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

[Tekamthi]

History, by definition, cannot predate writing so if one doesn't count proto-writing then 4000 BCE predates the start of history by about 500 years. It does roughly coincide with both the beginning of Sumerian civilization and proto-writing in Mesopotamia and Egypt, however.

History can indeed predate writing: the archaeological record is relied on heavily in forming our contemporary understanding of history, and it is the archaeological record of UK upon which civ relies to determine that 4000 bc was starting point of agricultural, sedentary society. We can glean some kind of historical info about many non-writing societies this way, albeit not as complete a picture as those where extensive written records exist.

At the start of a game of civ, does the narrator tell you that your people just discovered proto-writing? nope, talks about agriculture. The only place agriculture started at ~4000 bc is UK, other regions had it prior to or after that time. Not a knock against this as a starting point for the series, but there's plenty of room to reinterpret. Given the rise of agricultural society is civ's thematic focus, the argument could be made that 10000 bc should be its starting point. Probably would make for a boring game though.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I doubt Firaxis is too concerned about Humankind. A quick glance at Steam stats has Civ 6 still as one of the 20 most played games with over 60,000 in game right now. Humankind is languishing down at 554th with less than 1,000 in game. Even at it's all time peak when brand new it didn't have as many players as Civ 6 has right now.

I played a few games of Humankind back when it came out, but I can't really think of a mechanic I'd like to see imported from there. The whole constantly switching cultures mechanic was definitely a failed experiment. I'd say Civ 7 needs something to shake it up, especially in the latter half of the game though. I find games in Civ 6 have a rather passive and predictable feel after the first few ages. Too much time spent where the game is already won, and it's just a matter of hitting end turn. The AI's passivity and inability to cope with 1UPT warfare is the main cause of that.

I think their approach to Diplomacy (different type of deals, including a Non-Aggression Pact) as well as how Luxuries behaved is actually an interesting take.

I almost never trade Luxuries in 6, because I find the Amenities penalties to be laughably forgettable.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Minor thing I’m hoping for is the return of separate themes for the expansions. I was really disappointed that Civ 6 only had Sogno di Volare from release through now.

Unless it was Baba Yetu, I would have been mad.

Good luck balancing that and coming up with 50 to 60 unique ways for a civ to get victory points.

Sounds kind of similar to the agenda system already, but it honestly would make more sense if that's why the leaders had those certain agendas.

 

[Takhisis]

@moderators don't we have something like three or four Russia and Russian conflicts spillover/quarantine threads in the Off-topic forum already?

 

[Zaarin]

History can indeed predate writing: the archaeological record is relied on heavily in forming our contemporary understanding of history, and it is the archaeological record of UK upon which civ relies to determine that 4000 bc was starting point of agricultural, sedentary society. We can glean some kind of historical info about many non-writing societies this way, albeit not as complete a picture as those where extensive written records exist.

You're misunderstanding my point. Of course archaeology and other nonwritten evidence (including oral tradition) is useful for writing history, but history is the written record and interpretation of an event, not the event itself. Anything that happened before written records is prehistory. That's not a value judgment; just a definition. Colloquially, of course, people refer to observing important events as "seeing history take place," but history actually takes place in offices and libraries and is very boring to watch.

 

[Kwami]

I almost never trade Luxuries in 6, because I find the Amenities penalties to be laughably forgettable.

Ridiculous. Having +5 amenities gives you +20% to all yields. Having -3 amenities gives you -20% to all yields and -30% to growth. That's a massive difference. Far more than any other bonus in the game and it's not really close. And the AI players sell amenities at very low prices, too.

Humankind's resources were stupidly overpowered. The player could almost always get all of the bonuses and make insane amounts of money.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Score victory has several aspects in a Civ franchise game.

