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

[Zaarin]

It's really to soon to tell even if some parts that we have seen so far somewhat feels like it.

My biggest problem with Civ 7 so far, if you compare it with other grand strategy games that are in development atm, i don't really know what it brings to the table so i would chose to play this game instead of the other titles.

Take EU5 for example, they add so much new functions micro management ( like some of the economic systems from Vicky, dynasty systems from CK etc ) and they make the game a lot bigger, both in map size and numbers of nations you can play (heck there are more than 350 nations in the HRE alone ) and players seems thrilled about that, meanwhile it somehow feels like Civ7 is shrinking ( but we don't know yet ) because we loose basic civ functions like worker improvements, city management etc.

I mean, Civ has never been a grand strategy game so it's not really a fair comparison.

 

[zaint]

I mean, Civ has never been a grand strategy game so it's not really a fair comparison.

That's true! But they still compete with eachother reg. players who do like strategy games.

I think it's interesting that people doesn't seem to like micro management in a 4x game but in the RTS they seems to want more?

 

[Voidwalkin]

I would note that I think devs frequently underestimate casual players.

Particularly if you've got a franchise. If you've played any past installment, you have at least a baseline level of skill much higher than someone brand new, and presumably, about at least 65, 70% will have played a prior civ version.

At a certain point, if you get too simple, you just bore those players.

New players, brand new ones, do have a remarkable capacity to learn. Too frequently it's believed new or casual means idiot who cannot possibly develop. It's not so. It just means new. Players will rapidly adapt to whatever base difficulty is present.

They could throw more at this player base and it'd be fine.

 

[Zoeff]

From what I've gleaned so far they've made tile improvements a lot simpler but added more complexity elsewhere such as being able to move resources from one city to another much more freely instead of being limited by a trade route limit. Thus giving the opportunity for actual bread basket style valleys to be created rather than needing a good balance of production and food in each individual city.

I like this trade-off because it simplifies something quite drastically without affecting the decision making process *too* much (chopping being the exception) while adding complexity elsewhere in a place that makes sense.

If this example serves as a microcosm of the game as a whole then this is a good improvement imho. That's a big if though since we haven't seen a whole lot of the game so far.

 

[Disgustipated]

I would note that I think devs frequently underestimate casual players.

Particularly if you've got a franchise. If you've played any past installment, you have at least a baseline level of skill much higher than someone brand new, and presumably, about at least 65, 70% will have played a prior civ version.

At a certain point, if you get too simple, you just bore those players.

New players, brand new ones, do have a remarkable capacity to learn. Too frequently it's believed new or casual means idiot who cannot possibly develop. It's not so. It just means new. Players will rapidly adapt to whatever base difficulty is present.

They could throw more at this player base and it'd be fine.

Ideally you can do both. Have a game simple enough that it can be won on the lower difficulty levels by just about anyone, but be complex enough that the game can only be won by learning more complex mechanics on the higher difficulty levels. Civ 4 was like this. Back in those days, I never did learn the best way to run specialists or whipping, and consequently I could never beat the higher difficulty levels. But beating normal difficulty was easy enough just by playing the game how they "expect" you to play it. Back in those days I was less inclined to learn more advanced strategies, where as today I'm more willing to put in the effort. Now for Civ 6, it was quite a bit easier to beat high difficulty levels. Civ6 might have been too dumbed down. And this does worry me for Civ 7.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Ideally you can do both. Have a game simple enough that it can be won on the lower difficulty levels by just about anyone, but be complex enough that the game can only be won by learning more complex mechanics on the higher difficulty levels. Civ 4 was like this. Back in those days, I never did learn the best way to run specialists or whipping, and consequently I could never beat the higher difficulty levels. But beating normal difficulty was easy enough just by playing the game how they "expect" you to play it. Back in those days I was less inclined to learn more advanced strategies, where as today I'm more willing to put in the effort. Now for Civ 6, it was quite a bit easier to beat high difficulty levels. Civ6 might have been too dumbed down. And this does worry me for Civ 7.

At the risk of beating a dead horse here, I really think AI was the main issue.

Strategic depth, to some extent, is determined by player ability relative to competition. MP exists but for 96% of players or higher, that means player ability relative to AI. If the AI was better able to use the mechanics in place, it would have demanded much better play from the player.

In 6, it didn't chop. It didn't use ranged units to the extent it should've. If, on deity, they'd have given it 5 slingers and programmed it to rush them to archers ASAP, given its tech bonuses? It would have been far more formidable probably well into the medieval era. Player would have a far harder time snowballing.

What mechanics in 7 it should exploit aren't clear, obviously, but strategic depth or lack thereof will mostly be a consequence of its ability to use such mechanics well.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I think it was the Rapa Nui people chopping down the forests and then the rats, that they had inadvertently introduced, chewing up the young saplings so the forests couldn't regenerate.

I think this has been debunked. The island was used for sheep farming which killed the trees.

Chopping in civ is odd because I've assumed the extra production yield is from harvesting trees.

 

[Thormodr]

I think this has been debunked. The island was used for sheep farming which killed the trees.

Chopping in civ is odd because I've assumed the extra production yield is from harvesting trees.

Don't think it has been debunked. They are at least partly responsible.

