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

[Gori the Grey]

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.

I like one long game. I've liked that Civ has up to this point been one long game.

I like it precisely that it's long. In fact, if pressed, I can probably more easily resign myself to V, where if you want to go for domination you should pretty much know that from turn 1, than to VII, where it sounds as though I could wait until 2/3 of the way through, then decide, and still pull it off.

And no, "winning" the two earlier ages would not do the same thing for me.

I play on deity. I don't win often. When I do win, I feel it's at least in part because I've micromanaged the hell out of every turn for every tiny advantage I could get from it, for a particular intended victory, over a 300-turn period. It's the continuity of my effort that provides much of the satisfaction.

Edit: That said, there are times I have wanted a "Civ" experience without a two-week commitment, so if I pick up VII, it will be in that spirit: that playing an age at a time would give me a little taste of the whole experience.

 

[marius_kaparius]

One of the most fun ideas with the Legacy Paths has been the two that are Civ specific, Shongai with treasure fleets on navigable rivers and Mongolia with conquering on home continent (not 100% about this one, haven’t tried yet). They should go further with this in my opinion

 

[StargazingDog]

If you choose military, you often really feel your science suffering

This definitely happens in Civ 7. You can't do everything.

 

[aelf]

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.

I'm not really buying this. I've seen how things go in a number of Immortal and Deity games, and "just surviving" is unlikely to allow you to win. You need some critical mass of settlements and a healthy income at minimum.

 

[SiCK_Boy]

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.

You probably could, but your success and the speed at which you would attain that victory would be influenced by what you did in the previous ages. But right now, at least up to the immortal difficulty level (haven’t tried deity yet), I feel like the playing field is still pretty wide open upon reaching the modern age, and personally I’m fine with this.

 

[RedCourtJester]

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.)

As we discussed elsewhere and has been brought up surrounding Bulgaria, I think this is going to go away with time.

The impression I am getting from the design of VII is that the devs learned that simply piling more and more universal mechanics into the game just makes it unwieldy and snowbally/railroady. So they first compartmentalized progression systems by era to allow each new set of mechanics some space to breath and be fully enjoyed. And then they made sure each era's progression mechanics was as barebones as possible.

If this assumption is correct, I think the natural "building out" of the game will continue to respect the simplicity of the base mechanics (for the most part, I am anticipating at least a crisis overhaul). Instead of building more into it, stuffing stuff in between the lines already written, I think most of the design is going to build outward. That means an additional era or two (mechanically totally separate from the base game eras). And that means that a lot of more complicated/alternative ways to play the game will be part of new civs, leaders, and mementos.

I don't think it will reach the level of "choosiness" that VI had as you illustrated, but I also think the analysis paralysis that came with that was a bit of a detriment to late game VI. However, if Bulgaria is any indication, I definitely think we will see victory paths opened up in this way.

I actually like OP's take. A lot of civ players have gotten into the mindset of sort of minmaxing and obsessing over winning. But, hear me out, what if a civ game let up a bit on mechanical punishment and just let you...vibe your way through the eras? We are somewhat past the time of "games as challenge" era anyway and now in "games as entertainment." As long as the devs make sure the tryhards still have a good deity mode, I don't see why the base experience has to force you to play competitively. Especially when it now implicitly expects you to be replaying a lot of games as these civs/leaders.

 

[Zaarin]

That means an additional era or two (mechanically totally separate from the base game eras).

TBH I think adding another era will kill the game. The current eras are in desperate need of attention (and in particular I despise the culture path so thoroughly in two of the three eras that it's made me hate my favorite playstyle), not further dilution. Adding another era would probably turn my currently positive or at least optimistic opinion of the game into a negative one. Which would be sad because I don't see any viable competitors coming along (all contenders so far have failed miserably), and I've played previous games too thoroughly to go back to them.

 

[RedCourtJester]

TBH I think adding another era will kill the game. The current eras are in desperate need of attention (and in particular I despise the culture path so thoroughly in two of the three eras that it's made me hate my favorite playstyle), not further dilution. Adding another era would probably turn my currently positive or at least optimistic opinion of the game into a negative one. Which would be sad because I don't see any viable competitors coming along (all contenders so far have failed miserably), and I've played previous games too thoroughly to go back to them.

I largely agree with this, although to be clear my observation of this comes with several major qualifiers:

1. There are hints of an Atomic Era in the game data, so we should make peace with this possibility to some degree, and maybe other eras.

