I quit for now

[marius_kaparius]

I love the scenarios. A significant portion of my Civ 6 playtime was the Australia and Plague scenarios.

 

[Leucarum]

I loved the scenarios in Civ3. WWII and Napoleonic scenarios especially. Since then though... I uhh... haven't enjoyed any of them. I guess for me Firaxis' scenarios peaked REAL early!

 

[j51]

The ages system and the events scripting is just screaming “build cool scenarios with me!”

 

[King Flevance]

Civ 4 has a space exploration scenario that is pretty fun.

 

[Thormodr]

Unfortunately you are in a tiny minority, scenarios are the least popular part of the game and I wouldn't be surprised if we never see them in Civ 7.

I like scenarios and invariably played at least most of them. Like Alexander the Great's campaign.

 

[Thormodr]

The ages system and the events scripting is just screaming “build cool scenarios with me!”

Yes. I am not a fan of the ages system as it is presented in 7 but as a basis for scenarios it has great potential.

 

[Thormodr]

hm... more streamlined? In a way yes (it's generally less clunky). More railroading? Also, in a way yes (e.g., distant lands that you can't interact with even if you manage to get there in antiquity). It depends a lot on the play style how negative that is, I think. If your goal is to fulfill the legacy goals asap, then it probably feels more railroaded. However, if this is why you play civ, the previous games in which you decided on victory condition at the civ selection screen aren't really better imho.

But interestingly, some of the streamlining also give a lot of freedom to the player. Now that you can't beeline through the whole tree and try to rush through the ages as fast as possible, you can actually enjoy the ages much more and get a lot of flexibility for "what do I want to do/achieve" for the next 100 turns. In the previous games (at least for me), this often came down to the steps I felt necessary to achieve a victory at the end or to stay generally competitive. Now, I feel much less restrained and choose more diverse goals for the ages (settle and conquer that whole area, get maximum culture output, try to keep city count low, be a trade master for one age, be a builder for one age, etc.), and often ones that won't be absolutely necessary or even much helpful for the next age. Civ 7 allows these sidesteps easily: I was Carthage and focused on coast, exploration, colonization, and trade. Somehow, the coast had many mountain ranges, so I chose to go with Inka and my goal for the exploration age was to grow my cities as much as possible. Then I go Siam to capitalize on this growth and wrap up the game in any way I want. In the mindset of an earlier civ title it would have been more like: I was X and started with Z, so my next civ choice needs to be about Z as well, otherwise I won't stay competitive in Z, and without being competitive in Z, I can't win W. To me, there is less freedom there (as long as you care about staying competitive/victories - if you don't, then neither is very limiting of course).

And as a self-observation: I went from trying to achieve the legacy goals in the first games to playing how I felt in the moment. Now, I set up 1 or 2 legacy paths but then actively avoid finishing these too early to enjoy the present age in a deeper, prolonged way.

Note: When I say streamlined, I don't mean "dumbed down." Sid said Civ is a game of meaningful choices. 7 seems to have less meaningful choices, IMHO.

We'll see how it progresses but for me it seems they have emphasized leader Civ pairings as a significant part of their meaningful choices and to me that is anathema.

 

[GeneralZift]

Someone on like Twitter pointed out that Luigi Mangione worked on UI bug fixes for Civ VI back in the day and asked: “I just have to know what happened to the ui/ux designers at firaxis between civ6 and civ7?”

They make a good point. What was going on in ui/ux there?

I saw this today and laughed so hard. Damn Luigi left Firaxis and then Civ7 had terrible UI? Omg bring him back

 

[SDZald]

Sighhhh I'm a 70-year-old dude who has been playing Civ games since the first one. I have really tried to like this latest version, but I just can't take it anymore. For a Civ game I just couldn't get over the bugs at release, but I pushed through playing every leader at least once. I don't care for the age change, but I muddled through. Then came the latest patch, who at Firaxis thought making a weak and boring Modern age LONGER would actually make it better?

I was hoping they would tweak the AI settlement placement routine. In my last game one of the AI's placed a town across the map from its territory in a very small open area sandwiched between my settlements as antiquity age was ending. Of course, the game then placed my Cog on a river trapped by said town instead of placing it on one of my many other coastal cities.

