LOW number of civilizations at launch

[Evolena]

Yet the definition of what a Civ is in CIV 7 is well known, unlike how a politician may define poverty (or unemployment rate, that's a very variable definition).
How we feel about the fact is another thing.

 

[BackseatTyrant]

I specifically address this issue (the sort of CIV 7 era-specific shrinkflation) in one of my most recent videos. Link to the short is here:

Link to the full video where I cover other concerning topics about CIV 7 is here:

I can't help but feel the math is a little bit off in this one, and maybe also leaving out some important context, namely that you don't play as the civs; you play as the leaders. I've stated this time and time again, but it has become very clear that FXS never intended the player to envision the nation state as their avatar; you've always played as Gandhi rather than as India

 

[Jeppetto]

What I don't like about it is that it's only factual if we operate on the basis that language trumps reality. They say the things in old games are civilizations, they say the new things are civilizations, if you compare them like for like as the same thing we've got more now. Problem is they aren't the same thing. Functionally they are different, and they shouldn't bear the same name for reasons of comparison.

Yeah they're not the same, they are more detailed and unique now in assets like architecture, they have more unique gameplay. That supports the argument we have more now than ever before.

 

[UWHabs]

I think, as many here, that the number of leaders is quite adequate. My fear is that the leaders will not affect gameplay enough. There isn't a lot differentiating each leader, and the differences will come during the game as you level up your leader, which might in the end turn out too often the same way.

As for the civs, Yes 10 in each age is enough FOR THE PLAYER... and will increase throughout the lifetime of the product, which is perfect. As many have mentioned, the problem is more: Is it enough for THE AI civs, and is seems obvious to me that it's really not, at first, and we will feel we always play against the same civs
for a long while. Again, in time, this will get better as DLC pour in, so all in all I'm quite ok with the numbers for base game... By the time I get to being tired of seeing the same civs as opponents, new ones will have come.

Detaching the leader and the civ means that you don't have quite as much direct interaction of the bonuses. In 6 and earlier, it was easier to take a warmonger leader + a warmonger civ ability to really push a direction. Pushing the leaders a little more generic means we seem to have a less ruthlessly focused leader. And the fact that each age has different focuses, it means we can't have like a "Religious" leader, since they would only get those bonuses in one age.

 

[queenpea]

I can't help but feel the math is a little bit off in this one, and maybe also leaving out some important context, namely that you don't play as the civs; you play as the leaders. I've stated this time and time again, but it has become very clear that FXS never intended the player to envision the nation state as their avatar; you've always played as Gandhi rather than as India

This is untested and extremely debatable.

 

[CivKirk64]

Detaching the leader and the civ means that you don't have quite as much direct interaction of the bonuses. In 6 and earlier, it was easier to take a warmonger leader + a warmonger civ ability to really push a direction. Pushing the leaders a little more generic means we seem to have a less ruthlessly focused leader. And the fact that each age has different focuses, it means we can't have like a "Religious" leader, since they would only get those bonuses in one age.

Edit: Ok reading comprehension on this particular post, I understand, now that leaders are detached, their abilities aren't designed to particularly synergize directly. It does feel like there is some extra compatibility with their closest tied civs.
The remainder of the comment pertains to other strange (to me ) arguments regarding immersion

Otherwise: I really don't understand what is being argued in this thread. You play as both the leaders and all 3 civs you select, you have the choice to interact with all their bonuses and features.

Nothing prevents any feature from being implemented going forward. You can still have a religious leader, just their bonus is best utilized in exploration, just like before, there were certain civs and leaders best suited for different aspects of the game.
Someone make these strange arguments make sense to me, they seem syntactically nitpicky at best and without merit at worst.

 

[Archanist]

I don’t see any reason why a future leader won’t have age specific mechanics. I think they’re avoiding it for the base leaders to make it easier to balance

 

[Krikkit1]

I don’t see any reason why a future leader won’t have age specific mechanics. I think they’re avoiding it for the base leaders to make it easier to balance

I think Leader bonuses may have parts that only apply in certain ages (Isabella distant land bonus), so a religious leader may have a benefit (probably a benefit tha boost pantheon and keeps religion active in later ages)

 

[Siptah]

(Isabella distant land bonus)

Do we actually know the numbers for this one? It may just be comparable to the other + x per age bonuses (as the bonus applies to ages 2 and 3).

On age-specific bonuses for leaders, I could see a front loaded leader at some point that gives you a head start but doesn't really help much later on, e.g., Imhotep getting a free codex with each completed wonder.

For specifically religious leaders, I think that can be covered well with legendary attributes and doesn't need leaders that have age-restrained bonuses. The legendary attributes seem to be unique per leader, and they apply for one age. So, someone like Savonarola, Milarepa, Martin Luther, or Abu Bakr can choose their legendary attribute in age 2 to gain a unique religious bonus. It doesn't need to be their usual game-long unique ability.

 

[Potworny]

I have been playing Kerbal Space Program lately, and it occured to me that Firaxis and other studios may have very well been hit with similar, though lighter, treatment by 2K as Private Division who were working on the sequel to KSP (and got dismantled because development was too slow). I feel like the decision to ship a base game with 10 civs per era, probably without Britain, without contemporary era and with THOSE CITY BANNERS AUGHHH (at least I hope this isn't how they're supposed to look) was born of necessity, not by design. For example, I doubt that Napoleon being cut out from the base-base game was the devs idea.