2. I do not think the Atomic Era will involve the development resources devoted to designing "civs" as in the prior eras. The choice and design of the modern civs, particularly Mexico, Russia, and Nepal, but also how it looks like the Maori will be represented, in addition to just a lot of duplicative selections in America, France, Prussia, Qing, and Meiji, makes this extremely likely. I will, at minimum, give an "Atomic Era" a pass if it is mostly a streamlined version of things we already had in prior civ games, and does not waste resources designing ten civs we didn't need or want.

3. I think the Atomic Era will prove to be just a frontloaded "almost made base game" exception, ala Britain and Carthage, and that otherwise if we get any more eras, they will be much further down the line, and very likely not mess around with the core three act structure. I think a "prehistoric/nomadic" or a "future/space" era are far, far more likely than a "classical/ancient" or "medieval/renaissance" era being added. Overall, the three core eras work: antiquity and classical made a lot of sense to be condensed into each other, and the medieval and revolutionary eras work as respective "dark ages" which are represented by crises.

4. While I think Atomic Era may be serving a sort of "capstone" on the current base game eras that makes use of obvious returning features such as the Nobel Prize (science), World Congress/musicians (culture), and corporations (economic), I do not think we will be seeing any other new eras anytime soon, as (1) most of the core features of the previous civ games will be accounted for at that point and the appeal of prehistoric/futurist eras is going to be a lot more speculative and the mechanics more extraneous, and (2) other than perhaps pulling features from BE/AC, it would take a lot more dev resources to brainstorm those eras such that it will likely take more time for them to develop and the additional effort will likely be marketed as something resembling a full expansion.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I do not think the Atomic Era will involve the development resources devoted to designing "civs" as in the prior eras.

I agree, I think the new Era won't involve a Civ switch.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I agree, I think the new Era won't involve a Civ switch.

That's the view I fight over and over:

1. The whole point of age switch is to introduce new game mechanics. There's no point in age switch if there aren't any (and potential contemporary/information/atomic era has plenty of material for new gameplay)
2. The whole point of civilization switch is to have civilization adapted for new mechanics. Modern civs just won't work in contemporary. Even if you would intent to save their names, the civilizations would need a rebuild
3. Although, creating civs with the same names doesn't make any sense either, because current modern civs are focused on XIX century and many of them aren't represented in contemporary era in more or less significant form
4. I struggle to see any problem with civ switching when passing from modern era to contemporary. Yes, some civs are expected to be represented in both eras, but we already have civs spanning through multiple eras, this doesn't cause any problems. And the number of civs to be passed is just 6-7. Providing we have about 15 civs per age in the first expansion if it will be focused on 4th age, that's not a problem at all.

 

[protocol7]

I recently switched back to Vox Populi for a better new (to me) Civ experience while they hopefully work out the problems with Civ7, and it was really cool seeing the whole tech tree laid out in front of me instead of a little subset, which I won't even get through all the way before the current era ends.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I like one long game. I've liked that Civ has up to this point been one long game.

I like it precisely that it's long. In fact, if pressed, I can probably more easily resign myself to V, where if you want to go for domination you should pretty much know that from turn 1, than to VII, where it sounds as though I could wait until 2/3 of the way through, then decide, and still pull it off.

And no, "winning" the two earlier ages would not do the same thing for me.

I hear you. I like winning the space victory in Civ3 because it's long. Expert players over in the Civ3 forums win military victories in half the turns because of wringing every last bit of production to overcome the AI advantage; I like the long view.

Civ6 feels long to me, because I have not figured out how to achieve tourism or religious dominance quickly, nor accumulate 20 diplo victory points without the Statue of Liberty. To win by space (my perennial favorite), I need to go all the way to future tech. I'm using similar tools through the whole game -- purchasing with faith or gold, adding buildings to districts, building a project rather than laying down a new district -- and I can measure my progress with whether I get a golden or normal age.

