Yes. Rapa Nui = Easter Island.
---
Hugulkture is great. I have a relative that uses it and it really works.
Is Civ 7 as a strategy game less deep than previous Civs?
- Thread starter Cywil
- Start date
Yes. Rapa Nui = Easter Island.
---
Hugulkture is great. I have a relative that uses it and it really works.
Trengilly
Prince
Old World is the one that's good.
Old World is the reason I haven't actually played Civ, in . . . nearly 5 years!
But I'm super excited about what Firaxis is trying to do with Civ 7 and look forward to getting back into the franchise!
I've never thought of it as a Civ replacement, but it's a great game in its own right.
ggalindo001
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Messages
- 360
It is -- I was hoping that Civ 7 would actually take some cues from OW -- specifically orders, the collateral damage with ballistic units, and the crisp AI.
I'm not big on the narrative events, etc. but it does add a layer of additional strategic depth.
Highly recommend. I need to play it more as it is quite a fun game.
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.
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.
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
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2024
- Messages
- 1,676
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.
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
Chieftain
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.
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
Deity
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
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2024
- Messages
- 1,676
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.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2021
- Messages
- 799
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.
Anyway, deforestation should have more serious effects in Civ.
Disgustipated
Deity
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
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2021
- Messages
- 1,612
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
Which isn’t hard, 6 was as deep as a puddle, which makes the utter fail of the AI even more embarrassing
King Flevance
Deity
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
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2007
- Messages
- 289
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
Idea Fountain
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
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2017
- Messages
- 171
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…..
