, is that each faction truly feels unique and different from the others. In fact, the amount of actions they have in common is lower than their specific abilities. The Marquise de Cat, the Eyrie Dynasties, the Woodland Alliance and the Vagabond all feel truly distinct, and makes you want to play another game trying another faction. And when you factor in the expansion factions, you have a wide variety of truly unique ways to play.

And I feel -and hope- that Civ VII is kinda going this path. Each civ will feel unique and you'll be encouraged to try new ones. Civ VI already did that, kind of, but there are dozens of civs in Civ V that I never tried because they basically boiled down to: "Civ A is Civ B, but slightly to the left". Here, we'll have to see more precisely what each civ brings to the table, but it's already quite satisfying to see that choosing your civ will really have an impact.

Moreover: you will also have to adapt and be encouraged to adapt yourself as the age goes down. No more endless relaunched because you started as the Incan in the middle of the plains, or the Mali deep down in the tundra! You'll have basic starting bias, the the truly environmental civs will come later and will be more satisfying. I think. Well, at least I hope.

Fair play thou each "Civ" will not feel unique as they dont last very long, and yea you'll certainly be encouraged to buy ( sorry try ) new ones .
Multiple + 1 +3 modifiers dont float my boat , thou Root is quite a tidy wee game

 

[AntSou]

So let me get this straight . . . now we are complaining that there is too much good stuff for each civilization?

It's the reason I never really got into Civilizations Expanded. I prefer complexity of the systems accessible to everybody, rather than too much complexity within each Civ.

There's a board/card game I played once called Millennium Blades. It's fairly popular. It seems like a fun game, but it was overwhelming to me. You're supposed to interact with the other three players at the table, yet I found it impossible to track what other players were doing. So in the end I felt completely detached from the table, like four people playing solitaire who just happened to be sitting next to one another.

So I can understand the worry. Playing the board includes playing not only to your strengths but being aware of other Civs mechanics and obstructing their playstyle, especially in multiplayer or against a good AI.

Having more expanded Civs means, to me (the kind of player who likes to be aware of all things at all times) that I'll be spending a ton of time reading through what other civs do, not just my own. And because there's so much stuff, I need to read it often, because I forget. The "what is your thing again?" that I often experienced in Civ VI seems to be increased by several factors for Civ VII.

What's more likely, I may stop caring (maybe because I'm tired, haven't played in a few days, and don't feel like reading through the wall of text for each of my neighbours), so I'll end up interacting with my neighbours in a generic manner, rather than taking into consideration their individual strengths.

But this is all talk, and maybe it won't be like this. There's a lot of uniqueness, but there are also common patterns to the way uniqueness is set (in the example given by the OP, it all summarises as "they like Rivers and Wonders"). I'll know once I play it.

 

[LastSword]

I had some random thoughts about that too.

1. Obvious: never listen to people trying to sell a product. See what they do.
2. I have never memorized a single set of abilities in civ6, I don't see a chance to do it in civ7 as well.
3. Starting bonuses are not interesting/engaging. From my experience in playing boardgames, they hurt balance more than they add flavour.
4. We may go from "map plays you" to "uniques play you" (I have this uniques therefore I have to do X, Y, Z).
5. It feels extremely forced (wonder bonus especially!). It was probably done to support a civ switching which is obviously so good feature which will make civ7 different from civ5/6.
6. One thing civ6 did right was First Looks. The amount of bonuses, leaderless civilizations, personas, multi-civs (China A, China B, China C), leader animations/diplomacy screen - it all makes me not care about civ7 first looks at all.
7. Those are vanilla's abilities. In time abilities will become more and more complex.

I prefer complexity of the systems accessible to everybody, rather than too much complexity within each Civ.

Pretty much this. Unique civics, units, buildings - they all could be choices we compete for with other players. Make game more interactive.

Well, 33-33-33 was not ready for that. Maybe in civ8.

 

[Leyrann]

4. We may go from "map plays you" to "uniques play you" (I have this uniques therefore I have to do X, Y, Z).

The uniques don't play you.

You play the uniques that you choose. Yes, it matters to your playstyle. But you chose that playstyle.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Yeah, but the bonuses must be impactful for asymmetry to be impactful. I'd rather have 3 interesting bonuses than 10 small ones. I just don't see something like "+1 happiness and +1 culture for each adjacent wonder" on a unique improvement to be very interesting. How much does that really stand out versus, "+1 gold and +1 science for each adjacent wonder" that some other civ gets for their unique improvement? Or when choosing between a civ's social policies? Not trying to complain, it's just that there are a lot of little bonuses like this in Civ VI and they often feel like they ultimately lead to the same place in the end.

With each civ having their own unique civic tree I think the end result will still feel like having 10 small bonuses as well, times 3 for playing each civ. It's just not all the bonuses will be explicitly stated on the loading screen.

