Just wrote worst review of the decade

[Lord Lakely]

Some people need to grow the heck up.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I don't think having a "direct descendant" progression for every Civ would have been a good option. I'd rather have them design a variety of Civs that players will find interesting, rather than force them to find a direct descendant and/or ancestor for every one of them.

Also, the ageless-leaders-as-board-game-opponents is just a core feature of the series;

and so were Civilizations being fixed and played for the entire game where you built a singular empire to span all of time

and yet here we are....

 

[bladex1200]

Also, the ageless-leaders-as-board-game-opponents is just a core feature of the series; I disagree with the idea that Civ has ever been anything other than a history-inspired electronic board game.

I agree with the rest of your post but disagree pretty hard with this. The fact the community has heavily modded earlier civ games for perceived realism and adding more fluff units and so on to flesh out periods of history with more units and unique ethnic skins and etc shows that people care a lot about the perception of the game as being "truly" historical, even if at it's core it never was. The idea that everyone's always read it as a "history-inspired board game" is a little reductive and I was just posting the other day about how I and many others (perhaps we'd be considered casuals in the community for not being driven mostly by mechanics) found the board-gameiness of Civ 6's victory conditions to be somewhat of a turn-off.

 

[bladex1200]

It's for that exact reason of historicity though that I much appreciate the age transitioning mechanic - even if there's serious problems with filling in the transition roster to allow for immersive transitions - because to me it always felt like the eternal civilization was one of the big problems with historicity that these games had.

For that reason some of my favorite Civ 3 and 4 mods include Caveman2Cosmos (which literally restricts all civ uniques based on specific resources and time period, requiring you to "build" a culture when it would've historically unlocked and treating your core civilization choice as just being name aesthetics and a blank-slate otherwises) and Civ3Worldwide which featured different civ names + leader art for each era to give the window-dressing of transitions rather than just having all civilizations be eternal for all time.

 

[misesfan]

and so were Civilizations being fixed and played for the entire game where you built a singular empire to span all of time

and yet here we are....

Exactly - Assuming they have to choose between changing Civs or changing leaders to shake things up - I think that changing leaders would be logical in a game called Civilization.

 

[pmarc]

I agree with the rest of your post but disagree pretty hard with this. The fact the community has heavily modded earlier civ games for perceived realism and adding more fluff units and so on to flesh out periods of history with more units and unique ethnic skins and etc shows that people care a lot about the perception of the game as being "truly" historical, even if at it's core it never was. The idea that everyone's always read it as a "history-inspired board game" is a little reductive and I was just posting the other day about how I and many others (perhaps we'd be considered casuals in the community for not being driven mostly by mechanics) found the board-gameiness of Civ 6's victory conditions to be somewhat of a turn-off.

Maybe I misspoke a bit. I didn't mean immersion was not important, and for me the board-gaminess is not necessarily anti-immersion. Again, I think Old World does very well in terms of having a very transparent "board game" approach to the mechanics, with the technology deck, victory points, etc., yet manages to be very immersive with the art and writing.

 

[TheGrayFox]

It's for that exact reason of historicity though that I much appreciate the age transitioning mechanic - even if there's serious problems with filling in the transition roster to allow for immersive transitions - because to me it always felt like the eternal civilization was one of the big problems with historicity that these games had.

For that reason some of my favorite Civ 3 and 4 mods include Caveman2Cosmos (which literally restricts all civ uniques based on specific resources and time period, requiring you to "build" a culture when it would've historically unlocked and treating your core civilization choice as just being name aesthetics and a blank-slate otherwises) and Civ3Worldwide which featured different civ names + leader art for each era to give the window-dressing of transitions rather than just having all civilizations be eternal for all time.

Civilization is not a history simultor. The series is built on building a singular empire to span all of time. That ahistoricity is what makes the series. That's the disconnect here, many of the people complaining about civilization swapping being goofy and ahistorical as designed still want to take their Romans to space. We just weren't asking for Ben Franklin to lead the Greeks who change into Mongols because the round ended.

 

[Civinator]

For that reason some of my favorite Civ 3 and 4 mods include Caveman2Cosmos (which literally restricts all civ uniques based on specific resources and time period, requiring you to "build" a culture when it would've historically unlocked and treating your core civilization choice as just being name aesthetics and a blank-slate otherwises) and Civ3Worldwide which featured different civ names + leader art for each era to give the window-dressing of transitions rather than just having all civilizations be eternal for all time.

Only a small correction: The Civ 3 mod is CCM3 (former CCM, CCM 2 and CCM 2.5), but the creator of Civ 3 Worldwide was among the betatesters of CCM 2.

 

[bladex1200]

Only a small correction: The Civ 3 mod is CCM3 (former CCM, CCM 2 and CCM 2.5), but the creator of Civ 3 Worldwide was among the betatesters of CCM 2.

