Official announcement: Hot off the presses. Next Civ game in development!!!!!!!

[Aussie_Lurker]

All i want is the diplomacy of Civ IV back, and the trade system... please, please, please! One could trade any commodity from food, to copper, wool etc. After Civ V that went all down hill.

Oh yes, would love to see Bonus Resources be more meaningful at an Empire Wide scale again. I always was disappointed by the lack of a City Health system like we had in Civ IV.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Please, no. Anything but that. The diplomatic modifiers for following the same religion or a different religion were so severe in IV that pretty much everything came down to only religion. If you founded a religion and your neighbor already had his own? War, 90% of the time. Boring. Horrible.

Not exactly like it was in Civilization IV, but I think it was on the right track. Prior to the Industrial Era, I believe that having different State Religions should give you a smallish diplomatic penalty. However, it shouldn't degrade over time unless the other Civ does something to provoke it (like purging their religion from your cities), and the other civ should be able to reduce the penalty via their actions (by, say, encouraging the spread of the other Civs religion in your city).

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In Fairness, Civ 5 lost the accessiblity of Health, so there was nothing to gain from trading Bonus resources.

Tech Trade was replaced by Research Agreement, probably as a form of balance to prevent people hoarding and making tech progress more difficult for the player.

Removing City Health was one of the things I most disliked about CiV. I also disagree about there being nothing to gain from trading bonus resources outside of food, if Bonus Resources provided benefits to your empire, depending on how many copies of the resource you have.

 

[Zaarin]

I believe that having different State Religions should give you a smallish diplomatic penalty.

I don't think any one thing short of war should determine your relationship with other civs, but I think religion should be one of the larger modifiers, positive or negative. What I don't want to see is Civ6's modifier for different governments (which at various points in Civ6's patch history have been absurdly potent). BNW's ideologies are more than welcome to return, but prior to the ideological wars of the twentieth century very rarely has form of government had any bearing whatsoever on diplomacy. In fact, the only instance I can think of is Graeco-Roman monarchophobia--and that was explicitly a hatred of kings, not more broadly a difference in government.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yeah, or even if the decisions for governments/social policies was not permanent, I think each government would need a much larger focus. Like at least once you get to the T3 governments now, it's interesting that you have some exclusive policies. Like, for me, probably 80% of why I like Democracy best is the New Deal policy card, which is way better than any other policy card at the time IMHO. Like if Merchant Republic did not let you run the Serfdom card, ya, that would definitely change your thinking about which government to run.

I wouldn't mind if if they got back to the old system of "legacy" government being a permanent future bonus, rather than simply a policy card that was an opportunity cost to slot in the rest of the game. Like if Oligarchy gave you a permanent +4 combat strength for melee units, vs a permanent +1 amenity/housing like in Classical Republic, and not simply just a card to slot in later, that might change your decisions. That would give you that balance between choosing a government and having that decision stick with you the rest of the game but you would still be flexible within the government to change out policy cards (potentially with the caveat above where the choice of possible cards is different in each system).

The main issue I ever had with Civ6's Governments and Social Policies was the relative ease with which you could change both. Changing either should be fairly difficult/painful...& not merely at the treasury level. Perhaps a Civ-wide loss of Amenity/Housing (or its Civ7 equivalents) for several turns, to reflect the societal upheaval of the change. By the same token, though, failure to embrace certain new Social Policies/Governments might also have a detrimental impact on your Civilization (maybe a loss of Science/Tech/Gold per x turns you fail to change to the next tier of government).
I am also thinking that certain social policies could be at odds with certain government types, and so either you simply cannot slot them in or, at the least, doing so will come at a penalty (like Freedom of Speech in a Fascist Government, or Police State in a Democracy, for example).

 

[Tekamthi]

how do we know this is for civ 7? tweet just says the next civilization game. My money's on a civ rev 3, civ be 2, or a standalone civ 6 mod a la civ 4 colonization

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Removing City Health was one of the things I most disliked about CiV. I also disagree about there being nothing to gain from trading bonus resources outside of food, if Bonus Resources provided benefits to your empire, depending on how many copies of the resource you have.

You completely misunderstood my point. I never said that Bonus Resources have no benefit, I said that in Civ 5 they have no benefit. They are just extra tiles with extra yields to work, there's no benefit from trading them in that capacity.

 

[pokiehl]

how do we know this is for civ 7? tweet just says the next civilization game. My money's on a civ rev 3, civ be 2, or a standalone civ 6 mod a la civ 4 colonization

Well first, the blowback from this not being 7 would be really bad PR. Second, they dropped hints like including 7 exclamation points in the tweet.

 

[Tekamthi]

Well first, the blowback from this not being 7 would be really bad PR. Second, they dropped hints like including 7 exclamation points in the tweet.

true -- but why not just say "civilization vii" then?

 

[pokiehl]

true -- but why not just say "civilization vii" then?

Well unfortunately, their social media advertising tends towards a memey, baiting tone. I think not saying 7 outright was probably to elicit debate about it being 7 or not.

 

[InsidiousMage]

It's a score but not the "Score Victory". Score Victory has always been an afterthought in Civ games. The game is designed towards achieving certain victories, and then there's the Score Victory.