 

[Big J Money]

Yeah, I'm really not liking it. But at least there are other aspects to Civ VII that I do like. And ever since Civ VI, I have lowered my expectations that Civ is a game about playing a fun and identifiable civilization or leader from history, and more of an abstract 4x puzzle game that is quite elaborate and makes you think hard.

 

[Siptah]

I dunno, I think I‘m used to having so many bonuses to think of. Late game Humankind or EU4 seem to amount to at least a similar magnitude of bonuses. The difference there is that you choose them over time, often considering which one to choose from a pool or unlocking „the next one“. In civ 7, you basically choose three times - and more packaged than in the paradox games. This may make it harder to remember them, not the actual amount of modifiers and uniques. Yet, personally, I like it a lot.

I‘m more concerned that I‘ll forget the bonuses from wonders and resources than from civs…

 

[Evolena]

I guess that's why they associated 2 attributes to each civ and leader (eg. Cultural, Economic, ...), so that there is a first level of choice that is easy to do by choosing similar attributes to pair together.

 

[Gorbles]

People who are worried about "the meta" five months before the game is even released are part of the reason that fun is draining from the gaming industry.

People have been doing this for over two decades. I'm not sure there's a correlation between it and any perception of fun (or a lack thereof).

Pretty much every game in existence has its dedicated adherents, it's most competitive-even-in-an-uncompetitive-game kind of demographic. Let them do what they want. If the developers listen to them, then that's the choice not the devs make. Feedback is feedback, surely?

 

[LastSword]

The uniques don't play you.

You play the uniques that you choose. Yes, it matters to your playstyle. But you chose that playstyle.

Quite early for such definitive statements.

If uniques do not play player at all then they are either useless or balance of game is so whacked that you pursue one strategy anyway.

It is more visible in board games where finding optimal plays is much more trivial. Most common solution to make games less repeatable is based on combinatorics. However you achieve much more combinations by having multiple packages of randomized stuff rather than just one big package. Furthermore good board games are also interactive, and forces player to adapt upon opponents' actions.

Now if I choose a great package of abilities that will define the majority of my actions in game, what's a point of playing. One decision, you almost click an auto-play button. It would be an extremely disappointing gameplay with low replayability value. Therefore I would prefer for it to have an impact on game but within a reasonable margin.
Right now, we can't evaluate this impact. Therefore I have used the word 'might'. The amount of bonuses is concerning. The issue will not disappear just because player has chosen that playstyle. Too much eggs in one basket.


Thinking further, we know that civilizations are unlocked by certain prerequisites (horses for Mongolia?). This is so much worse, I have seen such mechanics before. Instead of enjoying the era players will try to abuse the mechanic to ensure certain civilization conversion. It will be like: ensure prereq A and fail as many other prereqs possible. The gameplay becomes narrow.
Well, even civ series already had something similar, era score in civ6.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

Don't worry, we have another thread worrying about how the game will be less deep because builders are gone.

To be honest, I like this, but it is a fine line. There is a beauty in the simplicity of Civ 1 and 2, but we've been heading away from that for some time. I like the idea that each civ is truly unique, and that each will give me a genuinely different experience. I recognise, though, that less can sometimes mean more when it comes to strategic depth.

Nevertheless, I'm very much looking forward to getting stuck in.

I agree with less can be more...to start. I think it's natural to start small and then, through inevitable updates/expansion packs and everything build upon that. Like I would be totally down with unique civilian units or a unique wonder etc. later down the road...once more people have player the game and the kinks get sorted out they can build up instead of going back to fix things. Since...well we know that it'll take years to fix or redo any of these bonuses since that doesn't sell as well as "new bonuses!". We'll see how it goes but it's a really significant things I'm not certain will work.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

Granted, the amount of effort they're pouring into each Civ will probably stop them from going as crazy as they did over Civ VI's almost decade-long run. I think it ended with something like 50? Could you imagine 50 Civs of this level of detail???

It'd be really cool when you're playing the one or two you know but the level of overchoice would hit hard.

There's another problem you brought up:

In a lot of Civ games, Rome (or some other simple expansionist base game Civ) is the suggested Civ for new players since they teach you a trusty strategy that's usually easy to understand. Claim land, defend it with Legions.

Civ VII- due to Age switching and decoupled Leaders alone- kind of forces new players to get a grip on the game before they can do a playthrough. You have to pick a Leader (practically blindly), and a starting Civ with its cavalcade of bonuses. And just as you're getting a grip on how the game actually plays, whoops you have to switch games and pick a new suite of bonuses. Hope you brought your reading glasses because this is gonna happen one more time!

The decisions they're making in this installment seem great for us returning players (those that weren't put off by Civ-switching, anyway). If there were ever an installment for Fanatics and our love of complexity and discussion, it'd be this one. The emphasis on narrative seems great too.

