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

[MrRadar]

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.

This is probably second longest victory condition. Just don't start your conquests too early. This involves waiting until at least some AIs choose their ideologies, then you pick which ones of them will be your ATMs for legacy points, pick a different ideology from them and roll over a few of their cities, then 2 projects to build.

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.

This is the longest one. Requires nearly the whole tech tree and several projects.

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

The second fastest victory condition, but requires good scouting and moving the banker.

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.

The fastest and easiest one, after they added more artefact sources, and just one wonder to build. Minimal unit movement required in Modern, but you have to lay some ground with Missionaries in Exploration. I found that picking Shamanism and flooding the world with missionaries, then selecting Toshakana GA puts you on a good way to get CV rather quick in Modern.

All in all, I found that I always drift to the easiest one, so my games looked pretty much the same and ended in CV. Science just takes too long, Military involves too much busywork, which is unnecessary when you can always fall back on the two easier VCs. The game that I posted here earlier, I did finish with t66 CV. No competition from AI whatsoever in Modern age, I did not even upgrade any troops, took as many IPs as my influence allowed, just put buildings, move some explorers and click next turn.

Spoiler :

Spoiler :

The situation with the late game is pretty much the same as it was in Civ6. And just as with Civ6, Civ7 feels like some sort of Civromantik game, not a Civ from the classical Civilization period. AI just can't fulfill the role of another leader/nation, having their national interests and trying to accomplish something on the world stage and present a challenge. After some fisticuffs in the begininng, they start to fade with every passing turn and age, and then just exist and mostly leave you alone to play your puzzle game.

 

[uppi]

This is probably second longest victory condition. Just don't start your conquests too early. This involves waiting until at least some AIs choose their ideologies, then you pick which ones of them will be your ATMs for legacy points, pick a different ideology from them and roll over a few of their cities, then 2 projects to build.

If you are waiting for the AI to pick up a legacy path, you are wasting time and this might explain why you think it is the second longest victory condition. In a generic setup, it is the fastest victory condition (in terms of turns, at least). You should be capturing settlements as soon as you pick an ideology yourself. Pick the weakest AIs and capture 10 settlements from them. The only victory conditions I can imagine which could be faster would be a military-victory-in-disguise, Friedrich, Baroque, culture victory or an extremely optimized science victory.

All in all, I found that I always drift to the easiest one, so my games looked pretty much the same and ended in CV. Science just takes too long, Military involves too much busywork, which is unnecessary when you can always fall back on the two easier VCs. The game that I posted here earlier, I did finish with t66 CV. No competition from AI whatsoever in Modern age, I did not even upgrade any troops, took as many IPs as my influence allowed, just put buildings, move some explorers and click next turn.

Turn 66 is a bit late though, isn't it? If the AI was capable of ending the game at turn 50 or so, you would not be able to drift to victory that slowly. It is not and that is the real problem instead of the victory conditions themselves

 

[Lord Lakely]

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'S THE EXACT SAME EMPIRE.

Controlled by the SAME leader, with the SAME traditions and the SAME infrastructures. Time and technology have made some aspects obselete, and that makes perfect sense too. The Indians are no longer building mountain monasteries and the English are no longer using longbows in their military.

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.

The fundamental flaw in your reasoning here is like you act as if your previous Civs no longer matter, and that's simply not true. Spain via Greece plays completely different from Spain via Rome. The exploration and modern Civs are additive to what you're doing in Antiquity. You get more bonuses as you continue playing, but the old Civs never go away.

Also, Egypt as we knew it doesn't exist anymore. The nation that currently calls itself Egypt is geographically located in the same spot but underwent fundamental cultural shifts in its recent history that no longer make it antiquity Egypt. Even the Copts who are descended from the ancient Egyptians, would seem alien to the ancient Egyptians. And yet, we still see it all as 'Egypt'. Actually a very good example of an Egypt => Arabs => Ottomans pipeline in Civ7 terms.

