No, you aren't "pigeonholed" into following the legacy paths.

[StargazingDog]

I have seen some complaints that players felt (or suspect they would feel, since they haven't played the game) they are "pigeonholed" into following a strict path through the game. That they need to complete a checklist each age to progress. I am here to tell you that this is not true.

I started my most recent game with the intent to play it as I would play any prior game of Civ. I would just play, choosing to do whatever I wanted to do. All advisors off. I wouldn't even look at the legacy screen. I started a standard size map, fractal, sovereign difficulty as Machiavelli leading the Greeks.

I did just that. I played through each age, not once checking the legacy screen. I had a vague idea of what each legacy path required (trade fleets, wonders, factory goods, etc), but I didn't factor any of those into my decision. I wasn't even sure how I would ultimately win the game. I half-expected to just get a score victory.

The game played out almost exactly like any of my Civ 5/6 games. I started diplomatically, but one of my allies frustrated me by taking land I sorely needed. Two wars later and the age ends with me having a few points in culture, and a completed military path. The exploration age was almost pure diplomatic. After getting a religion that emphasized converting city-states, I spend my efforts befriending independent powers and defending them from aggressors. I don't recall precisely how my legacies went that time, but the culture path completed with at least one point in each other path. The modern age saw me friendly or allied with everyone except Charlemagne, who was a constant thorn in my side. I chose democracy, and he, fatefully, chose communism. The future was set. The democratic French would not tolerate the communist Mexicans stealing and spying any longer. I ended up winning via military victory.

I am convinced that we are less "pigeonholed" than in the other games. In Civ 5/6, you start the game with a victory condition in mind, and you need to focus on that to win. In Civ 7, the changing of the ages and civilizations meant I could just go with the flow. Each age, my priorities changed slightly. It was engaging the entire time!

So, just start the game and play however you like. Leave the advisors on for your first few games to get a feel for it, then leave them off. Don't enable the checklists. Just play your own game.

(On a side note, one of the AI almost won with an economic victory. I didn't even realize it until looking at the final legacy screen.)

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

The only problem right now is that these legacy paths are reptitive, but in many ways i feel like they could do a sort of dedication system where you pick which goal to go for, and I think they even said they are planning on adding new legacy paths over the course of development, so that's not even a major problem.

 

[Leyrann]

Thank you for writing this.

The only problem right now is that these legacy paths are reptitive

They are no more repetitive than gathering Great Works or spreading your religion in Civ VI. In fact I'd even argue they're less repetitive.

 

[Ryansinbela]

The only problem right now is that these legacy paths are reptitive, but in many ways i feel like they could do a sort of dedication system where you pick which goal to go for, and I think they even said they are planning on adding new legacy paths over the course of development, so that's not even a major problem.

What legacy paths do you think they will add

 

[UWHabs]

The only problem right now is that these legacy paths are reptitive, but in many ways i feel like they could do a sort of dedication system where you pick which goal to go for, and I think they even said they are planning on adding new legacy paths over the course of development, so that's not even a major problem.

There's definitely a few possible ways they could take things. Right now, I think the pigeonholing is only because people don't like to fail. I think because people are used to winning, anytime you fail to reach an objective, you treat that as a punishment, rather than treating reaching an objective as like a bonus.

As in, if you don't build any wonders in the ancient era, you don't get any bonuses. But if you build 2 wonders, you effectively get a free attribute point at the start at the next age. If you treat things like that, then yeah, you're really not pushed into doing something you don't want. You don't have to take a dark age legacy if you don't even reach the first milestone.

I do think that it might be nice to vary the paths, although I'm a little curious which method they would go through. Like, do you get assigned a path at random when you start a new era? Do you get to pick which path you want to take (like you choose which government)? Does everyone get the same paths, or does each civ get to select which path? Definitely a few ways you could go. You could arguably even have it only revealed at random like 50 turns into the era - so you're not sure if the era should be a race to the distant lands, or maybe it ends up as simply collecting a number of resources.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

If you don't follow the legacy path, you don't get the goodies in the next age.

So sure, you have choice. /sarc

 

[CoconutTank]

I mean, yea? Usually Exploration Age has a ton of distant land things for legacy path stuff, but if I feel like I'm not built well to commit to any of the paths, I'll just expand and war on the homeland to get a better foothold for Modern Age. I can win in Modern Age w/out significant legacy bonuses from Exploration Age.

 

[Yzman]

If you don't follow the legacy path, you don't get the goodies in the next age.

So sure, you have choice. /sarc

If you aren't meeting any objectives, then you aren't likely playing well to begin with. Even then you can take a dark ages if you royally mess up and get nothing.

To not get any goodies and a dark age in each you need to...
1. Not expand
2. Not research masteries
3. Not build wonders
4. Not trade and have resources

So what exactly are you doing? You don't really deserve anything for Not playing the game. And even then, you can still win in modern.

 

[protocol7]

Same, I also tested on Deity and you can purposefully fail them all and then easily win in modern. They are essentially a non-factor, so you can ignore them or not, it doesn’t matter at all as long as you survive to modern (which the legacy paths don’t really have anything to do with). They may as well not be there at all as far as winning the game.

 

[CoconutTank]

Tbh the probably worst part of not achieving any legacy path by the end of an age is the depressing horn song.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Thank you for writing this.

Yes, I appreciated it, too. (I haven't played 7)

I've always thought my ideal for a civ game would be that one could get about 1/3 of the way into it, just building a generally sound civ, before one had to settle in on a victory path and start building toward that, specifically.

