New Civ 7 logo found via Steam

[pokiehl]

True of course. I just think that if civ7 is designed around that principle, it could be really interesting. I could see the devs doing some cool stuff around that concept of a beginning, middle and end in a typical civ game.

A big problem with 4x games is that the beginning is always much more fun than the middle and end. You’re right, in that renewed focus on keeping the game lively and shaken up towards the middle and end could help solve the issue of the beginning being the best.

 

[UWHabs]

They literally did fit 7 icons comfortably though

The point is they decided to show what they showed for a reason. Logos are meant to convey something, not just look pretty. It’s totally fair to debate what that meaning is.

Yeah, it would be slightly weird to have those icons represent 3 eras if the game was divided into like 6 distinct eras. Similarly, if the 4 icons around the middle are victory types, it would be weird to only show 4 on the list while omitting one or two others. Or, if you were going to omit a victory type because you liked having 4 show up, having the symbol for a "time" victory, if that's what that one icon means, is a very weird one to include, given that among civ fanatics I think that's probably the least exciting/interesting one.

Now, that being said, I could see a case being made where if you had those 4 victory types, including only 3 symbols to represent the major eras of the game gives you 7 total icons around the game. So if those era icons don't truly mean anything game-play-related, sure, I could give you that.

A for other wild speculations, if the medicine symbol is actually a medicine symbol and a victory type, I wonder slightly if they have decided to forego the space victory, and opt for like a Cure for Cancer/Immortality as like the new science victory type. It would be a big change thematically as that's been a staple of all civ games, but not completely unprecedented, as it could end up similar to the Ascend to Transcendence from Alpha Centauri. You could still have spaceports and satellites act for both military and civilian functions, if you don't want to get rid of the space part of the game entirely.

 

[Krajzen]

They certainly didn't abandon space travel victory because space rocket is launching at the end of the trailer, it's too iconic.

But I would enjoy science victory having several alternate... paths? Projects?
1) Manned travel to Mars (I don't like further journeys in this context, they feel too outlandish - and look at us, at this point it is still science fiction in 2024!)
2) Theory of everything (quantum mech and gravity) with help of particle collider
3) Something involving artificial intelligence
4) Something biological (but no immortality, again - too far out)
5) Dealing with the climate change

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

A for other wild speculations, if the medicine symbol is actually a medicine symbol and a victory type, I wonder slightly if they have decided to forego the space victory, and opt for like a Cure for Cancer/Immortality as like the new science victory type. It would be a big change thematically as that's been a staple of all civ games, but not completely unprecedented, as it could end up similar to the Ascend to Transcendence from Alpha Centauri. You could still have spaceports and satellites act for both military and civilian functions, if you don't want to get rid of the space part of the game entirely.

I'd point to probably religious victory sitting out. At least there are more signs toward a space race in the logo than anything religious.

Others have mentioned that the symbol is the Caduceus staff, which could also apply commerce, and possibly an economic victory instead. I still haven't made out what the top right one is though, even though I believe that's the science one.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'd point to probably religious victory sitting out. At least there are more signs toward a space race in the logo than anything religious.
Others have mentioned that the symbol is the Caduceus staff, which could also apply commerce, and an economic victory instead.

Precisely. The religious victory was unloved, and the diplomatic victory is usually an expansion add-on.

That leaves the big three - science, culture, and domination - which happen to be represented by the other three inner hexes. So, why not replace the unloved religious victory with an economic one?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Precisely. The religious victory was unloved, and the diplomatic victory is usually an expansion add-on.

That leaves the big three - science, culture, and domination - which happen to be represented by the other three inner hexes. So, why not replace the unloved religious victory with an economic one?

I'm also hoping this means they implement corporations in the base game.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I'm also hoping this means they implement corporations in the base game.

Yes, I'm hoping for a better integration of the monopolies and corporations mode that coordinates with an economic victory, and civs that have bonuses related to it.

 

[ls612]

A big problem with 4x games is that the beginning is always much more fun than the middle and end. You’re right, in that renewed focus on keeping the game lively and shaken up towards the middle and end could help solve the issue of the beginning being the best.

Stellaris does this well by having various mechanics that only trigger after the first century or the second century of the game, like the endgame crisis or war in heaven.

 

[Xandinho]

Precisely. The religious victory was unloved, and the diplomatic victory is usually an expansion add-on.

That leaves the big three - science, culture, and domination - which happen to be represented by the other three inner hexes. So, why not replace the unloved religious victory with an economic one?