Spoiler :

I worry that the devs may have faced difficulties caused by the publisher, and some of our qualms about the game stem from unrealistic time constraints if nothing else.View attachment 713013

 

[j51]

I have been playing Kerbal Space Program lately, and it occured to me that Firaxis and other studios may have very well been hit with similar, though lighter, treatment by 2K as Private Division who were working on the sequel to KSP (and got dismantled because development was too slow). I feel like the decision to ship a base game with 10 civs per era, probably without Britain, without contemporary era and with THOSE CITY BANNERS AUGHHH (at least I hope this isn't how they're supposed to look) was born of necessity, not by design. For example, I doubt that Napoleon

Spoiler :

View attachment 713020

I worry that the devs may have faced difficulties caused by the publisher, and some of our qualms about the game stem from unrealistic time constraints if nothing else.View attachment 713013

It could be. That kind of pressure has been happening a lot in the software world the past few years.

 

[evonannoredars]

you don't play as the civs; you play as the leaders

agreed, the fact that diplomacy now involves the other leader looking at the leader youre playing as instead of out of the screen towards the player is imo likely a v deliberate choice to reinforce that in civ 7

 

[Linklite]

The issue is how much difference past incarnations makes on the present - in how it feels rather than in numbers. Like, how much different will the French civ feel that evolved from Celts to the French civ that evolved from Romans? If there's not much difference at all, then really it's only 10 civs. If it's massively different, then it'll be like 10x10x10 or 1,000 civs to start with.

I imagine that it will be closer to the former than the latter. Much closer. I think it will be a lot more like the equivalent of 15. However, until we play it, we can't know, because even the facts won't tell us anything solid. Unfortunately, it'll be subjective - so those who think Firaxis is awesome and can do no wrong will argue the 1,000 number, while the "I hate Civ VII!" crowd will not budge above 10, and there's no way to objectively assess that.

I agree with a post by Eagle Pursuit earlier - it'll be plenty for the player to play and not get bored. The issue will be the AIs you're playing with - any given game will have 50% of the same civs playing as any other game. That will start being repetitive pretty quickly, if you feel that variety in competitors is important.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

The issue is how much difference past incarnations makes on the present - in how it feels rather than in numbers. Like, how much different will the French civ feel that evolved from Celts to the French civ that evolved from Romans? If there's not much difference at all, then really it's only 10 civs. If it's massively different, then it'll be like 10x10x10 or 1,000 civs to start with.

I think there are some Civs that will have more of an effect than others. Roman Forums giving you yields from Traditions for the whole game, Khmer leaving you with a strong capital with extra Specialists, etc. are going to be a have a lasting effect on your gameplan. Civs with spammable Unique Tile Improvements are also going to be have evidence visible everywhere.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think there are some Civs that will have more of an effect than others. Roman Forums giving you yields from Traditions for the whole game, Khmer leaving you with a strong capital with extra Specialists, etc. are going to be a have a lasting effect on your gameplan. Civs with spammable Unique Tile Improvements are also going to be have evidence visible everywhere.

The effects of your previous civs:

Visual only:
City names
Some city graphics

Visual and gameplay:
Unique Infrastructure (both Improvements and Buildings)
*Wonders* (only partially connected to civ)

Mostly gameplay (tiny bit of visual):
Traditions

 

[Nic@Melbourne]

I don’t see any reason why a future leader won’t have age specific mechanics. I think they’re avoiding it for the base leaders to make it easier to balance

Isn’t that the point of the Civs; to be age specific.
Leaders need to play the whole game, even if they have an edge in a certain era. Like Isabella’s cheaper navel supporting exploration age.

 

[Isengardtom]

The number of leaders is good, in my opinion, but the number of civs is barely adequate. It's a good thing that Crossroads of the World will add 4 civs by the end of March and Right to Rule will add 4 more by the end of September.

These DLC’s will each add 4 civs total or 4 per age?
In case of 4 total : Do we know which ages they will be linked to ?

Assuming 4 total : I hope the first one is 2 - 1 - 1 with 2 Antiquity and 1 - 2 - 1 for the second one with 2 Exploration

 

[Siptah]

These DLC’s will each add 4 civs total or 4 per age?
In case of 4 total : Do we know which ages they will be linked to ?

Assuming 4 total : I hope the first one is 2 - 1 - 1 with 2 Antiquity and 1 - 2 - 1 for the second one with 2 Exploration

I assume 2-1-1 and 1-1-2. together with the Shawnee, that‘s 13 per age.

 

[aieeegrunt]

To me, the issue isn't that there are only 10 Civs per Age. Its the entire Civ swapping and progression that puts me totally off. Worse is the seemingly random assignment of leaders to Civs. Benjamin Franklin leading Songhai? Just stupid

Harriet Tubman as a leader plus not having either Britain or Germany in the game to start is the final nail in the coffin for me. Just to head off the Go To Logical Fallacy Apologism, I’m not expecting Civ to be some sort of hyper realistic similation, but it should at least somewhat feel like it’s inspired by history.

This is like saying Candy Crush is a cooking game.

It’s too bad, I was looking forward to many of the new mechanics but immersion also counts, and this game seems determined to throw that under the bus for gimmicks and inclusivity.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

but it should at least somewhat feel like it’s inspired by history.

The American Revolution seen by many at the time to be fought to prevent the enslavement of the colonies by the British. This exactly what Harriet Tubman, a real person, represents. I don't blame people who are not from the USA from not understanding this, but it's true. A large number of Americans as well don't know our history either.