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

[King Flevance]

I think I will like the new system of trying to go worker free. I mostly play resource management games, so I do understand the appeal for many people of the worker unit - but resource management is not always improved by tedious micromanaging. Really, just access to the information of "cost vs. gain". A rural Tile will take me 3 turns, a farm - another 4 turns, cool 7 turns. Or a worker will cost me 8 turns, then 5 turns to build a farm, etc. I much prefer the idea of the city "building" a tile improvement over building and managing workers. Ultimately, I just want the tile upgrade - no need for an extra step in between that could potentially be wasted if I don't pay close enough attention. I certainly see the bargain in the worker if you can protect them though.

For me Civ is more about the diplomacy mixed with map exploitation (resource management/ military tactics) and economic specialization (science, culture, etc.) Workers do tend to mostly just distract me from the parts I enjoy. Especially when you have 20-30 of the little guys running around. 2 or 3 groups needing orders every turn, I have like 10 things I am trying to focus on and then I forget to check something. Or the dreaded moment when you capture like 8 workers from a war and deleting them seems wasteful because you have all these rails to build - but now you have to map out these logistics of where THESE new workers are going to start contributing. Or maybe you should just delete them because, screw it - you don't need the rails THAT bad, but it seems like a waste. Meh...

 

[Professor Phobo]

The one thing I'm wary of is it seems like there's only one kind of rural district per tile type. Reducing the micromanagement is one thing, but I'd still like to be able to say "mining village" or a "forest village" or that sort of thing.

 

[Krikkit1]

The one thing I'm wary of is it seems like there's only one kind of rural district per tile type. Reducing the micromanagement is one thing, but I'd still like to be able to say "mining village" or a "forest village" or that sort of thing.

You can... If you are in a region with that is 1/2 hill and 1/2 forest then up to ~9 population (or more if you extend beyond two rings) you could be pure Forest village or pure Mining village, because you decide which tiles are the ones that get the pop-improvements.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

Of course it's too soon to say but they've taken a lot away from the player by eliminating builders, city management and limiting the number of cities we can build. That was a huge part of the game and they'd better have something spectacular to make up for the loss.

 

[Thormodr]

Of course it's too soon to say but they've taken a lot away from the player by eliminating builders, city management and limiting the number of cities we can build. That was a huge part of the game and they'd better have something spectacular to make up for the loss.

Agreed. They have taken away a lot. Let's see what they do to fill it.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I don't know if I buy this idea that builder management added strategic depth, after all, wasn't the meta builder strategy basically the same in every single game? Step 1: don't build more than 1 or 2 builders (for critical things only, like luxuries). Step 2: rush feudalism. Step 3: build all your builders in one go and improve your entire empire in the space of a few turns.

 

[Kev1916]

Of course it's too soon to say but they've taken a lot away from the player by eliminating builders, city management and limiting the number of cities we can build. That was a huge part of the game and they'd better have something spectacular to make up for the loss.

Nail on the head the move to be available and at launch on PC, PlayStation 5, PlayStation 4, Xbox Series X/S, Xbox One, and Nintendo Switch suggests otherwise .
A jack of all trades may suit the casual player but IMHO without years of delay and long term modding ( if ! possible ) this "Civ" is going to fail big time

 

[Mr. Shadows]

I don't know if I buy this idea that builder management added strategic depth, after all, wasn't the meta builder strategy basically the same in every single game? Step 1: don't build more than 1 or 2 builders (for critical things only, like luxuries). Step 2: rush feudalism. Step 3: build all your builders in one go and improve your entire empire in the space of a few turns.

You improve luxuries and strategic resources, trigger eurekas and harvest forests and resources to quickly build troops, settlers or districts. You also harvest food resources so you can grow big enough to build another district... all before feudalism. They create a lot of meaningful choices and there is a VERY high skill ceiling when it comes to using them. That's not an opinion, there are plenty of videos of people using chops to achieve very fast victory times.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

You improve luxuries and strategic resources, trigger eurekas and harvest forests and resources to quickly build troops, settlers or districts. You also harvest food resources so you can grow big enough to build another district... all before feudalism. They create a lot of meaningful choices and there is a VERY high skill ceiling when it comes to using them. That's not an opinion, there are plenty of videos of people using chops to achieve very fast victory times.

Afaik, that's not what they do in competitive multiplayer (which requires much greater skill than beating Deity as quickly as possible). I don't consider myself an expert but the cost increase per builder makes it inefficient to build many before feudalism.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

Afaik, that's not what they do in competitive multiplayer (which requires much greater skill than beating Deity as quickly as possible). I don't consider myself an expert but the cost increase per builder makes it inefficient to build many before feudalism.

The fact that we're now debating how to best use builders just supports that there's a lot of skill involved in using them. It's a telling point.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

The fact that we're now debating how to best use builders just supports that there's a lot a lot of skill involved in using them. It's a telling point.

If everyone does the same thing at the highest levels of play, I don't consider that very deep. It's complex, lots of things you could do, but not deep.

I'll caveat that once again by saying that I'm not a particularly strong player myself, but I don't think builder strategy is the reason.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

If everyone does the same thing at the highest levels of play, I don't consider that very deep. It's complex, lots of things you could do, but not deep.

I'll caveat that once again by saying that I'm not a particularly strong player myself, but I don't think builder strategy is the reason.