Anyway, rats were the main source of protein for the Rapa Nui natives.

https://legacy.geog.ucsb.edu/the-rats-of-rapa-nui/

Anyway, deforestation should have more serious effects in Civ.

 

[Disgustipated]

Anyway, deforestation should have more serious effects in Civ.

Increased desertification should be one effect. Though it can be argued that not all deforestation leads to desertification. But in game terms, it would lead to interesting decisions. Do you chop for that instant hammer boost knowing an adjacent tile could be turned to desert?

 

[aieeegrunt]

After reading the Mechanics thread I think Civ7 might have much deeper strategy than 6.

Which isn’t hard, 6 was as deep as a puddle, which makes the utter fail of the AI even more embarrassing

 

[King Flevance]

I think if chopping were to remain included, the option of chopping vs. not chopping should be one of weighing long term vs. short term benefits with the same mechanical properties, personally. For example, if you want deforestation to have harsh environmental effects, then keeping forests should also have strong environmental effects. Both of these should set your focus towards a particular strategic path. Environmental stuff, I feel, would lend itself better to game like Beyond Earth rather than Civ for deforestation. I personally like the production angle for civ just because it is just a simple resource exploitation mechanic/strategy. Having chopping effect multiple things makes it harder to balance as you start having to compare apples to cows. I highly doubt we will see chopping in 7 though, so it will be interesting to see a civ title remove this mechanic entirely and see how it is received.

 

[Professor Phobo]

When did chopping get added? Was it IV? I don't remember it in 1-3.

 

[Krikkit1]

When did chopping get added? Was it IV? I don't remember it in 1-3.

I think it was in 1-3 but didn’t give any hammers…it was just a one way food v production trade off. (which seems like a good way to keep it)

 

[Lord Lakely]

Civ 3 had chopping and it gave hammers ( I think 20 per? Scaling down per distance from City Centre). It was not always good to chop in 3 however, because you risk gimping your production if you don't have enough grasslands with shields.

 

[Rajendran_P]

We will get to view the Antiquity Age gameplay on 12 Sep 24. Though it is 1 Age, it may give more in-depth view of Civ 7…..

 

[Playsoneasy]

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.

Why does everything have to be streamlined? I don't want streamlining, I want depth, I want choices.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Why does everything have to be streamlined? I don't want streamlining, I want depth, I want choices.

One of the stated aims is to help the AI, which is surely a good thing.

Besides, I don't think there is necessarily a correlation between depth and complexity. It is possible to reduce tedious micro management but increase the number and significance of choices. With VI, there is a lot of micro but many of these choices are meaningless, I don't think it is particularly deep.

We'll see if they pull it off with VII.

 

[Kev1916]

Why does everything have to be streamlined? I don't want streamlining, I want depth, I want choices.

To me it it will be an illusion , rather than concentrate and fix the AI,. They have dressed up the problem and split the game into three.
Now the ”AI” will play little bit more optimal, with a forced catch up .The game will be easier yea even a Nintendo Switch can run the game engine without getting completely owerworked.
But in general I doubt the AI will be any better than before , the game has just been optimised to be easier to the ”AI”, with shining new meta in a smaller scale less opponents less maps etc

 

[Disgustipated]

To me it it will be an illusion , rather than concentrate and fix the AI,. They have dressed up the problem and split the game into three.
Now the ”AI” will play little bit more optimal, with a forced catch up .The game will be easier yea even a Nintendo Switch can run the game engine without getting completely owerworked.
But in general I doubt the AI will be any better than before , the game has just been optimised to be easier to the ”AI”, with shining new meta in a smaller scale less opponents less maps etc

I'm not expecting much from the AI. But we can be sure of the lands will be improved unlike in Civ 6 where they had issues improving their lands. And we can be sure of we won't be seeing heavy chariots in the modern age. But from what I seen of the live stream when Carl attacked his neighbor, I wasn't impressed. Now keep in mind that was a surprise war, I hate to think the AI would keep an army commander close to the front lines otherwise. But I feel like once we kill those commanders, it will be easy to stomp the AI.

 

[bladex1200]

One of the stated aims is to help the AI, which is surely a good thing.

Besides, I don't think there is necessarily a correlation between depth and complexity. It is possible to reduce tedious micro management but increase the number and significance of choices. With VI, there is a lot of micro but many of these choices are meaningless, I don't think it is particularly deep.

We'll see if they pull it off with VII.

Huge + on this. One reason I feel that VII might "appear" more streamlined is that V and VI started adding a ton of mana to the game - culture policy unlocks, then a separate culture research tree, tourism points and a whole minigame around that with naturalists and great works of art, diplomacy points that you spend at the World Congress - that don't really connect well with each other. The hope with VII making some of these mechanics core to the civ you pick is that you'll do less minigaming and more strategic decision-making where it actually matters.

As for removing workers, the worker minigame was never tactical decision-making, just tactical decision-prolonging. There were optimal worker strategies in 3 and 4 for what improvements to do first, always putting partial turns into building roads to avoid wasting worker moves, only wasting worker turns during anarchy to minimize opportunist cost, when to do pollution cleanup, etc. Removing workers and having improvements directly come from the city might preserve the strategic depth people wanted from workers while reducing the tedious micromanagement of having to manage each worker. I mean, I don't think anyone complained 4 was "less deep" because they got rid of pollution cleanup.