Is Civ 7 as a strategy game less deep than previous Civs?

[Cywil]

In my opinion Civ 7 is designed to be (for casual players) easier to play than previous Civs at the cost of its strategy depth.

Less micromanagement, less options, less choices, less decisions made by players, less long-term investments, less long-term strategies (e.g. hard tech reset with every Age) etc.

More instant rewards, more instant/automated actions, more decisions made by devs instead of players during playthrough, more goals set by devs instead of players (e.g. victory conditions beeing too specified - not just "be the best/first in this field" but "have exact number of items") etc.

No builders/workers, no chopping, no even initial settler (is it true?), no citizens management, no unit promotions etc.

Some of changes are good anyway but my overall impression is that playing Civ 7 will be more railroaded than in previous iterations.

What do you think?

 

[pokiehl]

This is a really confusing poll. It’d be clearer if you explained the options more.

At any rate, I think the game is mostly shedding needless micromanagement and streamlining systems. It’s for the better.

Also there’re still unit promotions. They just apply to commanders directly.

There is still an initial settler unit.

 

[greenOak]

Eliminating things like workers and citizen management definitely reduces the game's strategic depth. However, things like the city/town split and resource system should increase it. I'm firmly in the too soon to tell camp.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I don't understand how anyone can possibly have an opinion based on the limited info we currently have.

 

[Cywil]

This is a really confusing poll. It’d be clearer if you explained the options more.

Is Civ 7 as a strategy game less deeper than previous Civs?​

It is - My overall feeling is that the devs reduced the game's strategic depth in Civ7
It's not - My overall feeling is that the devs didn't reduce the game's strategic depth in Civ 7
Too soon to tell

Also there’re still unit promotions. They just apply to commanders directly.

That means no unit promotions. E.g. one commander and 3 units - there is single promotion for commander and not 3 or 4 promotions fo all units here.

 

[Cywil]

I don't understand how anyone can possibly have an opinion based on the limited info we currently have.

And i'm interested if anyone can possibly have an opinion based on the limited info we currently have Btw "limited" or not we still have some info and more with every interview and gameplay.

 

[Pistol90]

Well, civ switching will result in more strategic depth (no matter how you feel about it).

Culture, diplomacy and religion in my opinion will be crucial for games depth.

But we will need to wait for at least two expansion to see end result.

I believe it will be better game than Civ6 or Civ5 at the end, but not at launch.

 

[Cywil]

There is still an initial settler unit.

Right, I've fact-checked it. But they tried to remove it - that's from an interview with Civ 7 producer:

Many games did away with starting us off with a single settler. Instead, we mostly get an established town now. I asked Shirk whether Firaxis thought about doing the same or if keeping the iconic settler start was a no-brainer of sorts. Reality, it turns out, was actually quite complicated.

“That’s actually how it was for a while,” he says in reference to starting players off with a city. “We had that debate. The problem is that it touched on that piece of storytelling in your own head, that imagination you have. After we had that in the game for a long time, where it’s just a city, [we asked ourselves] why? Why bother putting that in? It messed with the storytelling in our heads. You come in and you’re like ‘I’ve got a city.’ This isn’t the dawn of man. So we decided to put in what’s called a founder unit. It’s your first thing – it’s just you and the world. We wanted the players to click that button and start your empire. It was an emotional decision. It’s not really for gameplay, but it made such a huge difference to know that it’s the dawn of man when you’re starting your city – this is the dawn of everything.”

 

[Disgustipated]

I don't understand how anyone can possibly have an opinion based on the limited info we currently have.

It's too early to tell for me. At first glance it appears things have been simplified. I think some things have been simplified to improve the AI. They probably figure there was no way to fix the inherent AI problems of Civ 6 (builders not building improvements was a big one), so they made it easier for the AI. That doesn't mean there aren't new systems implemented that are just as deep. But so far I'm just not seeing much other than improved diplomacy. It's possible later ages have more to do.

My main worry is just getting bored. The only time I tried Humankind I felt bored playing that game. Not all micromanagement is bad. The builder game was a nice mini game to optimize your cities how you liked them.

 

[Cywil]

So…Is there a problem? Just confused. Is it a bad thing to you that they have ideas, test them, and re-evaluate based on testing?

No, there's no problem. Why do think that everything posted here is about beeing bad or good? For me it's about trying to understand things and about knowing others opinions. And I found it interesting to explore how devs come to their decisions.

 

[Olleus]

It's too soon to tell and, anyway, depends on a definition of strategy. In a game like civilization (or even Chess), I'd define ꜱᴛʀᴀᴛᴇɢʏ as "Making, implementing, and adapting a long term plan that combines many disparate game elements in order to reach a goal in the face of opposition" That would be contrasted with ᴍᴀɴᴀɢᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ, which I'd define as "Optimising the use of a known pool of resources, isolated mechanically from the rest of the game, to accomplish an immediate task". Many people might call this management ᴛᴀᴄᴛɪᴄꜱ, especially when related to combat.

