I'm clicking the "retire" button on Civ VII

[GeneralZift]

The micromanagement in modern isn't too bad especially compared to other games. At game end it's hitting the upper limit of what I'm ok with - yet another reason not to want a 4th age.

The problem for me is that in modern the micromanagement is pointless after the first 20-30 turns. Once you've leveraged your snowball over the first 20 turns modern is "click till you win" and I usually end up with a lot of SHIFT-ENTER turns because while I could do the micromanagement, less and less things become worth doing...

I'm a bit confused - They spent all that effort on their age system to make the modern age matter more, but it's still the same exact situation. You'd think they'd put the most effort towards fixing that in order to prove their concept :/

 

[stealth_nsk]

How are you arriving at those figures? Impression I've got fromost people is that almost the entire modern age is clicking through, if it even lasts longer than 30 turns. That's 33% of the game by design but I suppose a minimum about 10% of the game by turns already?

Civ VI I would argue has it for about 90% - as soon as you unlock districts it falls off for me.

I don't have any numbers about Civ6, just some rough guess.

For Civ7 I had the following math - antiquity and exploration last about 100 turns with normal age length, modern finishes at around turn 75 and I'd say first 20-25 turns are quite interesting, so that leaves about 20% turns of boring stuff.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I'm just not following the logic for "click through" in Modern. That hasn't been my experience at all.

Military: The only way to accumulate 20 points is vigorous military action, not Shift-Enter. Building the Manhattan and Ivy projects involves waiting, I agree.

Science: Assuming that you have set up at least one strong production city in Exploration, you will need to research Flight and build at least one Aerodrome. You'll need to overbuild to get decent yields in that city. Then yes, wait for the techs to unlock and build the projects. Over in the "Fast Science Victory" thread, they highlight key tactics for speeding things up, including concentrated diplomacy. Not Shift-Enter.

Economic: This one has some periods of waiting -- learn the techs to build Rail Stations, Factories, then accumulate the points. One can't send the Great Banker around with Shift-Enter

Cultural: A mad scramble for the first round of artifacts, followed by a long wait for Hegemony. Another scramble for the second round of artifacts, then wait for the Worlds Fair to complete.

TBH, the only victory which can be one by Shift-Enter is the Score victory. Assuming that you have accumulated so many legacy points in the first two eras that no one can catch you. Even then, either you or the AI will be hitting milestones to advance the era progress so that the game actually ends.

tl;dr I've always got something to do during Modern. Whether I'm hooking up rail links or hunting for artifacts, every turn matters in the first 20-30 turns. Once the AI start adopting ideologies, my old alliances shift and I need to pay attention to who my neighbors are declaring on.

 

[Leucarum]

So they gutted the game’s core identity and Fallout76’d themselves for nothing.

I don't really know how you got that from my post. Civ 7 has flaws, but it for sure is no fallout 76...

What if there were a fourth age and you were actually building towards it in modern? I actually want this to make modern matter and just have the 4th age same civ victory rush.

I find the micromanagement is too much by the first half of modern. I really don't want the game to go on much longer.

I'm a bit confused - They spent all that effort on their age system to make the modern age matter more, but it's still the same exact situation. You'd think they'd put the most effort towards fixing that in order to prove their concept :/

They definitely missed the mark by a wide mile with the late game. I really feel less inclined to complete games than I did in earlier Civs (except 5 which I felt less inclined to even load up).

I'm just not following the logic for "click through" in Modern. That hasn't been my experience at all.

My point was that 80% of what you do in modern after the first 20 turns of leveraging your snowball does not matter. Modern rarely lasts more than 60 turns at most, so once you're en-route to victory the best play is just skip to turn till you get there.

Culture and Millitary have less clickthrough to be fair, but culture is... Dull if I'm being generous. Honestly, modern isn't much fun anyway so maybe being able to click through it is a blessing in disguise...

 

[aieeegrunt]

I don't really know how you got that from my post. Civ 7 has flaws, but it for sure is no fallout 76...

I find the micromanagement is too much by the first half of modern. I really don't want the game to go on much longer.

They definitely missed the mark by a wide mile with the late game. I really feel less inclined to complete games than I did in earlier Civs (except 5 which I felt less inclined to even load up).

My point was that 80% of what you do in modern after the first 20 turns of leveraging your snowball does not matter. Modern rarely lasts more than 60 turns at most, so once you're en-route to victory the best play is just skip to turn till you get there.

Culture and Millitary have less clickthrough to be fair, but culture is... Dull if I'm being generous. Honestly, modern isn't much fun anyway so maybe being able to click through it is a blessing in disguise...

it’s a similar situation to Fallout76; change the core identity of the game and watch sales and player count crater.

There is no way to spin that one

 

[Leucarum]

it’s a similar situation to Fallout76; change the core identity of the game and watch sales and player count crater.