Ah my bad on mis-attributing, I play both CCM and Civ3Worldwide so they blend together in my mind sometimes, I know you're active in the Civ3 forum (hello, by the way!) so figures you'd know better than me.

Nevertheless I do think the fact that CCM and Caveman2Cosmos have devoted followings and use era-specific unlocks/naming conventions for civs does speak to the fact that a civ-transitioning/modification mechanic is actually not outside the realm of Civ player's imaginations, they just don't like how Firaxis implemented it. And TBH given how much content is missing, I agree that the implementation for now leaves something to be desired. But it's not fundamentally a bad design choice.

 

[pmarc]

and so were Civilizations being fixed and played for the entire game where you built a singular empire to span all of time

and yet here we are....

Doesn't the player still leads a continuous empire, but it changes "Civ" because "civilization" refers more to the culture than to the political entity in this version of the game?

I also agree that the breaks between ages are not elegant, but from the moment they decided to address the "early snowballing makes late game choices less interesting / relevant" problem, it was probably going to involve some kind of break.

Some mods have addressed this differently, like the Rhye's and Fall mod in previous versions would make old empires eventually collapse... but I suspect such a mechanic would also lead to a lot of frustration from the player base if it was in the base game rather than a mod, and it also interferes with those who want to continually progress a single Civ through all of history.

 

[misesfan]

One thing I havent seen commented on that is missing with civ switching - unique buildings and units. I think that UB's and UU's from past civilization titles almost gave more personality to the game than the leaders. Admittedly some late game UU's were underwhelming but it still gave the side you are playing personality.

 

[Zaarin]

One thing I havent seen commented on that is missing with civ switching - unique buildings and units. I think that UB's and UU's from past civilization titles almost gave more personality to the game than the leaders. Admittedly some late game UU's were underwhelming but it still gave the side you are playing personality.

It's not missing, though? Civ7 civs have more uniques than in any prior game, with a unique civics tree on top of it all. I agree that I've enjoyed seeing each game increase how unique each faction is, but that trend increased not decreased in Civ7. I've even used my unique units for a change in Civ7, which I rarely did in previous games because their window of relevance was usually so brief.

 

[bladex1200]

One thing I havent seen commented on that is missing with civ switching - unique buildings and units. I think that UB's and UU's from past civilization titles almost gave more personality to the game than the leaders. Admittedly some late game UU's were underwhelming but it still gave the side you are playing personality.

But this game has UUs and UBs for each civ, actually in this game it's a lot easier to balance UUs since they won't be eternal (so even if they're strong as hell, you will lose them after the age transition) and the UBs still function as they do in base Civ in that most if not all are ageless so as long as you build them in your existing towns and cities, you'll continue to get their output as the game goes on. If anything getting access to more relevant UUs per age and getting more UB options total in a single game allows for more flexibility.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Doesn't the player still leads a continuous empire, but it changes "Civ" because "civilization" refers more to the culture than to the political entity in this version of the game?

No they don't because at the end of the game round their relationships are literally reset, their cities are removed/demoted, and units disappear to faciilitate the abrasive change to a completely different era with an often unrelated Civilization

The narrative and intent behind civ swapping and eras is very clear. A new group of people are building on top of the ruins of your old empire and what used to be "Civilization" has now become "Leader™"

I also agree that the breaks between ages are not elegant, but from the moment they decided to address the "early snowballing makes late game choices less interesting / relevant" problem, it was probably going to involve some kind of break. Some mods have addressed this different, like the Rhye's and Fall mod in previous versions would make old empires eventually collapse... I suspect that would not please players who want to progress their Civ through all of history either.

But they didn't have to. I'd say Rhye's would be a terrible model for a base Civ game but there were tons of other mods that addressed snowballing and late game fatigue that were no where near as heavy handed as what we got in VII. If they wanted to actually address snowballing and make late game interesting they should've looked at Vox populi's AI which remains competitive throughout the entire game or the Revolutions mod from IV for its well designed/fun internal empire management meant to slow down/impede rapid expansion. What Firaxis designed was not the only way of addressing their stated gameplay concerns

 

[misesfan]

It's not missing, though? Civ7 civs have more uniques than in any prior game, with a unique civics tree on top of it all. I agree that I've enjoyed seeing each game increase how unique each faction is, but that trend increased not decreased in Civ7. I've even used my unique units for a change in Civ7, which I rarely did in previous games because their window of relevance was usually so brief.

Thats true, and its probably just my jaundiced view of things - but I prefer the unique per civ throughout the game. The German Hansa is unique to one civ only, for example. But you make a good point.