I know many of the issue will get ironed out, but I doubt they can fix my biggest problem, I just can't get passed having to play three sperate games loosely 'linked' as one. Later guys, and for those enjoying the game, just ignore this crusty old geezer.

 

[Thormodr]

Sighhhh I'm a 70-year-old dude who has been playing Civ games since the first one. I have really tried to like this latest version, but I just can't take it anymore. For a Civ game I just couldn't get over the bugs at release, but I pushed through playing every leader at least once. I don't care for the age change, but I muddled through. Then came the latest patch, who at Firaxis thought making a weak and boring Modern age LONGER would actually make it better?

I was hoping they would tweak the AI settlement placement routine. In my last game one of the AI's placed a town across the map from its territory in a very small open area sandwiched between my settlements as antiquity age was ending. Of course, the game then placed my Cog on a river trapped by said town instead of placing it on one of my many other coastal cities.

I know many of the issue will get ironed out, but I doubt they can fix my biggest problem, I just can't get passed having to play three sperate games loosely 'linked' as one. Later guys, and for those enjoying the game, just ignore this crusty old geezer.

Naw. Your experience and perspective is valuable and isn't that unusual, sadly.

 

[y10]

Sighhhh I'm a 70-year-old dude who has been playing Civ games since the first one. I have really tried to like this latest version, but I just can't take it anymore. For a Civ game I just couldn't get over the bugs at release, but I pushed through playing every leader at least once. I don't care for the age change, but I muddled through. Then came the latest patch, who at Firaxis thought making a weak and boring Modern age LONGER would actually make it better?

I was hoping they would tweak the AI settlement placement routine. In my last game one of the AI's placed a town across the map from its territory in a very small open area sandwiched between my settlements as antiquity age was ending. Of course, the game then placed my Cog on a river trapped by said town instead of placing it on one of my many other coastal cities.

I know many of the issue will get ironed out, but I doubt they can fix my biggest problem, I just can't get passed having to play three sperate games loosely 'linked' as one. Later guys, and for those enjoying the game, just ignore this crusty old geezer.

It's unfortunate. There are a lot of things I really like about this game. The reworked mechanics where you have specialized towns feeding cities is great (when the city connections work). The AI (in my opinion) is much improved from the excessively passive (and tactically stupid) AI in Civ 6. The army commanders can be really fun to use.

But I agree that the age transitions are a big weakness of the game. It feels like the game is undoing your progress. Your buildings become nerfed and your army shrinks (unless you buy enough of the exponentially expensive army commanders to preserve your army). The legacy paths also decrease the re-playability because you are encouraged to meat a certain set of objectives every time you play (as opposed to the more sandbox style of earlier games).

I'm not trying just to be negative about the game; I have had a lot of fun with it. But I'm really hoping that someday, they make some type of classic mode for Civ 7 that takes all of the fun mechanics of the game and puts it into one fully connected game, not the mini games. I'm of course only speaking for myself, but I think something like that would be well received. If that isn't doable, and they are determined to stick with this formula, I hope they can balance the game such that it doesn't feel like the game is undoing your progress as much (for example, you don't lose any units on the age transition).

 

[Gorbles]

(for example, you don't lose any units on the age transition).

From the latest patch:

Your Military Advisor will now warn you if you don't have enough Commanders to retain all of your Units when an Age is ending.

If you still want mechanical changes, fair enough, but there are ways to make the ends of each Age hit "less hard", it just seems like they need better / clearer signposting so that players actually know the mechanics upfront.

 

[Paul in Saudi]

So you're saying it might be better next year? OK, I will return to it next year.

 

[Thormodr]

Sighhhh I'm a 70-year-old dude who has been playing Civ games since the first one. I have really tried to like this latest version, but I just can't take it anymore. For a Civ game I just couldn't get over the bugs at release, but I pushed through playing every leader at least once. I don't care for the age change, but I muddled through. Then came the latest patch, who at Firaxis thought making a weak and boring Modern age LONGER would actually make it better?

