IGN's interview of Ed Beach for Civ 7

[pokiehl]

Civilization 7 Interview: Firaxis Answers All of Our Questions About the Anticipated Sequel - gamescom 2024 - IGN

In a new interview at gamescom 2024, Firaxis took us inside Civilization VII, explaining why it decided to break the new sim into individual ages and more.

www.ign.com

A lot of interesting tidbits here:

1. Civ 7 development began pre-pandemic

2. The "default" Civ progression system for the AI will be to proceed with the more historical pathway -- I imagine this will assuage some concerns of people. I do hope there's an option to have the AI make wacky/random choices, though.

3. Some of the crisis mechanics will use a similar random event mechanic as the natural disasters

 

[thecrazyscot]

Another interesting tidbit:

And some of the gameplay mechanics, we can make deeper changes to them so that they unfold differently maybe in our antiquity age than in our exploration age, like our trade systems are different in all three ages.

(emphasis mine)

 

[Zaarin]

The "default" Civ progression system for the AI will be to proceed with the more historical pathway -- I imagine this will assuage some concerns of people.

I'd hoped and suspected this would be the case.

 

[Quintillus]

Yeah, this has been one of the most informative of the interviews/articles that I've seen (mostly skimmed) - seems like it's perhaps the first one that's been able to incorporate some of the burning questions that arose from the reveals on Tuesday.

Trade systems being different in all three ages could be fun. And my guess is the "default" wording for the AI preferring the historical path implies a non-default option as well.

 

[wesplaysciv]

I guess, based on this, that each starting Civ will have a single "default" path? Has anything been revealed about the number of civs available in each age?

It seems like it would be easier to manage if the number of available civs expands in each age. This would reduce the potential for conflict. And then it also makes sense that the AI would go by the default path so as to not "box out" the player's choices (although player typically has the first turn anyway...)

 

[Siptah]

I guess, based on this, that each starting Civ will have a single "default" path? Has anything been revealed about the number of civs available in each age?

I actually doubt that. Ideally, each civ feeds into several others and each civ has several predecessors. They take "historical" very loosely, e.g., same continent is enough, apparently.

We don't know yet if you can have the same civs multiple times in the same era. I guess they won't go that route - did standard rules allow both Greeces in the same game in vanilla civ 6? I think not. But if each civ can exist only once, I assume there is almost a need for multiple options. It would be a shame if Rome would always go into Normans, just because this is historically plausible, when Franks, Byzantium, Abbasids or Spain would be other options that fit similarly well, and should thus be chosen by the AI.

 

[Haig]

Nice interview.

About civ-switching routes, I bet that in 1,5-2 years there are tons of civs released and it's easy to make historical paths.

 

[Zaarin]

Nice interview.

About civ-switching routes, I bet that in 1,5-2 years there are tons of civs released and it's easy to make historical paths.

Some regions will be harder than others, but this is definitely a problem that will improve with time.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I guess, based on this, that each starting Civ will have a single "default" path? Has anything been revealed about the number of civs available in each age?

We already know that Egypt's default path is going to either Songhai or the Abbasids, and Aksum can go into Songhai as well, so there are presumably branches for civs in every path.

 

[thecrazyscot]

I'm interested to gain any insight into how they resolve civ progression conflicts. Given Leader/Civilization combinations, it might be possible that the "historical" path is unavailable for a given AI. Or not - they may be very carefully plotting out the paths to keep that from happening.

 

[criZp]

About civ-switching routes, I bet that in 1,5-2 years there are tons of civs released and it's easy to make historical paths.

I bet those civs are gonna cost a fair bit of cash.

 

[UWHabs]

Development starting pre-pandemic sounds like after Gathering Storm (release Feb 2019), they presumably shifted focus to start work on 7. NFP was only a year later - so I'm guessing that was worked on in parallel with the initial planning of Civ 7. My guess is that once they saw the delays and length of time it would take in development, that's where the Leader Pass came out. With those last 2 coming out while development of civ 7 was under way, I wonder how much the general reception of them will be seen in the feel of civ 7.

 

[Siptah]

I bet those civs are gonna cost a fair bit of cash.

Nah, now that they started selling unit skins and alternative fog of war graphics, they can afford to add the civs in free updates.

 

[Zaarin]

Development starting pre-pandemic sounds like after Gathering Storm (release Feb 2019), they presumably shifted focus to start work on 7. NFP was only a year later - so I'm guessing that was worked on in parallel with the initial planning of Civ 7. My guess is that once they saw the delays and length of time it would take in development, that's where the Leader Pass came out. With those last 2 coming out while development of civ 7 was under way, I wonder how much the general reception of them will be seen in the feel of civ 7.

Even at the time, I thought it was obvious the main team was working on Civ7 and NFP was being made be underpaid interns the B team.

 

[UWHabs]

Even at the time, I thought it was obvious the main team was working on Civ7 and NFP was being made be underpaid interns the B team.

Anton introduced a lot of the NFP pieces, and then left the company a few months after NFP was finished. I'd guess it was mostly him handling all of the NFP, while the rest of the team shifted over to the new game.

 

[Zaarin]

Anton introduced a lot of the NFP pieces, and then left the company a few months after NFP was finished. I'd guess it was mostly him handling all of the NFP, while the rest of the team shifted over to the new game.

Yep, but I was mostly referring to the limited and low quality new art assets NFP introduced and the fact that we were told they had limited ability to alter the code (which is why none of the new leaders had new agendas, for example).

 

[uppi]

Maybe you start as Rome, and where did Rome evolve? Maybe it evolved into another European Civ and that would get you to a Germany or a Britain or France by the end of your game.

Germany, Britain and France confirmed as Modern Age Civs?

 

[Josephias]

And my guess is the "default" wording for the AI preferring the historical path implies a non-default option as well.

I guess, based on this, that each starting Civ will have a single "default" path? Has anything been revealed about the number of civs available in each age?

Considering Egypt choicea and potential conflicts (e.g. both Egypt and Babylon/Assyria having both Abbasids as “default” path) my guess most civs will have at least a “default” path, and an alternate, less historical, but still somehow related one (e.g Songhai for Egypt)

 

[Lord Lakely]

My guess is that most Leaders and Civs will have two.

Imagine if you play Egypt as Augustus, and the randomizer draws Hatshepsut as one of the opponents. Because she's aligned with Aksum, she will appear leading that Civ, following that path.