In fact, though, this (and some other comments on the forum) make it seem as though you can generally get away without thinking about victory paths until Modern. That might go too far in the opposite direction: making modern feel like the only era that counts.

Let me ask it this way, of those of you who've now played a good bit of 7: could you play Ancient and Exploration and then have someone else (or RNG) tell you what victory type to go for, and still get that victory? If so, I think that would put the active pursuit of a particular victory type too late for my tastes. I want to feel as though that kind of victory was a result of concerted effort (and brilliant play) on my part.

 

[Zaarin]

They are no more repetitive than gathering Great Works or spreading your religion in Civ VI. In fact I'd even argue they're less repetitive.

I generally like Civ7, but I disagree with this specific example. There were a lot of ways you could approach culture victory in Civ6--wonders, great works, national parks, trade routes, relics and holy cities, rock bands. I think this is why Civ7's culture path specifically feels like a downgrade. (Whereas you are correct with the other victories there was one way to go about it, which is probably why science and economy don't feel so bad to me in Civ7.)

 

[Jeppetto]

People are especially decieved into thinking they must WIN every path - that is achieve all Golden Ages.

 

[johnny_rico]

Yes, I appreciated it, too. (I haven't played 7)

I've always thought my ideal for a civ game would be that one could get about 1/3 of the way into it, just building a generally sound civ, before one had to settle in on a victory path and start building toward that, specifically.

In fact, though, this (and some other comments on the forum) make it seem as though you can generally get away without thinking about victory paths until Modern. That might go too far in the opposite direction: making modern feel like the only era that counts.

Let me ask it this way, of those of you who've now played a good bit of 7: could you play Ancient and Exploration and then have someone else (or RNG) tell you what victory type to go for, and still get that victory? If so, I think that would put the active pursuit of a particular victory type too late for my tastes. I want to feel as though that kind of victory was a result of concerted effort (and brilliant play) on my part.

i haven't played on immortal or deity yet but thus far I'd say yes; you can do what you want and then have someone else say win by X condition in modern and likely have no problem doing so. For me personally, i've found the economic path in all ages to require the most preparation. Military, science, and culture paths just fill themselves in by playing.

I also went through a phase where i felt the age objectives were dictating course of action but now that i ignore objectives in the first two ages, i've found more freedom to do what you want than in previous civ titles. that may change as i ramp up difficulty.

 

[AriochIV]

One of the (many) problems with the legacy paths is how most of them feel tacked-on rather than a part of the whole game experience.

For example, the Great Works in Civ7 really only have one purpose: to make a legacy path slider bar fill up... and then they literally disappear in the next Age. They have small resource yields but these are fairly trivial... once you've made the slider bar fill up there's really no point in trying to acquire more (especially since the ONLY thing Science and Culture does in Civ7 is unlock nodes on the trees, and this becomes pointless at the end of each Age since anything you can unlock with them at that point will be discarded in a few turns).

The Great Work system in Civ6 certainly had its problems, but at least Culture and even Tourism had multiple uses and effects that lasted the whole game.

 

[Yzman]

Yes, I appreciated it, too. (I haven't played 7)

I've always thought my ideal for a civ game would be that one could get about 1/3 of the way into it, just building a generally sound civ, before one had to settle in on a victory path and start building toward that, specifically.

In fact, though, this (and some other comments on the forum) make it seem as though you can generally get away without thinking about victory paths until Modern. That might go too far in the opposite direction: making modern feel like the only era that counts.

Let me ask it this way, of those of you who've now played a good bit of 7: could you play Ancient and Exploration and then have someone else (or RNG) tell you what victory type to go for, and still get that victory? If so, I think that would put the active pursuit of a particular victory type too late for my tastes. I want to feel as though that kind of victory was a result of concerted effort (and brilliant play) on my part.

Victory in modern will be easier if you have been setting it up all game, however it isn't necessary.

For example, being strong in science will carry over through ages and achieving the paths in prior areas will make the final builds take less production.

 

[UWHabs]

People are especially decieved into thinking they must WIN every path - that is achieve all Golden Ages.

Yeah, especially in the exploration era, I feel I have "failed" if I don't go 4/4 in the legacies. I wouldn't mind if there was a penalty (like maybe instead of the dark ages taking all your points, you have a couple dark age options for each one you fail, but if you unlock them, then you are forced to take one).

 

[protocol7]

You should decide on a victory path at the beginning (more or less) of modern, you can do literally anything you want before that and it doesn’t impact how easy it is to win on modern as far as I can tell.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Thanks to all who have answered. Yeah, that would not be appealing to me. Part of the fun of Civ games for me is the advance planning that is needed to achieve a particular victory. And also the feeling of trade-off as you are doing so. In Civ V, science is along the top of the tech tree and military along the bottom. If you choose military, you often really feel your science suffering. If you choose science, you often really feel at risk of being overrun by a powerful neighbor. Both of those tensions are among the forms of fun I find in the game.

 

[Yzman]

Thanks to all who have answered. Yeah, that would not be appealing to me. Part of the fun of Civ games for me is the advance planning that is needed to achieve a particular victory. And also the feeling of trade-off as you are doing so. In Civ V, science is along the top of the tech tree and military along the bottom. If you choose military, you often really feel your science suffering. If you choose science, you often really feel at risk of being overrun by a powerful neighbor. Both of those tensions are among the forms of fun I find in the game.

Not sure you are thinking about this right. It is 3 separate games. Shoot for victory in each era. There are challenges to do so. For example, when I play as a civ for the first time, I always go for their challenge victory. I also go for dual legacies for each leader as that is another challenge. I think this game gives more to plan for, not less.