I was hoping they would tweak the AI settlement placement routine. In my last game one of the AI's placed a town across the map from its territory in a very small open area sandwiched between my settlements as antiquity age was ending. Of course, the game then placed my Cog on a river trapped by said town instead of placing it on one of my many other coastal cities.

I know many of the issue will get ironed out, but I doubt they can fix my biggest problem, I just can't get passed having to play three sperate games loosely 'linked' as one. Later guys, and for those enjoying the game, just ignore this crusty old geezer.

Yeah, the age transitions while they are theoretically good are not good in practice. At least not as implemented, so far. You are not wrong.

I personally can't stand the leader/Civ matching. Confucius leading the French is just nails on the chalkboard bad for me. Civ IV has this as an option but that's all it was. It is inescapable now with the Civ switching.

I do commend you for giving it the old college try, though. It seems quite likely that you or I or many Civ veterans are not the target audience, anymore. Thankfully, there are many wonderful 4X games out there.

 

[ggalindo001]

Yeah, the age transitions while they are theoretically good are not good in practice. At least not as implemented, so far. You are not wrong.

I personally can't stand the leader/Civ matching. Confucius leading the French is just nails on the chalkboard bad for me. Civ IV has this as an option but that's all it was. It is inescapable now with the Civ switching.

I do commend you for giving it the old college try, though. It seems quite likely that you or I or many Civ veterans are not the target audience, anymore. Thankfully, there are many wonderful 4X games out there.

I go all the way back to Civ 1 -- and you can call me a crusty old geezer as well.

I'm really starting to come around to the era change mechanics, even when it results in units being all over the wrong place, etc.

I have -mentally- chalked it up to -- there was a 'dark period' in history where things were out of control -- the crisis started, but then it is a 'black hole' dark age where I have no control.

And in moving from Age to Age, I have actually found the game -refreshing- from that perspective. It was like I was voted out of office for a while, the person voted in messed it up a bit, and now I am voted back in. I know it is rubberbanding, I know it is discontinuous -- but it does achieve what I think the devs were looking for -- interest in completing games that were otherwise runaways.

I'm currently (thanks to the AI mod and other UI mods) having the best game of civilization that I have had since Civ 2 and the World War 2 scenario. I'm early in the modern age, and fighting 4 AI opponents (out of 8) with battle on 6 different theaters/fronts. Including with 2 civilizations where I have multiple fronts at war. I have not seen that in a long time in any Civ game. And because of the levelling of units at the age start (no obsolete units with the AI) -- it is a fair fight and I have to make real strategic choices.

What I am not happy about is the leader/Civ matching. It is just too much for me to think I am fighting Napoleon of Siam or Confucius of France. I get the fact that cultures evolve and that it was equally as "unrealistic" that I would be playing against Abe Lincoln in 4000 BC who was enslaving populations. I almost think it would have been better received if the changes were not just the civilization -- but the LEADERS as well -- so at each age change, it is not only a new civilization arising, but the appropriate new leader as well. I know that would make the number of civ/leader combinations required much more than the devs could build for a release -- but to me, it would feel far more like "civilization". The devs could still achieve their objective of each civilization having it's own specific unique unit, etc. The wacky leader/civ combinations is also nails/chalkboard to me too.

I also agree and acknowledge and am saddened that I am not the intended audience anymore for this game.

 

[Thormodr]

I go all the way back to Civ 1 -- and you can call me a crusty old geezer as well.

I'm really starting to come around to the era change mechanics, even when it results in units being all over the wrong place, etc.

I have -mentally- chalked it up to -- there was a 'dark period' in history where things were out of control -- the crisis started, but then it is a 'black hole' dark age where I have no control.

And in moving from Age to Age, I have actually found the game -refreshing- from that perspective. It was like I was voted out of office for a while, the person voted in messed it up a bit, and now I am voted back in. I know it is rubberbanding, I know it is discontinuous -- but it does achieve what I think the devs were looking for -- interest in completing games that were otherwise runaways.