1. For very new players, on low difficulty levels, you may just run out of turns. You don't achieve any of the military VCs, nor do you complete all of the parts of a Science victory. No one, including the AI succeeded in achieving a Cultural or Diplomatic victory. The game needs to have a way to declare a winner.
2. For experienced players, it can be a challenge to "run out the clock", with not allowing any AI to achieve a VC along the way. Again, the game needs a consistent way of computing score that can decide a victory.
3. In Civ3 and Civ4 (not sure about earlier games), one was given a score *bonus* for winning early. Something like (MaxTurn - WinTurn)*factor was added to your SP score. The human player had an incentive to win in fewer turns so that their score value for the in-game "Hall of Fame" would be higher, but it was not so much of a factor between players during the game. For Civ5, BE, and Civ6, the human player can increase the score by building more, bigger, populous rather than winning early. I personally would like to see this return.
4. During the game, it's helpful to know your score relative to the other players. But not *that* helpful. In nearly all the forums here, experienced players counsel the newbies, "The in-game score doesn't really reflect how your empire is growing. Look at X and Y and Z instead." I'm left wondering if it's worthwhile to keep a during-the-game score metric that is known to be incomplete, or to rework it so that it is a better measure of the state of my empire.

 

[Saxo Grammaticus]

Question for all you Humankind players:

What do you think of adding the neolithic age to Civ? It's my understanding (I've never played Humankind), that you start off as a little tribe of hunter gatherers? Cute!

Personally, I think the Neolithic serves a strategic role in Humankind by emphasizing map knowledge and serving as a device for faction selection. Larger maps and faster speeds pressure the player into trade-offs as others quickly choose their own factions. It can be frustrating to optimize and is almost always the most infuriating era if included in Amplitude's community challenges.

If implemented in Civ VI, the Neolithic would probably need more depth (commensurate with the novelty) than simply strategic function. From what I gather on the forum, it could be preferable to chop Civilization into different periods rather than cram another era into the ambitious scale of the game.

 

[Zaarin]

Humankind changed my mind about wanting a Neolithic period in Civ6, not simply because it was poorly implemented (as virtually everything was in HK), but because I can't really imagine a way for it to provide a better experience for the player. Civ already starts at the tail-end of the Neolithic and cities were already being established in the Neolithic so I think the current model is fine.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Ridiculous. Having +5 amenities gives you +20% to all yields. Having -3 amenities gives you -20% to all yields and -30% to growth. That's a massive difference. Far more than any other bonus in the game and it's not really close. And the AI players sell amenities at very low prices, too.

Humankind's resources were stupidly overpowered. The player could almost always get all of the bonuses and make insane amounts of money.

20%, -20%, sure, but you can get modifiers from many other areas as well, I dont' remember how it gets calculated.

But it still feels like you dont' actively think about that system, in 5 or 4, you had a reason to chase Happiness.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Humankind changed my mind about wanting a Neolithic period in Civ6, not simply because it was poorly implemented (as virtually everything was in HK), but because I can't really imagine a way for it to provide a better experience for the player. Civ already starts at the tail-end of the Neolithic and cities were already being established in the Neolithic so I think the current model is fine.

Let me tell you all a little Historical Story.
Several have posted that since Humankind's Neolithic Start sucked, Civ VII should not have a Neolithic Start.

In 1938, both the German and Soviet military staffs analyzed an attempt by the Italian forces in Spain to conduct a massed tank attack. It was a complete and utter fiasco. The Soviet staff concluded from this that Massed Tank Attacks Do Not Work, and went on to disband all of their large tank/mechanized formations in the following year - and then had to hurriedly re-establish large tank formations after German large tank formations overran France in 6 weeks.
Because the German staffs had analyzed the same battle in Spain, and concluded that Massed Tank Attacks Conducted By Italians Do Not Work, but that had no effect on the German progress in forming and training Panzer Divisions.

You are, I am afraid, all conducting Soviet-style analysis of the Neolithic problem.

The real problem is, too much was happening before and during the period when the earliest cities were established, and by starting the game ONLY when everybody not only Can but Must establish a city, the entire early game is turned into a Fantasy and everything before the first Cities disappears.

That includes such hoary old Civ Tech favorites as Agriculture, Animal Husbandry/Domestication, Pottery, earliest Metallurgy (working Copper, Gold and Silver at least), earliest water crossing by at least Scouts and civilian units (i.e., settling on Islands and isolated land masses). It also includes, as we now know, Monument Bulding in both stone and wood.