What seems to bother you is the nomenclature. That your Egypt into Arabs has to be called 'Abbasids' and no longer can be called 'Egypt'.

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).

Yes, the lack of linear options is another of the fundamental flaws in the game. The fact that you can be any Civ in a single game is just... daft? It makes sense mechanically that I would want to 'become' a Science Civ in Exploration after having horrendous research in Antiquity. It would also make sense that I would want to continue down the same path. And yet, in actuality, neither really happen? Players pick the Civs they enjoy playing the most, rather than picking those that make sense to be picked (either out of history or necessity).

Personally, I would prefer it if my options were limited to one or two predetermined Civs rather than Frankensteining my Civ together based on whim, or idk, how many copies of a certain resource i managed to improve.

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

It helps though. Cultures evolve according to their geography and political theatre, and so when you switch, you pick a set of bonuses you think your Civ would utilize well in the next era. I roleplay leaders similarly - I see them more as prime ministers appointed by the people or the elite to lead your government. The real head of state is you.

To be perfectly clear: I don't NEED Civ Switching to be in the game. I don't NEED ages. I am indifferent to both mechanics, which is still better than in Humankind where I actively dislike them. The problem isn't that it exists, history justifies it. The problem is that the implementation is clumsy and amateur, despite the hefty prize tag the game comes with. THAT should be the focal point of this topic btw.

But as to the argument of 'This doesn't feel like Civ' because you change names two times -- Yeah I don't buy that. The game's still Civ, and more Civ than any of its rivals.

 

[Smegger213]

IT'S THE EXACT SAME EMPIRE.

Also, Egypt as we knew it doesn't exist anymore. The nation that currently calls itself Egypt is geographically located in the same spot but underwent fundamental cultural shifts in its recent history that no longer make it antiquity Egypt. Even the Copts who are descended from the ancient Egyptians, would seem alien to the ancient Egyptians. And yet, we still see it all as 'Egypt'. Actually a very good example of an Egypt => Arabs => Ottomans pipeline in Civ7 terms.

What seems to bother you is the nomenclature. That your Egypt into Arabs has to be called 'Abbasids' and no longer can be called 'Egypt'.

Like you say Egypt is still around today.
This is why I would rather play just as Egypt through the whole game instead of being forced to swap Civ's after the antiquity age ends.
They should have just given the player the choice to either stay with their current Civ or move to a new one.
They could then have given Egypt bonuses suitable for the age in question.
They could make 3 sets of bonuses. One for each age.
Then have each bonus kick in when you enter the next age.

Having ages at all is the main turn off for me.
The second turn off is being forced to move to another Civ, but keep the same leader.
The 3rd turn off, is the whole any leader can play any Civ garbage.
Hatshepsut of the Normans is so absurd.

 

[Kev1916]

The English are no longer using longbows in their military.

England ain’t in the game big guy

Also, Egypt as we knew it doesn't exist anymore. The nation that currently calls itself Egypt is geographically located in the same spot but underwent fundamental cultural shifts in its recent history that no longer make it antiquity Egypt.

It’s a game! , if players want to go the Egyptian empire and play the “Civ “ game as before then morphing into the Viking’s to bat in a few arbitrary bonuses is not for all.

But as to the argument of 'This doesn't feel like Civ' because you change names two times -- Yeah I don't buy that. The game's still Civ, and more Civ than any of its rivals.

As before a mechanism catering to a switch console and to pop out endless DLC’s may actually turn many to its “rivals “.
Also Changing “names “ is a tad disingenuous .
Civ was always a serious 4x game , we’re the player can build there empire from turn one., With their Civilisation.

Playing as Mary Shelly leading the Roman Empire , fighting wars against General Napoleon of the Mississippians and Catherine the great of Malta takes away some of the seriousness

 

[McSpank01]

Yeah I think people massively over react to Civ switching as a concept. Historically no empire manage to last the length of time of a Civ game, and the ways we even think about most empires is really a modern construct that just helps us group certain periods of history. It doesn't really reflect reality or history at all.