 

[Zaarin]

No they don't because at the end of the game round their relationships are literally reset

This is not true. Wars and alliances are terminated and relationships are slightly adjusted towards neutral, but leaders who disliked/liked you in one age will continue to dislike/like you in the next. You don't get a clean slate in the next age, just open diplomatic options.

 

[bladex1200]

No they don't because at the end of the game round their relationships are literally reset, their cities are removed/demoted, and units disappear to faciilitate the abrasive change to a completely different era with an often unrelated Civilization

The narrative and intent behind civ swapping and eras is very clear. A new group of people are building on top of the ruins of your old empire and what used to be "Civilization" has now become "Leader™"

I think you're being a little hyperbolic with the bolded text. Empires go through periods of growth and stagnation, that's a staple in actual history and in many grand strategy games. Actually I would argue that it's less a new group of people building on the ruins of your old empire and more a renewal of national spirit occurring through a new national direction (a new culture with new bonuses and civics) that builds on the stagnation of the earlier period after its crisis. To me it's actually very thematic in principle (after a severe crisis, a civilization would be left weakened and recovering, represented by the interim period where your army shrinks and yields decay), it just doesn't work as well because of the lack of immersive transitions for all the available civs.

But they didn't have to. I'd say Rhye's would be a terrible model for a base Civ game but there were tons of other mods that addressed snowballing and late game fatigue that were no where near as heavy handed as what we got in VII. If they wanted to actually address snowballing and make late game interesting they should've looked at Vox populi's AI which remains competitive throughout the entire game or the Revolutions mod from IV for its well designed/fun internal empire management meant to slow down/impede rapid expansion

Vox Populi's AI mod doesn't actually eliminate snowballing as a problem, it just makes it harder for the player to actually snowball. If an AI begins snowballing the chance of recovery from the player's side is just as hopeless due to a lack of rubber-banding or soft reset allowing whomever is snowballing to run away with science yields and leapfrog past the military competition.

The Revolutions mod from IV is actually well-designed, agreed, and IMO if they weren't going to have age-specific objectives then that would have been the correct way to limit snowballing. But IMO age-specific objectives are actually great for focusing gameplay and inciting conflict, so in my view either design would have been appropriate.

 

[TheGrayFox]

This is not true. Wars and alliances are terminated and relationships are slightly adjusted towards neutral, but leaders who disliked/liked you in one age will continue to dislike/like you in the next. You don't get a clean slate in the next age, just open diplomatic options.

You don't get a completely clean slate but your relations are adjusted back towards neutral and wars and alliances are terminated and relations with city states disappear. That's a rather hard reset for this series no matter how you slice it. I wouldn't consider that Diplomatic options being opened, I'd consider that a reset brought about by being a new civ in a new era. Which is exactly what is happening thematically.

Again not building a singular empire to span the test of time.

 

[bladex1200]

This is not true. Wars and alliances are terminated and relationships are slightly adjusted towards neutral, but leaders who disliked/liked you in one age will continue to dislike/like you in the next. You don't get a clean slate in the next age, just open diplomatic options.

Terminating wars is a bit of a problem as it allows for gameified "I'm gonna mess you up" behavior right before ages end and then gives you time to recover before the enemy can punish you in the next age since their army locations will be reset and they'll need to have enough influence to declare war on you again before they can start fighting you. And since non-army units get eliminated past a certain number and army units get auto-upgraded to their tier-1 counterparts in the next age, you'll likely be on even footing with your opponent even if they would've womped you in the prior age had it gone on longer.

But agreed that relationships don't just reset between ages. Pachacuti hated me in Antiquity and when the Exploration age began he immediately still hated me.

 

[Zaarin]

You don't get a completely clean slate but your relations are adjusted back towards neutral and wars and alliances are terminated and relations with city states disappear. That's a rather hard reset for this series no matter how you slice it. I wouldn't consider that Diplomatic options being opened, I'd consider that a reset brought about by being a new civ in a new era. Which is exactly what is happening thematically.

Again not building a singular empire to span the test of time.

It doesn't feel much different from prior games. I've been allied with Ashoka since Antiquity. Tecumseh and Xerxes declare war on me at least once an age despite trying to improve relationships. I'm just not bound to an alliance that may not suit my new objectives in the new age (same as an alliance expiring in previous games, really).

Terminating wars is a bit of a problem as it allows for gameified "I'm gonna mess you up" behavior right before ages end and then gives you time to recover before the enemy can punish you in the next age since their army locations will be reset and they'll need to have enough influence to declare war on you again before they can start fighting you. And since non-army units get eliminated past a certain number and army units get auto-upgraded to their tier-1 counterparts in the next age, you'll likely be on even footing with your opponent even if they would've womped you in the prior age had it gone on longer.

I agree, I can see how this could be a problem, though it hasn't affected me yet.