I still view Civ7 as a long game. Playing the map is still important. The age transitions give me a chance to make some big decisions, reassess, and choose new tools for optimizing. In the first age, I learn where the coastlines, friends, and enemies are. That lets me plan for expanding onto islands and bringing home Treasure Fleets, which I find just as satsifying as a Civ6 Monumentality Golden Age. I still struggle to get the "Super Yields" required for Sciience in Exploration, but it's not game breaking. Exploration Age brings in new rivals with new agendas; some I may not be able to please, so they will become enemies.
Achieving legacy goals in the first two ages allows me to choose attribute points to better prepare for the Modern Age. My settlements are all the same, but my ability to leverage them is enhanced by what I've achieved earlier. My commanders retain their promotions, so my Modern tanks can be more effective because I was successful with spearmen and crossbows.
The transition to the 3rd age is impactful. Knowing what I know about the map, where I will need to deploy my forces, where I can build railroad connections, allows me to decide which tribe to choose and which victory to choose from . If I have good science infrastructure, I can tech to flight and achieve the 3 milestones, by building those projects. Culture is potentially quicker, by sprinting to accumulate relics and build the final wonder. Factory resources -- similar to treasure fleets -- feel like a very satsifying swell of riches.

The final age victory depends on building a solid foundation in the first age and enhancing it in the second. The AI are also trying to achieve milestones,they ally with each other so that attacking one often results in a two-front war. I don't play Deity, so I can't comment on how much they interfere with your progress and how much micromanagement is required to overcome their bonus.

 

[RedCourtJester]

That's the view I fight over and over:

1. The whole point of age switch is to introduce new game mechanics. There's no point in age switch if there aren't any (and potential contemporary/information/atomic era has plenty of material for new gameplay)
2. The whole point of civilization switch is to have civilization adapted for new mechanics. Modern civs just won't work in contemporary. Even if you would intent to save their names, the civilizations would need a rebuild
3. Although, creating civs with the same names doesn't make any sense either, because current modern civs are focused on XIX century and many of them aren't represented in contemporary era in more or less significant form
4. I struggle to see any problem with civ switching when passing from modern era to contemporary. Yes, some civs are expected to be represented in both eras, but we already have civs spanning through multiple eras, this doesn't cause any problems. And the number of civs to be passed is just 6-7. Providing we have about 15 civs per age in the first expansion if it will be focused on 4th age, that's not a problem at all

1. Correct.
2. Also correct.
3 and 4. This is where I (gently) think you are compartmentalizing, because this is just about the exact opposite of what you claim in the first two. Most of the modern civs are the sort of civs we would expect to see in a contemporary era pushed varying degrees into pre-WW vibes. However, the roster list itself is still extremely contemporary, as are the designs of the civs. Some are expressly contemporary in design (Prussia, Russia, Nepal), others highlight many features that represent contemporary ideas of the civs very well (America, Britain, Qing, Mexico), and even those that aren't quite either like Buganda would be screwed over if they were forced to disappear into contemporary era (which really goes for any modern civ). From both an identity perspective, as well as a mechanical perspective, there are in fact huge problems of "not much changing" in the switch from modern to contemporary, if we are presuming that there will be fully designed civs in the atomic era.

Again, I don't know why we need all of these civs to reappear in atomic era forms, and, conversely, why the atomic era needs fully-designed "modern" civs to serve as an effective "switch-up." There are other ways the devs could force mechanical switch-ups without superficially redesigning/reimplementing the modern roster. We technically don't even need "civs" in a contemporary era for players to switch into; player faction choice could be determined by corporations, or media, or any number of other identifying features.

 

[stealth_nsk]

1. Correct.
2. Also correct.
3 and 4. This is where I (gently) think you are compartmentalizing, because this is just about the exact opposite of what you claim in the first two. Most of the modern civs are the sort of civs we would expect to see in a contemporary era pushed varying degrees into pre-WW vibes. However, the roster list itself is still extremely contemporary, as are the designs of the civs. Some are expressly contemporary in design (Prussia, Russia, Nepal), others highlight many features that represent contemporary ideas of the civs very well (America, Britain, Qing, Mexico), and even those that aren't quite either like Buganda would be screwed over if they were forced to disappear into contemporary era. From both an identity perspective, as well as a mechanical perspective, there are in fact huge problems of "not much changing" in the switch from modern to contemporary, if we are presuming that there will be fully designed civs in the atomic era.

Again, I don't know why we need all of these civs to reappear in atomic era, and, conversely, why the atomic era needs fully-designed "modern" civs to serve as an effective "switch-up." There are other ways the devs could force mechanical switch-ups without superficially redesigning/reimplementing the modern roster.

I think there's some misunderstanding, because points 3 and 4 are logical continuation of points 1 and 2.