That doesn't mean civ switching works especially well in Civ 7. I don't like it. I like it on paper, I think the concept of evolving your civilisation using the hallmarks of famous nations and empires is a really fun one. The implementation isn't great though.

One of my main issues is that I really don't think each civs have enough flavour. I find each individual civs bonuses quite dull, and for the most part you mostly just play the game in a pretty similar way. The only one that really stands out is Carthage, that is a civ where you genuinely need to play it a differently (also maybe Mongolia) All the other ones feel like you are making tweaks around the edges, but mostly just following the standard playbook.

So otherwise, the choices for which civ you pick to evolve into, just feel mostly kind of cosmetic. I also rarely feel the impact of my earlier civ when I'm playing my new one. That I think another major issue: I switch civs and suddenly my old civ seems basically gone. I lose all my old units, my buildings are decrepit. Sure I might have some wonders and settlement names, and there are a handful of pretty unimpactful traditions in the form of cards (yawn). Otherwise all remnants of my old civ seems gone. It doesn't really feel like you are building on what came before, because what came before has been reduced to an empty husk.

I love the idea that I can take my civ and give it different attributes from civs throughout history, and I can reflect reality or I can play the fantasy. I just think that the way it's done doesn't really make that fun.

 

[Civinator]

IT'S THE EXACT SAME EMPIRE.

Without using bold and big letters: It is not!

As written, the definition if you can continue a game (even with some bonuses) in my eyes is far too wide for characterizing a civ game. The leader is you and the "empire" is you, is the essence of every video game: Even in a shooter or car racing game, the leader is you and the "empire" is you, as you are the human player who plays such a game.

The empire is not the same: The population of Rome in era 1 now is forced to drink tequila instead of red wine in era 3 while they now are all Mexicans. The civs of era 1 are not living any longer with some "additions": They are gone (even when the new civs like Spain via Greece play completely different from Spain via Rome). You cannot play Greece any longer, so it still is existing today (we can ask our old civ veteran Kyriakos, if he now is Spanish and no longer Greek ).

The fundamental difference in seeing the "switching" of civs by me is, that I look on the civs starting from the perspective of today and not from a perspective starting from the past. At a first look the perspective of starting from the past should be the better one, as the history on a certain territory is developing from the past into the present times. But this perspective leads into the chaos, Civ 7 is suffering in these days. Civs, leaders and the complete evolution of mankind becomes randomized. The historical names of leaders and even if they were leaders becomes meaningless. That British longbows become obsolete during the progress of technics in all former versions of civ games was always a matter of the techtrees and is not needing "civ-switching" in the different eras of Civ 7.

Much better in my eyes is to define the civs from the present days and looking from today into the past what happened in a certain territory. Different leaders now become meaningful, as the real history can be taken better into account compared to a complete "what could be"-perspective. It should not be forgotten, that even our complete knowledge about history is formed by the knowledge of our days, so even the perspective looking on the evolution of a civ by starting from the past, in reality is formed by a perspective of looking on it by the perspective of today.

 

[TylertheDestroyer]

IT'S THE EXACT SAME EMPIRE.

Controlled by the SAME leader, with the SAME traditions and the SAME infrastructures. Time and technology have made some aspects obselete, and that makes perfect sense too. The Indians are no longer building mountain monasteries and the English are no longer using longbows in their military.

But it's not THE EXACT SAME EMPIRE though. if it was it would still be called the same thing, still use the same language and naming convention, and wouldn't be a completely new "layer" built on the ashes of your former empire in the wake of global crisis..... English moving past the usage of longbows was already well abstracted by the technology tree in past Civilization titles, we didn't need civilization switching to model the technological, political, or even cultural evolution of peoples and empires...