For example, moving pop around to optimise overflow in order to build something 1 turn faster is, in my books, management. Similarly about placing districts to get the maximum adjacency bonus - that's management. Things like deciding whether to chop forests early or save them later for sawmills is somewhere in the middle - there is a long term vs short term trade off, but it's always about a single isolated thing (production for the nearby city) and it boils down to a number not affected by much else in the game. Deciding which civilization to evolve to after a crisis however does sound like strategy in my books. That is a long term decision, with long term consequences, which interacts with other things that have already happened and will happen in the game. Similarly for choosing which towns become cities and which don't, and for which type of golden age to aim for during an age. Upgrading a leader using legacy point is also, surely, pure strategy. Generally, the more goals the player has to aim for, the more opportunity for strategy in how to achieve those goals- and we seem to be getting a lot of goals beyond a handful of victory conditions. Of course if there are too many goals, then strategy devolves to simply connecting the dots between them: but with ages being 200 turns long that doesn't seem to be the case here.

But, it's far too early to tell what the impact of all of that is. Strategy is needs balance. If the same plan is the best in all situation, there's no strategy. If what the best plan is depends on the circumstances, what others are doing, and changes with time (requiring the player to adapt) then there's tons of strategy. And we won't know how balanced the game is until release, probably not until weeks after release. Even months considering balance patches are inevitable. But, as I spelt out elsewhere, I do think the devs are trying to shift the emphasis away from management and back to grand strategy (while Civ6 mostly moved in the opposite direction). Or, if you don't like my definitions, from one type of strategy (local, small-picture) to another kind (global, big-picture). IMO, both are fun, but the latter is what I prefer in a Civilization game.

 

[Gorbles]

Way too early to tell. We don't even fully understand the mechanics that have been revealed so far!

 

[Cywil]

Isn’t this entire thread a “bad vs good” discussion you posed?

No, it's not.

In your OP you clarified that you were more on the side of perceiving these changes as bad.

I'm asking about overall feelings and not about a particular feature. I posted that some changes are good anyway but the full picture is more important for me here. I'm just interested in your opinion. I have no such agenda to presenting something as bad or as good. I'm really greatful for your opinion.

 

[UWHabs]

It's too soon to tell and, anyway, depends on a definition of strategy. In a game like civilization (or even Chess), I'd define ꜱᴛʀᴀᴛᴇɢʏ as "Making, implementing, and adapting a long term plan that combines many disparate game elements in order to reach a goal in the face of opposition" That would be contrasted with ᴍᴀɴᴀɢᴇᴍᴇɴᴛ, which I'd define as "Optimising the use of a known pool of resources, isolated mechanically from the rest of the game, to achieve a desired immediate result". Many people might call this management ᴛᴀᴄᴛɪᴄꜱ, especially when related to combat.

For example, moving pop around to optimise overflow in order to build something 1 turn faster is, in my books, management. Similarly about placing districts to get the maximum adjacency bonus - that's management. Things like deciding whether to chop forests early or save them later for sawmills is somewhere in the middle - there is a long term vs short term trade off, but it's always about a single isolated thing (production for the nearby city) and it boils down to a number not affected by much else in the game. Deciding which civilization to evolve to after a crisis however does sound like strategy in my books. That is a long term decision, with long term consequences, which interacts with other things that have already happened and will happen in the game. Similarly for choosing which towns become cities and which don't, and for which type of golden age to aim for during an age. Upgrading a leader using legacy point is also, surely, pure strategy. Generally, the more goals the player has to aim for, the more opportunity for strategy in how to achieve those goals- and we seem to be getting a lot of goals beyond a handful of victory conditions. Of course if there are too many goals, then strategy devolves to simply connecting the dots between them: but with ages being 200 turns long that doesn't seem to be the case here.

But, it's far too early to tell what the impact of all of that is. Strategy is needs balance. If the same plan is the best in all situation, there's no strategy. If what the best plan is depends on the circumstances, what others are doing, and changes with time (requiring the player to adapt) then there's tons of strategy. And we won't know how balanced the game is until release, probably not until weeks after release. Even months considering balance patches are inevitable. But, as I spelt out elsewhere, I do think the devs are trying to shift the emphasis away from management and back to grand strategy (while Civ6 mostly moved in the opposite direction). Or, if you don't like my definitions, from one type of strategy (local, small-picture) to another kind (global, big-picture). IMO, both are fun, but the latter is what I prefer in a Civilization game.