I confess that an economic victory excites me much more than a religious victory, but still, they can remodel the religious victory into something better than it is in Civ6, including syncretisms and reforms to the game. In any case, I hope that religion will still play a very important role, even if there is no specific victory for it.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

I confess that an economic victory excites me much more than a religious victory, but still, they can remodel the religious victory into something better than it is in Civ6, including syncretisms and reforms to the game. In any case, I hope that religion will still play a very important role, even if there is no specific victory for it.

I wholly agree that religion should play a huge role for bonuses and *can* help in any victory...but the religious victory of Civ VI is downright the wrong way to take it. I've put ~2k hours into VI and have never wanted to play RV.

I'll confess that I liked the way religion worked in V a lot better. Like I would get PISSED if any of my coastal cities lost their fishing boat production bonus or if my desert cities lost the +1 faith...nevermind when more impactful religion bonuses like production or food growth got into the picture. Stuff like that could easily influence some of my games; particularly if a player/AI was particularly wanted to prostylize. That light touch that allowed for bounses was all the game needed...the complexity in terms of converting cities for a RV just isn't nearly as fun or interesting.

An economic victory is kinda meh to me. If they want to give it a try sure but I'm not getting my hopes up. Idk I would rather have systems that converge on each other to move you towards the victory be more important than the type of victory themselves. Instead of "do x to get an economic victory" make controlling strategic areas/trade routes etc. give you massive science and/or culture bonuses. And FOR SURE make keeping a stable income more crucial. In Civ V I felt like I was often running just in the positive gold-wise to keep things moving along while in VI I never have to worry about money. Hell, what are even the negative consequences of being in the negative? Hopefully Civ VII prioritizes international trade and generating income...this is kinda unrelated but the fact that generating gold was so easy to do by yourself in VI made me less likely to explore the world or interact with neighbors in the midgame. That, along with the debuffs to coastal play really made the isolationist agenda super viable which was more boring IMO.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

Stellaris does this well by having various mechanics that only trigger after the first century or the second century of the game, like the endgame crisis or war in heaven.

It is a problem but civ was always different (At least in IV and V) since in the midgame, the world opened up so much more! There were more players, more continents (usually), and just more to see and do beyond chugging along. Places to build new cities (Cities that would actually be useful in some capacity/ wouldn't take a million years to grow+develop), international trade missions, diplomatic maneuverings, and places to conquer were what moved the game forward despite the midgame's admitted lack of true structural change.

This is a controversial opinion but I REALLY think that some kind of late-game ideology sytstem needs to be a lot more impactful. Like loyalty was for Vi's early game, I thin picking either an economic system or late-game government should somhow FORCE international conflict in the late game. Idk about you but I always remember+enjoy the games that have late-game wars that actually get to use the cool weapons developed in the industrial era+beyond...Civ VI had a bunch of ways to keep things peaceful and still move forward but nothing to really make you clash with neighbors. I think that if players knew there would be an inevitable "late game" world war of sorts between different ideologies/ strategies that could move players to want to see things through. Because in VI unless I'm specifically going for a DV, I basically never want to fight anyone in the late game...there are more important matters. The AI seems to be programmed similarly. And while I see the need for other things to take center stage in the late game...conflict and rewards-whether you have a lot to gain or a lot to lose-are fun and interesting! Anyways just my 2 cents.

 

[Zaarin]

I wholly agree that religion should play a huge role for bonuses and *can* help in any victory...but the religious victory of Civ VI is downright the wrong way to take it.

I 100% agree with this. Religion should contribute to other victory paths; Religious Victory was a mistake.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I 100% agree with this. Religion should contribute to other victory paths; Religious Victory was a mistake.

It would have been fine if the game ended about 1600 CE. Since then, religion has become less characteristic of human society rather than more, to the point where a 'religious victory' in the 21st century would realistically have to be defined as everything the religion was Against and be largely in oppostion to every other trend in human civilization. I've always felt that pursuing a Religious Victory in or after the Industrial Era was largely Fantasy . . .

On the other hand, as they are defined most of the other Victory Conditions are also Fantasy:
* No one has ever come even close to conquering the world at any time in history.
* - Or getting the majority of the world's governments to agree on anything other than how annoying they find you and your government.
* Getting a dozen people off the planet will not save the race from planetary disaster.
* Wearing your Jeans does not make people follow you in anything else, it just gives them sturdy pants to wear when they come after you with suicide bombs or automatic weapons.