If we speak about civ design, there are 2 parts, which could define how the civ is related to each era - gameplay (how the civ is interacting with the age mechanics) and flavor (historical fit). Speaking about gameplay, some of the modern civs are more or less generic, but some are tied to Modern gameplay in a very tight way, like Great Britain having unique archeologist. Some are not tied to gameplay directly, but thematically, like Prussia, which is designed for Modern age world wars. Those things can't be ported to the next age for gameplay reasons.

If we speak about flavor, all of unique units, buildings and wonders are designed for period between 1700 and 1950. We don't want to see Cossacs in atomic era, for example. And I disagree that, for example, America or Britain represent their contemporary versions. Modern America has many features about Frontier Expansion, they doesn't make sense in contemporary. Similarly, Britain being industrial powerhouse is more XIX century thing than contemporary.

But most importantly, the game is built around age-changing and civ switching. I don't understand why people want to break the game core mechanics in the place where keeping it has so much sense? I want to see contemporary USA with focus on internet, corporations and space flight, not frontier expansion. I want to see China and Germany as industrial centers. Why would anyone want to copy their XIX century properties to XXI?

 

[Noble Zarkon]

I don't understand why people want to break the game core mechanics in the place where keeping it has so much sense?

Partly because part of the reason Humankind flopped was the excessive Civ changes.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Partly because part of the reason Humankind flopped was the excessive Civ changes.

I thought by this time it should be clear that Civ7 civ switching has nothing in common with how HK does it, but I understand the concern.

 

[Taefin]

I thought by this time it should be clear that Civ7 civ switching has nothing in common with how HK does it, but I understand the concern.

I think a fourth age is going to work poorly whether they use repeat civs or a new roster, but I think they could make each feel consistent with the game.

But to me, civ switching sure feels like it did in HK, almost down to the UI and artwork of the civ selection screen. You get the same categories of uniques, a balance between finding cultural/geographic/gameplay reasons for picking your next civ/culture. The main differences I see are that civ7 synchronizes everyone’s switch, has it coincide with a dramatic era transition, and only does it twice.

I think it was other parts of HK that made me get bored of it, but I do think a full 4th era with new civs would make the second half of the game feel more like my least favorite part of HK games: the last few eras where the game/AI fell apart mechanically and continued long past when it was decided.

 

[RedCourtJester]

I think there's some misunderstanding, because points 3 and 4 are logical continuation of points 1 and 2.

If we speak about civ design, there are 2 parts, which could define how the civ is related to each era - gameplay (how the civ is interacting with the age mechanics) and flavor (historical fit). Speaking about gameplay, some of the modern civs are more or less generic, but some are tied to Modern gameplay in a very tight way, like Great Britain having unique archeologist. Some are not tied to gameplay directly, but thematically, like Prussia, which is designed for Modern age world wars. Those things can't be ported to the next age for gameplay reasons.

If we speak about flavor, all of unique units, buildings and wonders are designed for period between 1700 and 1950. We don't want to see Cossacs in atomic era, for example. And I disagree that, for example, America or Britain represent their contemporary versions. Modern America has many features about Frontier Expansion, they doesn't make sense in contemporary. Similarly, Britain being industrial powerhouse is more XIX century thing than contemporary.

But most importantly, the game is built around age-changing and civ switching. I don't understand why people want to break the game core mechanics in the place where keeping it has so much sense? I want to see contemporary USA with focus on internet, corporations and space flight, not frontier expansion. I want to see China and Germany as industrial centers. Why would anyone want to copy their XIX century properties to XXI?

I did understand that, but what you seem to be misunderstanding is that the unique civics, units, and indeed "civs" of an atomic era needn't be switching to a "civ" ala China or Germany. We can have a layer of modern "Britain" which is transitioned away from into an atomic era without transitioning to specifically a civ.

I understand you want to see China and Germany; I think the game has not left design space for those and otherwise the entire back half of the game will feel quite samey and repetitive if the roster we "transition" to is just "China again," "Germany again," "Britain again," "America again," etc. That, in fact, almost completely defeats any meaningful idea of "civ switching/layering" in the atomic era if civs are largely the same players but just with a few new era mechanics.

So yes, I understood all of your post, completely, and yes the game is about age-changing and switching. I am not sure (a) why you and others so want a roster of "contemporary versions of all the modern civs we just played as," and (b) why you imagine that is somehow a design requirement that is necessary for the atomic era, as opposed to several other directions the game could take a contemporary era? Put more simply: why, and especially here where the concept is boring and repetitive, need an atomic era roster reflect cultures/polities and not more interesting and dynamic factions to switch to?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think a fourth age is going to work poorly whether they use repeat civs or a new roster, but I think they could make each feel consistent with the game.