Yeah, removing micro-management (tile shuffling for units, citizen placement, chopping optimization, etc...) is often good, and doesn't take away from the grand scale. You don't want to remove the strategy though - for example, the strategy of chopping now vs long-term production in theory could be an interesting decision. Of course, in 6 it wasn't nearly balanced enough that the only strategy decision really was "chop now, or role-play and not clearcut my land because it's prettier with some forests still alive".

It's also sort of funny how much people read all the details about the exact bonuses of things, and try to infer from that. Whether Egypt gets +1 production from navigable river tiles, or +1 production from all tiles next to a navigable river, or +2 from a navigable river, or +1 from all rivers, etc... I mean that balance will ebb and flow over time. Like in 6 we certainly saw some civ abilities change a lot over time (*cough*England*cough*).

 

[Cywil]

Well, civ switching will result in more strategic depth (no matter how you feel about it).

We'll see. Thank you for this opinion.

I'd define ꜱᴛʀᴀᴛᴇɢʏ as "Making, implementing, and adapting a long term plan

Maybe that's why I'm so inclined to look at chosing a civ for the full playthrough as strategically more impactful (because of "long term") than for the first 1/3 of the game (because of "short term").

But, as I spelt out elsewhere, I do think the devs are trying to shift the emphasis away from management and back to grand strategy (while Civ6 mostly moved in the opposite direction). Or, if you don't like my definitions, from one type of strategy (local, small-picture) to another kind (global, big-picture). IMO, both are fun, but the latter is what I prefer in a Civilization game.

A very interesting insight indeed.

 

[Kev1916]

In my opinion Civ 7 is designed to be (for casual players) easier to play than previous Civs at the cost of its strategy depth.

Less micromanagement, less options, less choices, less decisions made by players, less long-term investments, less long-term strategies (e.g. hard tech reset with every Age) etc.

More instant rewards, more instant/automated actions, more decisions made by devs instead of players during playthrough, more goals set by devs instead of players (e.g. victory conditions beeing too specified - not just "be the best/first in this field" but "have exact number of items") etc.

No builders/workers, no chopping, no even initial settler (is it true?), no citizens management, no unit promotions etc.

Some of changes are good anyway but my overall impression is that playing Civ 7 will be more railroaded than in previous iterations.

What do you think?

"In my opinion Civ 7 is designed to be (for casual players) easier to play than previous Civs at the cost of its strategy depth."

IMHO I would say so , from early views looks like a lot smaller in scale re size of maps, number of troops , to the number of Civ opponents.

I doubt there will be huge maps with 12+ civs to play against ( not counting the x3 multiplier ) thou Ive no doubt the unit's will be much larger and the cities looking like Humankind or some huge city simulation game .
Will look grand and Im sure the casual Xbox gamer will enjoy it

 

[Krikkit1]

Eliminating things like workers and citizen management definitely reduces the game's strategic depth. However, things like the city/town split and resource system should increase it. I'm firmly in the too soon to tell camp.

Less Unimportant micromanagement decisions is More strategic depth.
More Important decisions is also More strategic depth.

But we can’t tell if the decisions will actually be Important, because that depends on balance (highly unbalanced decisions are obvious and not important)

 

[Krajzen]

I strongly disliked the amount of micromanagement, feature bloat and bonus overload of civ6, just too much meaningless choices wasting my time and energy, so drastically cutting it down in favour of fewer but more interesting mechanics sounds great for my taste.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Yeah, for me the depth in the Civilization franchise has always come from broad strokes strategies, leading an empire across time. This really hasn't changed all that much from the earliest iterations - what has changed are a bunch of systems which add layers of management to make achieving that more complicated. Some of the systems work and add new layers of strategy, a lot of them feel like tedious micromanagement.

More systems != more depth. More management != more depth. More complexity != more depth.

We know that Civ7 still has a lot of systems. There will still be lots of small, incremental micro choices to be made. You'll still be playing the annoying policy card shuffle. You'll still be min-maxing yields. You'll still be managing trade routes and build queues. There's new systems to juggle, like Leader upgrade trees, Legacy Paths, and civ switching. Some existing systems have been streamlined (like tile improvements and army management), others have been made more complicated (city planning has gotten more complicated, not less, with some buildings losing their yields in a new age while others don't; now you can plan adjacency for the same district across ages).

So is Civ7 shallower from a strategy perspective? I think we know enough already, honestly, that the answer is "no".

 

[Professor Phobo]

I like making the major decisions in these games but I hate the kind of "wouldn't I just delegate this?" intermediate step ones, and I especially hate it when dead turns hit - when you just click next turn because there is no decision of consequence to make at all.

When the golden button pops up with a new civic to choose or a new tradition to take or a major decision to make, brain happy. When pathfinding for a missionary I sent ten turns ago to go talk about The Lord to a city state breaks and I have to reset his movement, brain angry.