Civ has always finessed this by having nominal 'monuments' as Goodie Huts scattered about the map and compressing all the technologies into the first Era - which, again, is Fantasy.

Now, most of us have nothing against Fantasy in games - it's practically inescapable, IMHO, but when you resort to Fantasy because you've simply bungled the design of the entire first part of the game, I submit that is lousy game design, not good fantasy game design.

The game can include very good Reasons to not found your first city right away, and a great deal of 'development' that you can accomplish, in scouting, exploiting resources and growing your Faction, before founding your first City.
The fact that Humankind's version of the Neolithic included virtually NO Tech development and minimal resource exploitation (no Trade, for instance, despite copious archeological evidence of it) is no reason to assume that Civ VII is required to make the same mistakes.

 

[pokiehl]

snip.

Civ is a game about city building, and it always has been. I don’t want to fumble around doing some tedious-sounding simulation of nomadic life for twenty turns before I make a city. This Neolithic thing has always sounded like realism for realism’s sake. To your point, Humankind’s execution has colored my perception of the concept even more, but no matter how I try, I can’t imagine a fun system for this.

I also think this idea would take the fun out of early game exploration. One of the best parts
of the early game is the tension between the impetus to found a city immediately (plus the pressure to develop the city) and the need to explore the map.

 

[TreVor_ish]

You are, I am afraid, all conducting Soviet-style analysis of the Neolithic problem.

I would disagree.
It's more a fear, that company that made a game that made me vote alongside question marks about banning resource I never seen in forum that exist in nowhere (or many other design decisions), will have to cut most of the fun in design because it didn't go through some focus groups (or will cost more, when it has less), and gonna make it even worse. Or something other I guess.

CIV VI numbers say it's OK so.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The game can include very good Reasons to not found your first city right away, and a great deal of 'development' that you can accomplish, in scouting, exploiting resources and growing your Faction, before founding your first City.
The fact that Humankind's version of the Neolithic included virtually NO Tech development and minimal resource exploitation (no Trade, for instance, despite copious archeological evidence of it) is no reason to assume that Civ VII is required to make the same mistakes.

I'd at least make it an optional "game mode", that way it would benefit both parties. And I say that as someone who would want to try it in game.
It would help out the whole start bias dilemma of England isn't close to the coast, or Mali isn't surrounded by desert.

 

[Zaarin]

Several have posted that since Humankind's Neolithic Start sucked, Civ VII should not have a Neolithic Start.

To clarify, when I said HK made me rethink my opinion, it's certainly not because I imagine that HK's Neolithic era is as good as such a system could be. I have no doubt that whatever Firaxis does in any department, it will be better than HK. I meant it made me rethink what I wanted out of a Neolithic or nomadic start and made me realize that I prefer the system we already have in Civilization.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Okay, as soon as I finished the previous Post, I realized that I need to give yez all some Positive Examples of what could be done Neolithically in Civ VII.

Let me introduce: the Implicit Neolithic. ( - And my sister the archeologist demands that I indicate she had No Part in any of this!)

Basically, the game starts around the earliest City-Founding dates.
This will NOT be 4000 BCE, it will be closer to 9000 or 7000 BCE, by which time places like Jericho, Motza and Tel Qaramel in the Middle East (all modern names, these are all long before writing), Asikh Hoyuk and Cayonu in Anatolia, Seskla in Greece, Lahurdewa in India, the Pengtoushan sites in China were all started as permanent (as in, occupied for centuries) sites with over 1000 people, and in some cases 3 - 6000: don't know what you could call them if you didn't call them 'cities'. Many of them had stone or other fortifications/defenses, ceremonial sites, and most had Agriculture, Animal Domestication, Pottery, Fishing or some combination of those technologies.

So, you start by being able to select one or more technologies. I would have this selection made after you see your starting position, because, like your little digital population, you should look at a shoreline frothing with fish and say "I want Fishing!" or observe a marshy river valley full of stalks and go "Agriculture: it's what's for dinner."