I'm currently (thanks to the AI mod and other UI mods) having the best game of civilization that I have had since Civ 2 and the World War 2 scenario. I'm early in the modern age, and fighting 4 AI opponents (out of 8) with battle on 6 different theaters/fronts. Including with 2 civilizations where I have multiple fronts at war. I have not seen that in a long time in any Civ game. And because of the levelling of units at the age start (no obsolete units with the AI) -- it is a fair fight and I have to make real strategic choices.

What I am not happy about is the leader/Civ matching. It is just too much for me to think I am fighting Napoleon of Siam or Confucius of France. I get the fact that cultures evolve and that it was equally as "unrealistic" that I would be playing against Abe Lincoln in 4000 BC who was enslaving populations. I almost think it would have been better received if the changes were not just the civilization -- but the LEADERS as well -- so at each age change, it is not only a new civilization arising, but the appropriate new leader as well. I know that would make the number of civ/leader combinations required much more than the devs could build for a release -- but to me, it would feel far more like "civilization". The devs could still achieve their objective of each civilization having it's own specific unique unit, etc. The wacky leader/civ combinations is also nails/chalkboard to me too.

I also agree and acknowledge and am saddened that I am not the intended audience anymore for this game.

I started the month Civ I came out. I was excited about the game since I loved playing the civilization boardgame. I have played all the Civ games and their spinoffs and clones. (Civ Rev, SMAC, Colonization, Call to Power, Empire Earth, Rise of Nations, etc.

Yeah, the leader/Civ pairings I can't stand. It is massively immersion breaking for me. The argument that they had America in 4000 BC or France building the Pyramids is a bit silly, yes, but it is not an excuse to crank up the absurdometer to 11.

Times change and all things come to an end. Well, at least in this present time continuum. It has been 34 years, after all, and it's been a great run. The torch is being passed.

 

[Leucarum]

Also go back to Civ 1... But I find myself wanting more civ leader mixing/matching! I really enjoy the diversity of bonuses that come from it, and find it minorly depressing that even if you see an ahistorical pairing, it disappears with the next age as leaders seem to always pick the least ahistorical choice. I'd love a "complete chaos" setting where the leaders pick at random.

I empathize with people wanting more historical accuracy, but honestly I think that torch was passed to Paradox probably more than a decade ago at this point...

 

[tman2000]

The ages system and the events scripting is just screaming “build cool scenarios with me!”

Agreed. The writing is so-so and they're short on content, but you could go full text wall epic history, choose your own adventure almost with these systems.

One thing I want to see is "crisis at any time". Crises that can happen early or mid age that come and go. Imagine a 500 turn super scenario where you could model being Phoenicia then you're conquered and a far flung colony reboots as Carthage. Or playing through Egypt's history from the beginning of the New Kingdom through Ptolemaic Egypt's power struggle with Seleucia.

The one problem is the "streamlining" they've done needs to be unraveled. This means scripting in systems that provide units and tech bonuses that are situation dependent not cumulative.

 

[Thormodr]

Also go back to Civ 1... But I find myself wanting more civ leader mixing/matching! I really enjoy the diversity of bonuses that come from it, and find it minorly depressing that even if you see an ahistorical pairing, it disappears with the next age as leaders seem to always pick the least ahistorical choice. I'd love a "complete chaos" setting where the leaders pick at random.

I empathize with people wanting more historical accuracy, but honestly I think that torch was passed to Paradox probably more than a decade ago at this point...

Not so sure about Paradox getting the torch 10 years ago as I thought Civ VI was pretty good but EU5 looks like it is going to knock it out of the park. It looks phenomenal. The trade system alone looks great. The huge variety of nations and ways to play looks staggering.

If only they could extend it to about a 6,000 year period instead of the roughly 500 that they have. (1337-1820) Perhaps that mega Paradox game is a mythical beast that will never be realized. I wish I had heavily invested in bit coin all those years ago so I could be a 4X game philanthropist.

Anyway, while 7 is definitely not my cup of tea as it is for you or some others, this is a golden age (or perhaps a second one) for 4X games.

 

[Thormodr]

I think Failaxis should be given props for finally recognizing how Hawaii played a major role in world history !

However, I do equally blame them for nerfing my pet civ in the latest patch

I quit for now !

Maya got beaten down by the nerf hammer, as well. "Ow*