How excited are you currently about Civ7? [vol 3 - January/February 25]

[Leucarum]

The diversity of civs is something which makes me more excited about Civ7 - I prefer aiming for an "alt-history" than trying to redo X great empire from history, and don't usually like playing modern great powers as a result. The likes of Rome, America, and Russia are all among my least played civs in previous iterations. The lineeup overall is making me more excited about 7. Being critical, I'm less keen on modern era civs generally, and I think the mechanical design of exploration is one of the weak points in the game... But overall firaxis have done really well in terms of which civs to pick I think.

I don't think all regions have been done equally well though. I'd like to see more civs in Africa, but the ones they revealed thus far have all been really interesting and well designed. I really want a non-colonial power in The Americas' modern age, and the middle east needs some Ottomans for there not to be a glaring hole. India is pretty solidly represented with interesting civs, but until Siam's reveal (which I love), the only east asian reveal that excited me was Trung Trac. That region is the low point for me thus far.

I've never liked playing as England in Civ games, and the Normans may as well not be in the game for me - both mechanically and in terms of vibes... but I wouldn't wish for people to be un-excited to play the game as a result.

 

[Sherlock]

I was already on a 2, but England/Great Britain/The United Kingdom not launching as part of the base game and most likely being DLC has put me off from ever buying this now.

The monetization of this game is a huge FU to their customers. I'm a hard pass until years from now when there's a package deal, if ever.

 

[Ebon-Hawke-]

Surprised this thread died down so close to release. I'd like to update my 10 to a 8 or 9.

I've been trying to defend the devs all over the place on this forum as I have been playing since civ 3 when I was like 5 and I'm very hyped, but I'm overhyped and can't help but remember how not quite disappointing? but barebones civ 5 and 6 felt on release. Did I still play the living hell out of them for a solid 2 months? Yes, but I wish they held me in longer at launch. And as much as I support the dev's choice to not include Great Britain... it does sadden me, I love the Napoleonic era. Half the reason I gave it a 10 beforehand and I've been following the news so close is I've just been looking for a game to play obsessively for like a year now since I hoped back off the guild wars 2 mmo train. I will say it does look more feature complete than 5 and 6 did so I'm hopeful, just trying to soften my expectations up a little. Maybe the new DLC coming in ~<2 months will keep me playing for a while longer on launch.

(I will still be getting founders edition )

 

[Acken]

It's always kind of crap on launch lets be real. I'm just hoping the foundation is good enough for future expansions and mods to flourish.

 

[Zaarin]

It's always kind of crap on launch lets be real. I'm just hoping the foundation is good enough for future expansions and mods to flourish.

A few issues aside, Civ6 was solid on launch.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

It's always kind of crap on launch lets be real. I'm just hoping the foundation is good enough for future expansions and mods to flourish.

From everything we've seen, I'll be really surprised if it's kind of crap. It will definitely have some issues and areas for improvement though.

 

[Acken]

Was thinking more in terms of balance, AI, difficulty and gameplay. But yeah it's true the game at least worked.

 

[Ebon-Hawke-]

Was thinking more in terms of balance, AI, difficulty and gameplay. But yeah it's true the game at least worked.

Am I crazy or did on launch was civ 6 production/civ/tech costs not balanced correctly at all for different game speeds and they had to fix it later. I remember marathon production taking a million years and kinda ruining it for me.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Am I crazy or did on launch was civ 6 production/civ/tech costs not balanced correctly at all for different game speeds and they had to fix it later. I remember marathon production taking a million years and kinda ruining it for me.

Correct. The basic Tech/Civic and production economies were still being smoothed out for several months after release.

 

[Zaarin]

My chief memories of launch-era hiccups for Civ6 were that Gandhi was a raging warmonger as long as he could get a joint war and Tomyris always had the Ideologue hidden agenda.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I recall Civ 6 being technically fine and playable but the balance was awful at launch, which I expect from 7 as well.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

My chief memories of launch-era hiccups for Civ6 were that Gandhi was a raging warmonger as long as he could get a joint war and Tomyris always had the Ideologue hidden agenda.

Looks like Ben Franklin is the raging warmonger meme leader this time.

 

[Zaarin]

Looks like Ben Franklin is the raging warmonger meme leader this time.

He went on my permaban list the moment I heard his agenda.

 

[MrRadar]

Ok, watching those trailers did the job. I'm at 6/10, which means the purchase, I guess. Diplomacy, trade and resources system looks much better.

From the launch state of Civ 6 I remember the Scythian horse market, negative production pool for pillaged districts that took eternity to repair (and eternity to fix the bug).
My favourite bug was ability to nuke declared friends and allies with absolutely no negative diplomatic consequences. Fun times

 

[Sherlock]

A few issues aside, Civ6 was solid on launch.

Stop, you're killing me.

 

[Isengardtom]

I recall Civ 6 being technically fine and playable but the balance was awful at launch, which I expect from 7 as well.

Yeah. At first that can be fun too though. Looking for OP plays.
It’s fine if they do the balancing eventually.
Usually that just means nerfing. But it took them quite long to nerf Earth Goddess in Civ 6

 

[Gen.Washington]

I’m still at a solid 10 but we need England and Germany added to the modern era and the Aztecs and Ottomans to the exploration era. I think the new civs included in the game so far are cool but I hope it doesn’t come at the cost of leaving out major well known empires and civilizations. Now that we don’t need a leader for each civ I expect this game to have no less than 30 civs per era after a few years.

 

[Zaarin]

I’m still at a solid 10 but we need England and Germany added to the modern era and the Aztecs and Ottomans to the exploration era.

Germany (Prussia) is already in the Modern Age at launch. Even though it's somewhat after their peak, I still expect the Ottomans to be a Modern Age civ as one of the major gunpowder empires (like the Mughals) and so as not to overlap with Exploration Byzantines and as probably the easiest Modern Age capstone for Middle Eastern civs. (I'm kind of okay with Modern Ottomans if it portrays their 19th century modernization and pushes back against the idea that they were in a state of perpetual decline after Suleiman.)

 

[Gen.Washington]

Germany (Prussia) is already in the Modern Age at launch. Even though it's somewhat after their peak, I still expect the Ottomans to be a Modern Age civ as one of the major gunpowder empires (like the Mughals) and so as not to overlap with Exploration Byzantines and as probably the easiest Modern Age capstone for Middle Eastern civs. (I'm kind of okay with Modern Ottomans if it portrays their 19th century modernization and pushes back against the idea that they were in a state of perpetual decline after Suleiman.

I think the ottomans should be another civ that’s expanded to 2 ages.

 

[Zaarin]

I think the ottomans should be another civ that’s expanded to 2 ages.

I'd rather take the opportunity to finally have the Seljuqs in the game. Overabundance of warmongers notwithstanding, I'll take Alp Arslan, too.