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

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Sigh Eh no basis? , this is the first "Civ" game released on all Multi platforms on launch .... Think about it

I thought about it, and I dismissed it entirely.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Reducing micro might actually make the game more demanding.

“Fewer decisions, but each one has more impact” is why I play on tiny maps.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Reducing micro might actually make the game more demanding.

“Fewer decisions, but each one has more impact” is why I play on tiny maps.

If a decision doesn't have a significant consequence or opportunity cost, it shouldn't be part of a strategy game, IMO. I make some room for the "brick by brick" decisions that might have attenuated consequences or only marginal opportunity costs, but it shouldn't ever be a trivial "oh this doesn't matter I just want the UI to stop bugging me about it" decision.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Being available on consoles for cross play says precisely nothing about the underlying complexity of a game.* Console/PC parity has been the norm for quite some time. Many strategy games are available on console without any degradation in design. We're not talking about adapting to the SNES or something.

Wasn't Civ 1 also released on the SNES? I guess they've all been casual games, so problem solved.

I've played as much strategy games on consoles as I have casual games on the PC, so I don't think that's the issue. We live in a world today where most games are expected to release across all platforms, that's all.

 

[Kev1916]

To Quote " Civ 7 will be the most beginner- friendly Civ yet " from the man himself , again nothing wrong with that .

Thou it does add to the statement that " Civ 7 as a SG less deep than previous " .............

​

​

 

[Professor Phobo]

Beginner-friendly and depth are not mutually exclusive! They refer to very different things.

 

[ombak]

To Quote " Civ 7 will be the most beginner- friendly Civ yet " from the man himself , again nothing wrong with that .

Thou it does add to the statement that " Civ 7 as a SG less deep than previous " .............

​

​

Not really. There are plenty of games that are very beginner friendly, but also achieve strategic depth. "Easy to learn, difficult to master" is a common refrain that reflects what a lot of devs aim for in games like this.

 

[Kjimmet]

When CivV came out, didn't people discuss it being dumped down compared to CivIV?

From little we've seen from CivVII so far, it at least looks more complex than CivVI base game. But again we don't know enough to make any conclusive statements. I'd personally revisit this topic once we know more.

 

[Hannibal XIII]

I voted too early to tell but if anything it has more depth for the simple reason that the switching mechanic creates the space for a whole new style of metagaming, with no prior Civ games to draw experience from.

We don't even know which combos are going to be best, what yields to aim for, the best and worst crisis policies....

 

[King of Prussia]

Too early to say. We dont have enough info even on the stuff we know about.

I wouldnt say removing false choices like should i build a mine on a hill 99.99999% of the time a bad thing.

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

To Quote " Civ 7 will be the most beginner- friendly Civ yet " from the man himself , again nothing wrong with that .

Thou it does add to the statement that " Civ 7 as a SG less deep than previous " .............

Well, mabe the base game will be. But just wait for the 1st big expansion, and it will become more... well, you could say "meaty", I think.^^

It has always been that way for the CIV games since at least CIV IV. So if you fear it will be too "easy" at launch, just wait a year or so...

 

[Kev1916]

Well, mabe the base game will be. But just wait for the 1st big expansion, and it will become more... well, you could say "meaty", I think.^^

It has always been that way for the CIV games since at least CIV IV. So if you fear it will be too "easy" at launch, just wait a year or so...

Hope so, but spider sense's say that not the case , everything is smaller in terms of say size of your empire ( bar the cities they look like mountain ranges - and the unit size lol ) number of cities less number of units less number of opponents less

A cap on city limits and a hard re-set on each age/game a map that fills in with time .. hardly fills me with confidence

 

[Gedemon]

everything is smaller in terms of say size of your empire ( bar the cities they look like mountain ranges - and the unit size lol ) number of cities less number of units less number of opponents

is there any official sources ?

 

[Krikkit1]

Do you count bholed's spider sense as an official source?

I'm also still perplexed by the fixation that fewer copies of the same things (units, cities, etc...) is equivalent to a lack of strategic depth.

Fewer copies probably better equates to more strategic depth. Each one is more important, etc. That said I'm changing my vote. Civ in general doesn't have That much Strategic depth, and I doubt they could make Civ 7 less deep than 1-6 (there is strategy there but again not That much)

 

[Cywil]

It's more and more about pride and prejudice

1. Casual players
2. Builders

1. That wasn't about console players. Read my post again, please. That was about casual players, especially casual console players. I understand console players. I'm one of them. I play some games on my PC, some my games on my Nintendo, I'm waiting still for my all games to be on Steam Deck available. I play Civ on my PC because of spreadsheets, for my convenience. I'm a casual player in some genres, e.g. in PUBG and I care there more about my outfit than about my weapons stats and I can't yet to win my first solo chicken dinner because of lack of skills, but I don't even think to call for an egalitaritism

I should be more precise however. By casual players I mean non-strategy-fan players. Anyway, if anyone felt offended by me, I apologize (my English is rather bad, I know).