If your builder strategy were strong your game would also be strong. Anyway, they took that toy away from us, what did they replace it with?

 

[Siptah]

If your builder strategy were strong your game would also be strong. Anyway, they took that toy away from us, what did they replace it with?

Permanent decisions which tiles to improve and work, and a heavy emphasis on specialists.

 

[greenOak]

I don't know if I buy this idea that builder management added strategic depth, after all, wasn't the meta builder strategy basically the same in every single game? Step 1: don't build more than 1 or 2 builders (for critical things only, like luxuries). Step 2: rush feudalism. Step 3: build all your builders in one go and improve your entire empire in the space of a few turns.

I mean most of the game takes place after feudalism. Also this strategy isn't really correct for single player - the feudalism slingshot is strong, but you should be producing more than 1-2 builders early (pre feudalism) in an optimal (fast) playthrough of the game. You want workers for improvement related eureka/inspiration boosts, and chopping settlers, ancestral hall, and any wonders you're going for.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I mean most of the game takes place after feudalism. Also this strategy isn't really correct for single player - the feudalism slingshot is strong, but you should be producing more than 1-2 builders early (pre feudalism) in an optimal playthrough of the game. You want workers for improvement related eureka/inspiration boosts, and chopping settlers, ancestral hall, and any wonders you're going for.

Hm, you don't really need to anything optimally to win in SP, that's why I consider MP to be the better gauge of best strategy.

 

[greenOak]

Hm, you don't really need to anything optimally to win in SP, that's why I consider MP to be the better gauge of best strategy.

In SP you have to challenge yourself with conditions beyond just winning. Usually that means trying to win in as few turns as possible, but you can give yourself plenty of other conditions.

IMO, having discussions about the overall strategy of the game centered around competitve mp is kind of silly because:
1. Far more people play SP than MP
2. By in large, civ 6 competitive MP plays a modded version of the game

Ultimately though MP and SP just have different optimal strategies. Neither is a "better gauge of best strategy" than the other but I'd argue that SP strategy is far more relevant to 99% of the player base.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

In SP you have to challenge yourself with conditions beyond just winning. Usually that means trying to win in as few turns as possible, but you can give yourself plenty of other conditions.

IMO, having discussions about the overall strategy of the game centered around civ 6 competitve mp is kind of silly because:
1. Far more people play SP than MP
2. Competitive MP pretty much exclusively plays a modded version of the game

Ultimately though MP and SP just have different optimal strategies. Neither is a "better gauge of best strategy" than the other.

Ok, fair enough; I don't really disagree. I think it's bit different to the builder discussion though, I suspect the feudalism slingshot is still the best play in most SP games. It's not a hill that I'm willing to die on though, just a feeling based on my own play.

 

[rrreese]

I don't know if I buy this idea that builder management added strategic depth, after all, wasn't the meta builder strategy basically the same in every single game? Step 1: don't build more than 1 or 2 builders (for critical things only, like luxuries). Step 2: rush feudalism. Step 3: build all your builders in one go and improve your entire empire in the space of a few turns.

Spot on. I feel like a lot of mechanics in Civ 6 are like this. There are fairly optimal and fairly suboptimal ways of using the mechanic. Once you know what those are you only do the correct thing. So for experienced players its just another thing you have to do. Its not a deep mechanic that interacts in complex ways with other deep mechanics.

 

[greenOak]

Ok, fair enough; I don't really disagree. I think it's bit different to the builder discussion though, I suspect the feudalism slingshot is still the best play in most SP games. It's not a hill that I'm willing to die on though, just a feeling based on my own play.

Just for the record, you absolutely use the same feudalism slingshot in SP. It's just that should be using far more than 1-2 builders pre feudalism. You don't need to invest nearly as much into military in SP so you can get away with producing more settlers/builders in the early game.

 

[King Flevance]

A few comments regarding multiplayer also suggest that removing workers could be a balancing feature. It is a strong tactic to declare war early just to steal a rival's workers. Even just 1 or 2 can make a big difference in the early game. It not only provides a boon to your economy but can greatly stunt your opponent's. By removing them, your economy will be based solely on your city planning and how you spend your turns improving it. Leveraging "improvements vs buildings/units" could become a new aspect of strategy that replaces "how do I optimize my workers" If you are good but not great - it won't make a huge difference. If you a mediocre and your opponent is great - you are at a disadvantage.

Chops may end up going the way of the dinosaurs but chops were unbalanced and never a deep strategy anyways. It was never viable to save forests, so chopping is the obvious choice by far. So, again, it just becomes how to get the most bang for your buck and optimize what you will get for your 2750 hammers or whatever. One player could spawn in a sea of 50 forest tiles, while another spawns with near 10. That is such a huge advantage that when playing with AI and I am in the weaker position, I take note that the AI doesn't know how to capitalize on their fortune. Imbalance like this can actually remove strategy from a game as you give one side a clear advantage over the other.

Hopefully what its added actually offers good versatility to manage any starting location. I don't like the "mountains =science" type of thing either. I think bonus resources dictate enough map variability to not add in an importance to basic tiles dictated by an RNG. But ultimately all tiles should have some kind of value. Even deserts should be able to offer some way of improving your city even if it isn't as versatile as a grassland.