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

[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.

 

[Olleus]

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.

But skill =/= strategy. There's a lot of skill in Super Mario, but I wouldn't say it was a game famed for its deep strategic layers.

 

[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.

 

[Olleus]

Anyway, they took that toy away from us, what did they replace it with?

Have you had a look at the features list? I'd say that splitting cities into towns and cities, along with rural districts, will be a fundamentally different way that we interact with the map to develop out economy. One focussed on a moderate number of moderately impactful decisions, without lots and lots of clicking to implement what we've already decided. Besides, I don't think the best playground (or most strategic one) is the one with the most toys. A few excellent toys > many good toys.

 

[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.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I would be very very glad to see chops gone. It was always a broken mechanic

 

[Vizkan]

I quite enjoy civ 6 builders, even more once you get into the midgame and start researching technologies like apprenticeship that buff your tile improvements. Seeing the yields of a tile jump when you place an improvement is very satisfying, especially if one of the yields gets up to 5 and the icon changes to one big one instead of a bunch of smaller ones.

However, I'm not too concerned about builders as a unit being gone in civ 7. The new system of population growth improving your tiles looks pretty interesting. Since adding an improvement via population growth seems to culture bomb adjacent tiles, there should be times where tile A would be better to improve individually than tile B, but tile B gets you more or better additional tiles. I think this will be the substitute for deciding which tiles are the highest priority to improve and what the most efficient movement pattern is in the civ 6 builder system. And I agree with previous posts that this is the only place there's any real strategy in the civ 6 system, once you get your builder to a particular tile there is only one improvement that's even possible to build in the vast majority of cases.

 

[Licentia]

Hopefully, it's less complex than 6. The complexity of 5 was sufficient for my tastes.

 

[GeneralZIft]

I would be very very glad to see chops gone. It was always a broken mechanic

Maybe it will come back in future ages, as large scale deforestation for example, makes sense as part of that industrial revolution, global warming type triangle.
I.e. once you unlock a particular tech you can permanently remove a feature for production boost but it makes people unhappy and produces greenhouse gases and such

 

[aieeegrunt]

Maybe it will come back in future ages, as large scale deforestation for example, makes sense as part of that industrial revolution, global warming type triangle.
I.e. once you unlock a particular tech you can permanently remove a feature for production boost but it makes people unhappy and produces greenhouse gases and such

Then it needs to be balanced better, both for gameplay AND historical flavour

Managing a resource sustainably is far far more productive over any term longer than “next fiscal quarter”.

 

[Krikkit1]

Maybe it will come back in future ages, as large scale deforestation for example, makes sense as part of that industrial revolution, global warming type triangle.
I.e. once you unlock a particular tech you can permanently remove a feature for production boost but it makes people unhappy and produces greenhouse gases and such

I think it wouldn’t be a production boost, it should just remove the Forest and replace it with Farms/Mines.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I think it wouldn’t be a production boost, it should just remove the Forest and replace it with Farms/Mines.

A small production boost, maybe twice what that forest plus a sawmill gives you over time, that comes with major ecological impact, like a -1 food to all adjacent tiles

The classics example is Easter Island chopping it’s forests to rush a monument, and then starving to death.