But, at least on paper, almost all of these decisions raise the barrier to entry in a genre that is already infamously hard to get into. That worries me.

Oh I can totally see them adding in 100 civs with this level of detail. New civs will always sell well and now that they don't need to balance their abilities or make them applicable across the eras, they can pump out a ton more. Sure it's great to have more civs but that could just make the choice even more daunting. I wouldn't be surprised if we see 40 civs in just the base game alone; 10 per age and then who knows what extra ones they'll add.

I agree that the game will surely not be newbie friendly. Great for longtime fans as us but for everyday people? Maybe they think the shorter "games" will bring them in but at the same time Civ isn't necessarily Fortnite or Mario...and now it's seeming even more paradox-esque with how these bonuses are represented. I agree that you'll definitely need to have a wiki up for a lot of the choices in the game which is a lot less friendly for casual gamers. Plus, it really hurts multiplayer play since, as mentioned, there isn't at all going to be that central strategy to build towards; each civ is it's own thing. And yeah I know most people play singleplayer but it is just another example of how this is really odd way to go about the game...do a cross-plaftform release and decrease performance quality for Switch but then structure the core "characters" of the game as to play to your fans.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

More bonuses, unique buildings, unique units etc are great. Each civ feels much more unique and developed in civ7. My only "concern" would be balance. With all the civ bonuses, unique buildings, unique wonders, legacy bonuses, adjacency bonuses, narrative event bonuses, celebration bonuses, unique civics, techs, social policies, leader bonuses, promotion trees for leaders, promotion trees for army commanders, pantheons, that is a lot of different bonuses for Firaxis to balance. The sheer amount of bonuses is insane. Or maybe they don't try to balance things. I could see some super OP combos if bonuses stack.

My interpretation was that while the civ bonuses do not stack, legacy bonuses will. And of course there are leader bonuses that also move throughout the game and can be applied to any civ. So yeah I also have massive concerns about balance. Like even in Humankind this was an issue was there was simply stronger civs you had to choose...meanwhile Civ was open enough so that even if yo were playing a "terrible" civ like Georgia or Spain you could still use your knowledge of the core gameplay+mechanics to get ahead of some great inherent civ bonuses. I'll never forget a game in Civ VI where I used promotion tree benefits on top of terrain knowledge to help defend against Gran Colombia's insanely OP military units...stuff like that could vey well exist in Civ VII (I'm sure they will) but it appears like that core knowledge isn't what they're focussing on. Instead you just have to know how to counter each civ of each age with your own civ? Accounting for leader+legacy bonuses? Makes my head spin as I feel like its not grounded.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

To me CIV is mostly a singler player game where usually AI is not a big deal so you can roleplay freely. So, I dont see balance as a big problem for the franchise.
But talking about balance and have a lot of uniques brings me to mind more competitive games like AoE with an example of why more is not always better or more popular.

In AoE3 each civ have a lot more uniques and complex personalization than AoE2. There was a transition from AoE2's civs having 1 or 2 unique units and 1 unique technology (2 unique technologies and in few cases some unique building in the Steam revival HD+DE) plus the variations of available regular technologies and units, to the AoE3's civs having regional game mechanics, selectable age transition bonuses, around 5 unique units, multiple unique techs, tens of unique homecity cards some of them unlock even more unique units and technologies, revolutions with their own uniques, map dependent mercenaries and native allies with their own uniques and technologies.
So AoE3 is full of flavor and lots of options to mix bonuses and different gameplay, but even with all of that AoE2 is still a more popular and acclaimed game.

Dont take me wrong, I love content, flavor and complexity (also like both AoE2 and AoE3 in their own way) neither I am saying that CIV7 would be the same as AoE3, but looking to the AoE community many people actually think AoE2 is better with its simpler and homogeneous civ designs.

I agree 100%. Regardless of game, the players/civs/factions I think are the most fun have the most freedom with the least amount of restrictions. This is because it directly allows the player to interact with the core systems of the game (i.e., money acquisition, territory growth, diplomacy, science) more directly. It also eventually leads to a great back and forth where new/casual players can still have fun interacting with these core systems while incentivizing more rewards for people who know more about the games "bonuses" or fluff. When bonuses become so complex and involved bonuses-wise, the interaction with the core systems becomes muddied. I'll admit that increased fredom also usually makes for harder balance...but wasn't that one of the core reasons for allowing for civ switching/changing civs? Something seems a little off there.

And of course they could have added bonuses or other abilities later on but it's much more controversial if you take them away. They're making Civ VII to last a decade so I don't know why they went out the floodgates with all of this individuality for civs when they could have added things later on. But when you start with bounes as complex as this it's going to be impossible to rein things back in or develop new ideas or systems. I mean, I guess you can keep adding to things over and over again...but then you get to levels of bloat seen in things like Civ VI's late game which was unanimously less enjoyable than the early game.