There is no way to spin that one

The core identity is still Civ though. They botched the execution for sure but 7 is still Civ no matter how much hyperbole you throw at it.

 

[AD1730]

The core identity is still Civ though. They botched the execution for sure but 7 is still Civ no matter how much hyperbole you throw at it.

I see it as Civ in name only. Slapping a name on something doesn't automatically make it the thing any more than slapping the name "McDonald's" on a pizza place makes it a McDonald's. Firaxis expanded beyond what I believe is acceptable for the franchise. I have no interest in Civ 7 as a Civ game, nor on its merits, since I reject their core design premises.

No game will please everyone, particularly a sequel. However, Civ 7 alienated a massive portion of the fanbase in such a predictable way that I don't feel sorry for Firaxis.

 

[Leucarum]

I see it as Civ in name only. Slapping a name on something doesn't automatically make it the thing any more than slapping the name "McDonald's" on a pizza place makes it a McDonald's. Firaxis expanded beyond what I believe is acceptable for the franchise. I have no interest in Civ 7 as a Civ game, nor on its merits, since I reject their core design premises.

No game will please everyone, particularly a sequel. However, Civ 7 alienated a massive portion of the fanbase in such a predictable way that I don't feel sorry for Firaxis.

Naah. It's still Civilization. Firaxis didn't handle eras or civ switching well, but the core is still the old game we all know and love. I'm sympathetic to people feeling it has changes they don't like - I am critical of a lot - but calling it "not civilization" is just being dramatic.

 

[Civinator]

Naah. It's still Civilization.

Is Civ 7 in your eyes still a game to build a historic empire to stand the test of time ??

 

[Leucarum]

Is Civ 7 in your eyes still a game to build a historic empire to stand the test of time ??

Pretty much by definition, yes. Civ switching muddies the water on exactly what that empire represents in ways that I also don't completely like, but the basic formula is still there.

 

[noise36]

I find that its only fun when you are at war, every other way to play and/or win the game is boring.

 

[Civinator]

Pretty much by definition, yes. Civ switching muddies the water on exactly what that empire represents in ways that I also don't completely like, but the basic formula is still there.

The basic formula in my eyes was an historic empire that grows from a certain territory and not a Rome that becomes Mexico without being conquered or assimilated by Mexico.

 

[reddishrecue]

I find that civilization is only fun when you're warmongering and also, that stand of test of time feeling looks like it has been lost which civilization used to have in civ 2.

 

[Kev1916]

I see it as Civ in name only. Slapping a name on something doesn't automatically make it the thing any more than slapping the name "McDonald's" on a pizza place makes it a McDonald's. Firaxis expanded beyond what I believe is acceptable for the franchise. I have no interest in Civ 7 as a Civ game, nor on its merits, since I reject their core design premises.

No game will please everyone, particularly a sequel. However, Civ 7 alienated a massive portion of the fanbase in such a predictable way that I don't feel sorry for Firaxis.

Once you address the fact this “civ” game was addressed and major designed fir the switch, then it’s not really a Civ game

 

[Lord Lakely]

The basic formula in my eyes was an historic empire that grows from a certain territory and not a Rome that becomes Mexico without being conquered or assimilated by Mexico.

So? You're still controlling the same empire, you're still controlling the same cities, which are in the same colours. Just because a name changes doesn't mean it cannot be the same empire. Look at China and its many dynasties. Names change, but what you have built before is always retained.

Switching Civs proves that your empire has stood the test of time. Because who you were in the previous ages is still relevant in the later ages too.

Firaxis made a few critical narrative mistakes here, the biggest of which is their attempt to justify the Civ switching via their half-baked crises - 'oh, barbarians invade, I guess rome will cease to exist and then spain will rise in its place for no reason.' This is nonsense, ofc. The in-game justification one should use is that the Romans chose to develop traits that eventually turned them into the Spanish. or the Chinese, or whatever.

The most memorable games I've had was where I was forced to pick Civs I wasn't planning on picking at first, but HAD to choose to shore up my weaknesses in that age. I had a Lafayette game where I went Greece into Ming into Mughals out of necessity and it was absolute insanity in the best possible way.

 

[Smegger213]

So? You're still controlling the same empire, you're still controlling the same cities, which are in the same colours. Just because a name changes doesn't mean it cannot be the same empire. Look at China and its many dynasties. Names change, but what you have built before is always retained.

Switching Civs proves that your empire has stood the test of time. Because who you were in the previous ages is still relevant in the later ages too.

Firaxis made a few critical narrative mistakes here, the biggest of which is their attempt to justify the Civ switching via their half-baked crises - 'oh, barbarians invade, I guess rome will cease to exist and then spain will rise in its place for no reason.' This is nonsense, ofc. The in-game justification one should use is that the Romans chose to develop traits that eventually turned them into the Spanish. or the Chinese, or whatever.