Yes, I have some concerns about potential 4th age too. There are some regular problems of late game in civilization, which need solving to make this age interesting to play. But yes, if it should be made, it should be consistent.

But to me, civ switching sure feels like it did in HK, almost down to the UI and artwork of the civ selection screen. You get the same categories of uniques, a balance between finding cultural/geographic/gameplay reasons for picking your next civ/culture. The main differences I see are that civ7 synchronizes everyone’s switch, has it coincide with a dramatic era transition, and only does it twice.

There some big things:
1. Civ is build around having different gameplay for different ages and civilizations to use this gameplay. That's why age changes are simultaneous and dramatic.
2. Civ age change involves restrictions on snowballing, that's why many things are reset.
3. Biggest difference in game feeling is leaders. Civilization does a lot of things to help players associate themselves and opponents with leaders. For some players who accustomed to all civ games it doesn't fully work, but it still works to some extent.

I think it was other parts of HK that made me get bored of it, but I do think a full 4th era with new civs would make the second half of the game feel more like my least favorite part of HK games: the last few eras where the game/AI fell apart mechanically and continued long past when it was decided.

As I wrote, it clearly needs to solve gameplay problems of late game.

I did understand that, but what you seem to be misunderstanding is that the unique civics, units, and indeed "civs" of an atomic era needn't be switching to a "civ" ala China or Germany. We can have a layer of modern "Britain" which is transitioned away from into an atomic era without transitioning to specifically a civ.

Yes, I totally don't understand, what you're trying to say. Let's say I play Ada leading Great Britain in modern era. The modern era ends and atomic starts, what happens? And what happens with unique civilian unit, which becomes useless in new era? And if play as Buganda, you want to stay as Buganda in Atomic?

I understand you want to see China and Germany; I think the game has not left design space for those and otherwise the entire back half of the game will feel quite samey and repetitive if the roster we "transition" to is just "China again," "Germany again," "Britain again," "America again," etc. That, in fact, almost completely defeats any meaningful idea of "civ switching/layering" in the atomic era if civs are largely the same players but just with a few new era mechanics.

1. Is it repetitive to stay in China for 3 eras in the current game? I think it's overstatement.
2. That's not the majority, that's minority. Only 6-7 civs need to recreated out of probably 15 per age on release and around 20 later.

So yes, I understood all of your post, completely, and yes the game is about age-changing and switching. I am not sure (a) why you and others so want a roster of "contemporary versions of all the modern civs we just played as," and (b) why you imagine that is somehow a design requirement that is necessary for the atomic era, as opposed to several other directions the game could take a contemporary era? Put more simply: why, and especially here where the concept is boring and repetitive, need an atomic era roster reflect cultures/polities and not more interesting and dynamic factions to switch to?

1. I don't want a roster of contemporary versions of modern civs. I want a roster of contemporary civs, small number of which are evolution of previously appearing ones.
2. Because core mechanics of the game is civ switching?
3. Where did you get the idea that the concept is boring is repetitive? Keeping you civ looks much mor boring and repetitive to me.

 

[Taefin]

This felt like the best extant thread for this, but I was really impressed how much fun I had in a game where I never got a foothold in DL. It always sounded a bit forced when I heard folks say “you don’t HAVE to pursue all legacies” but Playing as Ming, wars at home and abroad led me to give away some of my few DL settlements, which I couldn’t meaningfully defend, to end one war so that could focus on another. I got 1 military and economic point in a long exploration age, got science by default, and kept getting relics everywhere from events, and a few conversions. But the real focus of my play was getting an elaborate network of great walls, one long segment of which I even got to use defensively, and winning an epic 40 turn war that led to taking napoleons capital with 7 wonders in the very last turn of the era. Each of these had a bigger impact than securing two more golden ages and led to a age that did not feel formulaic.

Currently my view is that legacies give more options of what to pursue and add some value to oversees exploration/colonization that would not emerge naturally (I’m thinking about a game of VI when used my redcoats to capture some low-yield oversees cities just to say I had used my civ feature, even if the settlements were nearly worthless). Even if certain legacies can feel thematically forced, I like that they keep you factoring in a greater variety of tradeoffs when deciding when to keep or change course.