There is not enough established strategy fan players for Civ 7 to surpass Civ 6 in terms of sales numbers. FXS have to aim for non-strategy-fan players. Some of them may then (sooner or later) find a taste for strategy games. Imagine a teenager who get a Civ 7 as a gift from relatives who choose the very game as an educative one - even if he/she prefers now car races or horror adventures there is a chance for him/her to play Civ 7 and find it cool and even recommend it to his/her friends. And Civ 7 at launch as a base game should be as easy to play as possible and even easy enough to win on lowest difficulty level which is not the case with Civ 5 or Civ 6. Later with expansions and DLCs and pass there will be perfect moments to increase the game's strategy depth by adding more layers to it. Now a visual things are more important. There are 3 no brainers: fix some leaders suboptimal models, change cameras angle when interacting with leaders ("Talk to me!"), rework too gray-ish and too microscopic UI.

About strategy depth - I think that has to be decreased in bas Civ 7 game at its launch = Civ 7 at its launch should be less deep strategically than Civ 6 at its launch. And micromanagement decreasing would be just a part of strategy depth decreasing.

To Quote " Civ 7 will be the most beginner- friendly Civ yet " from the man himself , again nothing wrong with that .

This.

2. I didn't post builders were good. I didn't post builders were bad. I'm neutral towards builders itself as a feature. I think removing builders from base Civ 7 game works well for decreasing both: strategy depth and micromanagement.

I disagree with looking at builders problem only as a micromanagement problem (the case with a lumbermill). It's not just about using builders. It's about producing/training builders and using them. And using them itself could be seen as micromanagement, right. But to have a builder you have to produce/train the unit, wait several turns for it to be produced/trained, delaying production of other important things (a monument, a scout, a slinger etc.) - and that's just strategy, an impactful one. You have to prioritize and at the beginning of the game that's a difficult decision. Later (mid and late game) builders are mostly just a burden, right. Anyway, micromanagement =/= strategy depth. Micromanagement is often part of strategy depth. You can't remove only just micromanagement by removing builders - by removing builders you remove micromanagement and some strategy depth as well. I hope I'm making myself clear here now?

That said I'm changing my vote.

It's good we have this discussion. Changing votes means it's fruitful.

 

[Arent11]

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?

There has been a certain movement to boardgame mechanics in the past few civs. It feels like a lot of puzzle elements are being added while the typical armchair general feeling of civ was dialed back. For example, theming bonuses, adjacency bonuses, always fulfilling the exactly same Eurekas etc. was all really annoying.

I want to land on beaches playing an invasion, play a civ with elite warriors conquering the world, with cool scholars building a rocket or finding the secret of longevity, build impressive wonders that change the game (hunter seeker algorithm style), sail around the world trading tech with remote civs.

I don't want to place some great works in a museum.

So, I'm less concerned about civ being less challenging, but that it might become more and more annoying.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I disagree with looking at builders problem only as a micromanagement problem (the case with a lumbermill). It's not just about using builders. It's about producing/training builders and using them. And using them itself could be seen as micromanagement, right. But to have a builder you have to produce/train the unit, wait several turns for it to be produced/trained, delaying production of other important things (a monument, a scout, a slinger etc.) - and that's just strategy, an impactful one.

It will be interesting to see when and where that kind of strategy is in Civ 7. There's also the strategy (in civ 6 at least) of finding out how to work around some choices. Getting Monumentality and being able to use faith to buy settlers for example.

 

[aieeegrunt]

There has been a certain movement to boardgame mechanics in the past few civs. It feels like a lot of puzzle elements are being added while the typical armchair general feeling of civ was dialed back. For example, theming bonuses, adjacency bonuses, always fulfilling the exactly same Eurekas etc. was all really annoying.

I want to land on beaches playing an invasion, play a civ with elite warriors conquering the world, with cool scholars building a rocket or finding the secret of longevity, build impressive wonders that change the game (hunter seeker algorithm style), sail around the world trading tech with remote civs.

I don't want to place some great works in a museum.

So, I'm less concerned about civ being less challenging, but that it might become more and more annoying.

This is exactly why Civs 1-4 will always be superior experiences to me.

The sheer boardgame minimaxing munchkiness of 5 and 6 constantly takes you out of the experience.

I better tell Magellan to drop anchor and NOT circumnavigate just yet, because this era is about to end and I don’t want to waste era score.

All these freethinking science boosting policy cards slotted right next to fracking SERFDOM. Ya, that’s definitly a possible society.

Better get a flowchart out and spend an hour scheduling when and where that Chop Boosting Govenor moves from city to city

 

[SammyKhalifa]

This is exactly why Civs 1-4 will always be superior experiences to me.

The sheer boardgame minimaxing munchkiness of 5 and 6 constantly takes you out of the experience.

I better tell Magellan to drop anchor and NOT circumnavigate just yet, because this era is about to end and I don’t want to waste era score.

All these freethinking science boosting policy cards slotted right next to fracking SERFDOM. Ya, that’s definitly a possible society.

Better get a flowchart out and spend an hour scheduling when and where that Chop Boosting Govenor moves from city to city

Eh, the prevous games had hammer overflow shenanigans. There's always going to be some kind of minmaxing for people looking for it.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Eh, the prevous games had hammer overflow shenanigans. There's always going to be some kind of minmaxing for people looking for it.

It didn’t complete dominate the game design thougj