 

[Zaarin]

It would have been fine if the game ended about 1600 CE. Since then, religion has become less characteristic of human society rather than more, to the point where a 'religious victory' in the 21st century would realistically have to be defined as everything the religion was Against and be largely in oppostion to every other trend in human civilization. I've always felt that pursuing a Religious Victory in or after the Industrial Era was largely Fantasy . . .

I don't entirely agree with this, but if we reframe it as religion has become increasingly privatized and democratic since the 17th century then I agree. My issue with RV is that it's not fun, it makes the religion game overall less fun and more gamey, and it mischaracterizes religion--even evangelical universal religions like Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism.

* Wearing your Jeans does not make people follow you in anything else, it just gives them sturdy pants to wear when they come after you with suicide bombs or automatic weapons.

Of all victories, I'd say CV has the most basis in reality. If we play on a Mediterranean map, I'd argue Persia won a Culture Victory in the Middle Ages. China definitely won a Culture Victory in East Asia much earlier than that. And the US is about as close to winning a global Culture Victory as any civilization ever has been. But that doesn't really get you anything. E.g., the Ottomans were wearing the Persian's shalwars and listening to their maqams but were also in a near-constant state of war with Persia.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I know this goes against it being a "game" but victories have always been kind of secondary to me: nobody actually wins real life, after all. But the game has to conclude somehow. This will be met with boos probably but the only real victory that would make any kind of sense would be some kind of aggregate "greatness" count that considers all of a Civ's contributions/infamy, etc.

 

[pdome01]

You think there’s a possibility they could give some ships ranged combat, like they did with some of the land units?

 

[Zaarin]

I know this goes against it being a "game" but victories have always been kind of secondary to me: nobody actually wins real life, after all. But the game has to conclude somehow. This will be met with boos probably but the only real victory that would make any kind of sense would be some kind of aggregate "greatness" count that considers all of a Civ's contributions/infamy, etc.

Humankind did this badly (just like everything else HK tried to do, really). Ara is doing this, too, and it remains to be seen how it works out. I've played three tech alphas of Ara, and I haven't written it off but I'm not sold yet, either--though I admire it for doing its own thing and not imitating Civ. All that being said, I'm not sure I want that model in Civ. Victory conditions don't have to make sense IMO.

You think there’s a possibility they could give some ships ranged combat, like they did with some of the land units?

This already exists in Civ6.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I know this goes against it being a "game" but victories have always been kind of secondary to me: nobody actually wins real life, after all. But the game has to conclude somehow. This will be met with boos probably but the only real victory that would make any kind of sense would be some kind of aggregate "greatness" count that considers all of a Civ's contributions/infamy, etc.

Isn't that what score victory is supposed to represent?

You think there’s a possibility they could give some ships ranged combat, like they did with some of the land units?

Most naval units are already ranged.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm already on record having posted that I'd like to see 'Victory' as more of a record of how you played the game rather than how you ended it. That is, instead of focusing on the situation on the last turn - did you make it off the planet first, did you conquer everyone or convert everyone or make everyone listen to your music, etc. keep a record of how well you did throughout the game, As in:
Most number of turns with the highest percentage of population at Ecstatic or Happy levels.
Never lost a city to Loyalty negatives, or conquest by another civ.
Lowest number or percentage of units lost in combat to Anybody.
Highest Culture for longest time (however 'culture' is measured in Civ VII)
Least amount/percentage of Ecological negatives - pollution, warming or cooling, etc caused by your Civ.

In other words, more emphasis on how you played rather than only an end objective.

These could be instead of or (more likely, I'll admit) in addition to the 'traditional' End Conditions for victory.

 

[bene_legionary]

Of all victories, I'd say CV has the most basis in reality. If we play on a Mediterranean map, I'd argue Persia won a Culture Victory in the Middle Ages. China definitely won a Culture Victory in East Asia much earlier than that. And the US is about as close to winning a global Culture Victory as any civilization ever has been.

I’d be really interested in some sort of system where you could “win” some sort of condition in your era which would ultimately lead to a score victory. So, being militarily dominant amongst your neighbours early on gives you increased score from that era that’s equivalent to the “domination victory” of that early era, then later on you might have a major scientific discovery/achievement that’s equivalent to the “scientific victory” of that later era.

Of course, that’d be highly dependent on the implementation of the conditions and any era system, how regions of civs are determined, etc. But, I feel like it’d be able to create a choice between specialising with your civ in one field and, I don’t know, remaining the leader in one condition (perhaps an era streak bonus to encourage this?) or trying to be well rounded and get multiple conditions before the final score count.