The problem we have is that what Firaxis presented to us as "more historical" make no sense whatsoever and isn't enjoyable to play... Why does my immortal leader Harriet Tubman's Abbasid Empire suddenly collapse during crisis into Buganda? You say that we should just close our eyes and pretend that our empire is the exact same and stood the test of time and yet the example of layers the devs showed us to justify civ swapping were explicitely created through conquest and domination and civ swapping is placed in the context of a game where our cities are literally demoted to villages, armies disappear, and progress is set back in the wake of empire shattering crisis.

 

[aieeegrunt]

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.

You are no longer building an empire to stand the test of time. Your empire is deleted and replaced off screen. Twice. Period, full stop.

The core identity is gone, no matter how much semantics you throw at it.

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

It isn’t. You empire is deleted and replaced off screen, via developer fiat, twice. Hence the core identity of the game is gone.

The proof is in the pudding. There was a serious community backlash when the “feature” of deleting and replacing your civ off screen by developer fiat, twice, was announced.

This wasn’t just “a loud vocal minority”, since this was most certainly followed through by the sales and player count being dismal, demonstating that a majority of the playerbase rejected having the core identity of the game discarded.

This is isn’t “curmugeons rejecting change”. Going to 1 UPT is a massive gameplay change that was and is certainly controversial, but Civ5 didn’t lose a majority of the sales and playerbase over it, because the core identity of the game remains the same.

Districts are a big gameplay change, but Civ6 didn’t lose a majority of the sales and playerbase over it, because the core identity of the game remains the same. I personally am not a fan of UPT, but I can and do still enjoy both games. In fact properly modded Civ6 is my favorite Civ game. It killed off the older civ titles for me, I’ve tried but cannot go back.

This isn’t a “game needs more polish and patches” issue, because both Civ5 and Civ6 have (and have had) major launch and ongoing quality and design issues, especially the UI, and didn’t lose a majority of the playerbase and sales over it, because the core identity of the game remains the same.

Finally, having your civ deleted and replaced offscreen by developer fiat, twice is NOT your civ “evolving, because reasons, something something Akshually more historical”. The old civ is gone, and a new civ with new units, new traits and bonuses, new city names etc replaces it. There is very little difference between this and say the advanced start option in earlier titles, other than keeping the same map and a few other things.

You can play with semantics all you want, but the sales and player count numbers tell the true story.

 

[Nikolai II]

Moderator Action: Friendly reminder before this gets too heated, play nice with each other. We are all civ fans no matter what.

 

[Leucarum]

The core identity is gone, no matter how much semantics you throw at it.

No semantics, just we seem to differ in what constitutes core identity. We agree that Civ switching is a mistake, I can't see how it invalidates Civ's fundamental premise though.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

IT'S THE EXACT SAME EMPIRE.

Controlled by the SAME leader, with the SAME traditions and the SAME infrastructures. Time and technology have made some aspects obselete, and that makes perfect sense too. The Indians are no longer building mountain monasteries and the English are no longer using longbows in their military.

No.

It would be if I could keep the old civ. Forcing me to pick new civ is forcing me to admit that my previous culture failed and I have to play as someone completely else now.

If I wanted to play as Abbasids - I would pick Abbasids in the game setup. It's really that simple. Why should I be forced to play as Abbasids (or someone else) if I have literally no desire to play as them?

And when it comes to English longbows - that's exactly what all previous Civ games achieved and where Civ VII fails - because English people still exist in real life even though they don't use longbows anymore. They advanced technologically and just stopped using longbows without the need to transform into some completely new culture.

What seems to bother you is the nomenclature. That your Egypt into Arabs has to be called 'Abbasids' and no longer can be called 'Egypt'.

No.

What bothers me with this idea is that I was forced to become something I had zero desire to become and that it's irreversible. I would gladly see enhancing my old civ with new perks and new unique units in each new era - as long as I would be able to keep my old culture. Give me customizable civs symbolizing cultural evolution instead of forced civ switching.

But as to the argument of 'This doesn't feel like Civ' because you change names two times -- Yeah I don't buy that. The game's still Civ, and more Civ than any of its rivals.

Thankfully there are Civs out there that feel more like Civ and still are Civ at the same time. And they are still more popular than VII.