The most memorable games I've had was where I was forced to pick Civs I wasn't planning on picking at first, but HAD to choose to shore up my weaknesses in that age. I had a Lafayette game where I went Greece into Ming into Mughals out of necessity and it was absolute insanity in the best possible way.

Switching Civ's is one of the reasons why I hate this version of Civilization. Its not "will you build a civilization that stands the test of time". The new Civ you switch to all have different bonuses etc. I don't want to be forced to play a new Civ at each age change. I want to play one Civ throughout my whole game. That one Civ should have bonuses that apply for each age, and not just for Antiquity etc. I also do NOT want my leader to be the head of a Civilization that had nothing to do with my leader. IE the "each leader can play any Civ" mechanic is a heap of garbage. I don't want to play Hashepsut of the Normans etc. Its dumb and stupid.
I don't even want an age system at all. Especially one that gives you a stupid hard reset at the start of each age. I think that is the one major reason why Civ 7 has failed.

 

[Leucarum]

The basic formula in my eyes was an historic empire that grows from a certain territory and not a Rome that becomes Mexico without being conquered or assimilated by Mexico.

I understood that. I tolerate Civ switchjng instead of enjoying it. But you're still building an empire to stand the test of time, albeit accounting for cultural changes. It is still Civ.

 

[GeneralZift]

I really feel less inclined to complete games than I did in earlier Civs (except 5 which I felt less inclined to even load up).

I guess the issue with 5, and a lot of Civ games, is once you know how to beat it, it becomes hard for the game to actually challenge you.
Then once you choose a harder difficulty, the game becomes unfair instead of just harder.

For Civ5 this is my genuine opinion of its biggest flaw - so for example Happiness.
On easier difficulties, the higher default Happiness actually opens up the strategies and makes the game more fluid and fun, letting you experiment more with wider and riskier builds than usual.
But of course, the AI is easier, so the game becomes a bit more boring.
On higher difficulties it was the opposite.

I think Civ games in general suffer from this problem where they only know how to make the game more unfair instead of strictly more difficult - and on difficulties like Deity, even for Civ6, the game just becomes playing the 'meta' strategy so that you can beat the bonuses of the Deity AI.

This hurts their replayability, because it's all well and fun to play every single Civ and Leader until you master their playstyles and have a lot of fun with the maps -- but if the AI cannot ever challenge you fairly, then the design will railroad you into one particular playstyle until you get bored of the game.

 

[Civinator]

Switching Civs proves that your empire has stood the test of time. Because who you were in the previous ages is still relevant in the later ages too.

Switching civs in my eyes just attests the contrary: That the empire that was played in the era before has not stood the test of time by the will of the devs. It is gone and replaced by something that can be very different. The civ of the old era cannot be played any longer, even if in real history it was existing in the new era, too. Why should Egypt transform into Buganda, so Egypt exists in reality in all 3 eras (and even today) ? Civs of era 1 and 2 at present have no chance to stand the test of time as they are eliminated by the game in era 2 and 3. The player receives a new chance with a new civ in a new era for doing better in the upcoming era.

A definition, that the "empire" is a condition of the game that allows the player to continue the game so the basic civ is eliminated in the game by the devs, in my eyes is far to wide for a civilization game, as in this sense most video games would be "civilization games".

And one thing to clarify: Different territorial phases of a civ, that is based and growing from a certain territory (as it is per example the case in the Civ 3 mod CCM 3) is something completly different (and working well) compared to "switching" civs like from Rome in era 1 to Spain in era 2 and to Mexico in era 3 (per example in CCM 3 the evolution for the civ Italy goes from Rome in era 1 to the Italian city states in era 2 and Italy in era 3 and 4 of that mod).

Firaxis made a few critical narrative mistakes here, the biggest of which is their attempt to justify the Civ switching via their half-baked crises - 'oh, barbarians invade, I guess rome will cease to exist and then spain will rise in its place for no reason.' This is nonsense, ofc.

I completly agree.

The in-game justification one should use is that the Romans chose to develop traits that eventually turned them into the Spanish. or the Chinese, or whatever.

I think this is not much more convincing as the current situation.

 

[Leucarum]

I guess the issue with 5, and a lot of Civ games, is once you know how to beat it, it becomes hard for the game to actually challenge you.
Then once you choose a harder difficulty, the game becomes unfair instead of just harder.

For Civ5 this is my genuine opinion of its biggest flaw - so for example Happiness.
On easier difficulties, the higher default Happiness actually opens up the strategies and makes the game more fluid and fun, letting you experiment more with wider and riskier builds than usual.
But of course, the AI is easier, so the game becomes a bit more boring.
On higher difficulties it was the opposite.

I can't honestly put my finger on what exactly I dislike about 5. It doesn't do anything explicity bad or wrong. It just bores the ever living crap out of me. I have never been able to get past the first half of the game without thinking "I could be doing something else" but since there's not one thing sticking out, I don't know what drives that. I find the pace slow, even for a Civ game, so maybe that's my best guess.