I disagree that Score Victory just needs a few tweaks here and there. Which is why I'm using a different term (the one used in Humankind) to reinforce the idea of an integrated Victory type, which the current Score Victory certainly isn't.

The score victory in Civ6 is basically what you want. You literally get points for doing everything that helps you win in all of the victory types except getting diplomatic points, tourism, and killing units. Covert cities to your religion? Points. Founding cities? Points. Building things? Points. Anything that gets you era score? Points. Playing the game well gets you points, which is basically what you want. The only thing that I think could be added is winning things like aid requests but otherwise? Everything you do to win in other victory types helps you will in a Score Victory.

 

[InsidiousMage]

true -- but why not just say "civilization vii" then?

Because it isn't the official announcement for the game, just an acknowledgement that the next game in the series is coming out. There will be a whole rollout and everything when the want to properly announce what the next title is and you don't do that when talking about personnel changes.

 

[Tekamthi]

Because it isn't the official announcement for the game, just an acknowledgement that the next game in the series is coming out. There will be a whole rollout and everything when the want to properly announce what the next title is and you don't do that when talking about personnel changes.

its a possible explanation, certainly -- but occam's razor suggests they didn't say civ 7 simply cuz its not gonna be civ 7.

 

[Zaarin]

its a possible explanation, certainly -- but occam's razor suggests they didn't say civ 7 simply cuz its not gonna be civ 7.

I don't agree that's the parsimonious explanation, especially after BE was so poorly received (justifiably IMO). Civ6 has been milked to the bone and the last spinoff was panned; moving directly to Civ7 makes the most sense.

 

[TheCleanerDragon]

Well unfortunately, their social media advertising tends towards a memey, baiting tone. I think not saying 7 outright was probably to elicit debate about it being 7 or not.

This is exactly what I think. Just saying "the next game is Civ7" doesn't really leave much to be said. Leaving it vague and giving things that can interpreted as hints, such as the 7 exclamation points in the post, leads to more speculation which means more people talking about the game.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

how do we know this is for civ 7? tweet just says the next civilization game. My money's on a civ rev 3, civ be 2, or a standalone civ 6 mod a la civ 4 colonization

The seven exclamation points seem to suggest Civ 7. Either way, I suspect we'll know for certain after March 15th.

 

[Tekamthi]

I don't agree that's the parsimonious explanation, especially after BE was so poorly received (justifiably IMO). Civ6 has been milked to the bone and the last spinoff was panned; moving directly to Civ7 makes the most sense.

thoughtful take, BE 2 would indeed be a poor choice -- but I speculate the business plan is to use each engine for one standalone spinoff. We had colonization in 4 era, BE in 5 era, and now maybe something in 6 era.

To make a specific guess, the civ audience is a knowledgeable segment of the gamer market, generally tuned into world affairs, and all eyes in this regard are on soviet/russia-usa history right now. It would be crass to cover the current conflict directly, and far too granular for the series, but a 1800-2000 era game might fit: picks up where colonization left off, and brings us through all the key moments that have led to what we're seeing today. 2nd guess is maybe some kind of prequel to BE, near future stuff that speculates on weaponization of space here on earth, before the BE ships take off. Just guesses here, out of a desire to put some specifics to my nay-saying on the civ 7 speculation.

 

[Takhisis]

Civ3 was the low point of the series. Still, I got my money's worth.

User must be banned for piracy.

Seven exclamation points in the tweet.

And Twitter allows for 140 characters, which is a multiple of 7 (or 280, also a multiple of 7) and if we go that way we'll be Thomas Mann when he started writing Der Zauberberg.

 

[Zaarin]

We've already seen the "spinoff" IMO--it was NFP (and now LP). They chose to extend the main game's lifespan rather than do a spinoff.

To make a specific guess, the civ audience is a knowledgeable segment of the gamer market, generally tuned into world affairs, and all eyes in this regard are on soviet/russia-usa history right now. It would be crass to cover the current conflict directly, and far too granular for the series, but a 1800-2000 era game might fit: picks up where colonization left off, and brings us through all the key moments that have led to what we're seeing today. 2nd guess is maybe some kind of prequel to BE, near future stuff that speculates on weaponization of space here on earth, before the BE ships take off. Just guesses here, out of a desire to put some specifics to my nay-saying on the civ 7 speculation.

Firaxis can't be ignorant of the fact that the modern era is the worst part of the game; I can't imagine they'd make a spinoff focusing on it exclusively. If anything, I'd expect a mythology or fantasy spinoff. Like I said, though, I think NFP was Civ6's "spinoff."

 

[Tekamthi]

Firaxis can't be ignorant of the fact that the modern era is the worst part of the game; I can't imagine they'd make a spinoff focusing on it exclusively. If anything, I'd expect a mythology or fantasy spinoff. Like I said, though, I think NFP was Civ6's "spinoff."

Firaxis is still closely tied to Sid Meier, is it not? His pre-civ resume from the 80's is full of 20th century conflict stuff; they haven't done it justice perhaps, but I'd suggest the passion to get the modern era right is probably there, somewhere.