Yeah I think people massively over react to Civ switching as a concept. Historically no empire manage to last the length of time of a Civ game, and the ways we even think about most empires is really a modern construct that just helps us group certain periods of history. It doesn't really reflect reality or history at all.

So what? We simply liked the idea of guiding our chosen civilization through the entire timeline and it worked absolutely great in all previous games. This ahistoricity has never bothered me, just as it never bothered me that I could build both the Great Wall and Eiffel Tower in the same city or that huge soldiers were trampling cities.

It's just a game. Insisting that this one particular element has to be historical is weird, especially since the same mechanic allows completely ahistorical paths. No empire ever managing to last 6000 years doesn't make Egyptians becoming Mongols any more plausible, historical or better.

 

[McSpank01]

So what? We simply liked the idea of guiding our chosen civilization through the entire timeline and it worked absolutely great in all previous games. This ahistoricity has never bothered me, just as it never bothered me that I could build both the Great Wall and Eiffel Tower in the same city or that huge soldiers were trampling cities.

I just think the over reaction is misplaced. The overall idea of 'civ switching' could absolutely work and makes a lot of sense, but for it to work it has to feel a lot less dramatic, needs to reduce the sense of player loss, and potentially give the player more customisation options.

If for instance you had the ability to customise your civ name and banner, you could then basically have what ever empire you wanted and do whatever work is needed in your head for it to make sense.

If they made the changes between ages more subtle, so you don't get your civ taken away, but instead gradually add elements from a new civ to your old civ, then you might feel it's more of an evolution.

If each civ actually had much more distinct features that were more age specific, which weren't just a set of boring invisibile bonuses, then maybe it might all be a bit more fun.

The idea itself is sound, the implementation of it is jarrying and unfun.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Whether you accept civ switching or not is entirely subjective, I don't understand why discuss it so much. If you could associate yourself and opponents with leaders instead of civs (and, unlike Humankind, Civ7 does good job in helping you), the civ switching itself is not a problem. If civ is a mandatory part of identity for you, civ switching becomes an issue. So, it's a matter of personal perception, has nothing to do with logic or arguments. It was possible to make exactly the same game from gameplay perspective, but instead of switching civilizations, having them "adopt a culture" or something like this, having mechanical changes without changing name.

Another thing is to not mix civ switch and age transition. The latter is more gameplay feature and thus have some gameplay problems (together with some positives), but it doesn't require civ switching and civ switching doesn't require abrupt age end.

 

[UWHabs]

I just think the over reaction is misplaced. The overall idea of 'civ switching' could absolutely work and makes a lot of sense, but for it to work it has to feel a lot less dramatic, needs to reduce the sense of player loss, and potentially give the player more customisation options.

If for instance you had the ability to customise your civ name and banner, you could then basically have what ever empire you wanted and do whatever work is needed in your head for it to make sense.

If they made the changes between ages more subtle, so you don't get your civ taken away, but instead gradually add elements from a new civ to your old civ, then you might feel it's more of an evolution.

If each civ actually had much more distinct features that were more age specific, which weren't just a set of boring invisibile bonuses, then maybe it might all be a bit more fun.

The idea itself is sound, the implementation of it is jarrying and unfun.

I understand "over-reaction", and understand that it's a feature that won't appeal to everyone. The lack of customization, the sudden shift in everything, the lack of expansive options for switching, and in so many cases, somewhat lackluster requirements (3 altars for Bulgaria, for example), I think all contribute. Like if every transition either was perfectly natural, or was like a true challenge to accomplish that really made you feel like the new civ when you switched, I think that would feel more balanced to people. As it stands now, it's just too easy to go Egypt->China or whatever without really feeling any connection for why that happened.

Or, alternately, let people shift wildly, but have more customization and balance between the transitions. So maybe I can keep a Legatus around into the next age, or continue to build my Mortuary Temples. Maybe my civ denonym is "Persio-Mongol" in the exploration era. Traditions are nice, but they're not that visible.

Whether you accept civ switching or not is entirely subjective, I don't understand why discuss it so much. If you could associate yourself and opponents with leaders instead of civs (and, unlike Humankind, Civ7 does good job in helping you), the civ switching itself is not a problem. If civ is a mandatory part of identity for you, civ switching becomes an issue. So, it's a matter of personal perception, has nothing to do with logic or arguments. It was possible to make exactly the same game from gameplay perspective, but instead of switching civilizations, having them "adopt a culture" or something like this, having mechanical changes without changing name.

Another thing is to not mix civ switch and age transition. The latter is more gameplay feature and thus have some gameplay problems (together with some positives), but it doesn't require civ switching and civ switching doesn't require abrupt age end.

It's hard to separate the two just in the current format. And when you throw in unrestricted leaders, that adds another level of confusion to the mix. I think also just there's some parts of the game right now where Firaxis could be a little better at reminding you who's who. Like in my current game, I think Ada is playing as Rome, but still my brain keeps having trouble putting them together all the time. So even I get a notification that "Rome comepleted a wonder" or I get a message about allying with Ada, or whatever, it takes a few seconds to match them up properly.

Taking it all together, it's hard to separate the pieces if you're not happy with any of the pieces individually, which helps the reaction. I think it still has some potential, especially once we get a few more civs to fill in some of the natural gaps. But there's spots that need tightening up to really make the systems work well together.

 

[Kev1916]

I just think the over reaction is misplaced. The overall idea of 'civ switching' could absolutely work and makes a lot of sense, but for it to work it has to feel a lot less dramatic, needs to reduce the sense of player loss, and potentially give the player more customisation options.

If for instance you had the ability to customise your civ name and banner, you could then basically have what ever empire you wanted and do whatever work is needed in your head for it to make sense.

If they made the changes between ages more subtle, so you don't get your civ taken away, but instead gradually add elements from a new civ to your old civ, then you might feel it's more of an evolution.

If each civ actually had much more distinct features that were more age specific, which weren't just a set of boring invisibile bonuses, then maybe it might all be a bit more fun.

The idea itself is sound, the implementation of it is jarrying and unfun.

Stable door..

The idea from the start was total nonsense, hence the negative reviews.
2K will Never allow any great customisation as it goes against the endless “sellable” Civs and skins.

 

[Civinator]

2K will Never allow any great customisation as it goes against the endless “sellable” Civs and skins.

Here I am not so sure. What is the worth of "endless sellable civ and skin" dlcs, if there are only very few customers who are interested to buy them and there is no profit by these tactics?

 

[aieeegrunt]

Here I am not so sure. What is the worth of "endless sellable civ and skin" dlcs, if there are only very few customers who are interested to buy them and there is no profit by these tactics?

They’ll have to admit the Emperor Has No Clothes first.

 

[Kev1916]

Here I am not so sure. What is the worth of "endless sellable civ and skin" dlcs, if there are only very few customers who are interested to buy them and there is no profit by these tactics?

Correct, which was the point , the initial idea was IMHO flawed and will eventually bring the curtain down on this “civ” much earlier than many think

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's hard to separate the two just in the current format. And when you throw in unrestricted leaders, that adds another level of confusion to the mix. I think also just there's some parts of the game right now where Firaxis could be a little better at reminding you who's who. Like in my current game, I think Ada is playing as Rome, but still my brain keeps having trouble putting them together all the time. So even I get a notification that "Rome comepleted a wonder" or I get a message about allying with Ada, or whatever, it takes a few seconds to match them up properly.

Yep, there are some leftovers with civilization name is used where leader would be more appropriate (or both).

Taking it all together, it's hard to separate the pieces if you're not happy with any of the pieces individually, which helps the reaction. I think it still has some potential, especially once we get a few more civs to fill in some of the natural gaps. But there's spots that need tightening up to really make the systems work well together.

Yes, sure. There's room for improvement.