We could even 'game' the Pre-Existing Neolithic Events by having you select Technologies in specific categories. For instance:
Food Production Tech: Fishing, Agriculture, Animal Domestication
Amenities Tech: Pottery, primitive Metallurgy (exploit Gold, Silver, Copper), Weaving (exploit Cotton, Flax, Hemp)
Construction Tech: Mud bricks, Carpentry, Stoneworking (and for a Bonus Graphic, this selection could indicate the appearance of your Earliest Cities/Settlements, with ramshackle wood/reed shacks being the 'default')

These choices should all be made After seeing the starting position, because selecting Primitive Metallurgy when there is nary a deposit of metal or Weaving when you have neither Cotton (which will be Damn Rare at the beginning in any case), or Hemp or Flax makes no sense, like Carpentry in the desert or Mud Brick in the rain forest

Just this primitive little matrix gives 27 different combinations based on your Starting Position, to add which can be any Uniques inherent in the Civ or Group itself. This is all stuff your digital tribe 'learned' while wandering the Neolithic landscape.

I would add to this, without more detail because this is where previous Civs have made major changes in each iteration, Civic or Social Policy choices that might be far more random for another way of Starting Differentiation - possibly even choices mandated by your Civ/faction and a separate choice for starting the path of your Religion/Belief System.

Nobody should start the game with a Blank (Technological/Civic/Social Policy) Slate: for me, that's the purpose of a Neolithic Preliminary, but we can make it Implicit instead of Explicit and get the effect that (I, anyway) want.

 

[AspiringScholar]

I haven't read through the whole thread, but what are everyone's thoughts on whether VII will be even more oriented towards casual gamers than previous versions in the series?

My first guess would be that it will become even more fantasy like and approachable to a mass audience, simply because Firaxis is a company whose primary interest is making money, and "serious" strategy games aiming to really "feel" like actual historical empire building only appeal to a marginal demographic. This is probably why games like Gary Grigsby's War in the East and Modern Command (or whatever it's called) are obscenely expensive in spite of being legitimate simulations, because making an entire game of that quality and scale simply costs too much for that demographic to make profitable.

Either way, I'll probably buy VII and give it an honest try even if that ends up being true. Maybe it would be fun for a few games even if I don't end up thinking it's as enjoyably replayable as earlier ones.

 

[pokiehl]

My first guess would be that it will become even more fantasy like and approachable to a mass audience,

Why do you assume this to be the case, and why do you think fantasy = more approachable? If that were true, wouldn’t fantasy-oriented 4X games like Age of Wonders be more successful than Civ?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Why do you assume this to be the case, and why do you think fantasy = more approachable? If that were true, wouldn’t fantasy-oriented 4X games like Age of Wonders be more successful than Civ?

I've seen a lot of people say that because of the fantasy game modes in the NFP. Of course, I'm under the impression that the devs might have used those ideas to test maybe a fantasy spin-off, or just go wild on their own creative desires. I don't believe that the official titles will have any fantasy elements, at least in the main game.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

I haven't read through the whole thread, but what are everyone's thoughts on whether VII will be even more oriented towards casual gamers than previous versions in the series?

My first guess would be that it will become even more fantasy like and approachable to a mass audience, simply because Firaxis is a company whose primary interest is making money, and "serious" strategy games aiming to really "feel" like actual historical empire building only appeal to a marginal demographic. This is probably why games like Gary Grigsby's War in the East and Modern Command (or whatever it's called) are obscenely expensive in spite of being legitimate simulations, because making an entire game of that quality and scale simply costs too much for that demographic to make profitable.

Either way, I'll probably buy VII and give it an honest try even if that ends up being true. Maybe it would be fun for a few games even if I don't end up thinking it's as enjoyably replayable as earlier ones.

IMO if I had to predict, I think they *may* try to make it more "competitively-minded" as an attempt to get onto the streamer game more. I say this as someone who isn't into streamers but I think that MP Civ could make for great content for people to mindlessly put on. No shade-it's just wet I've been told from friends lol

VI was very SP focussed on empire building which lended itself to more "exploit" videos vs. optimal strategy against AI or human opponents. It was all about stacking endless bonuses (That being a major part of their design philosophy-everything is a bonus) to get big production...but wasn't about the moments or reactions. Part of that was due to the AI being...well the Civ VI AI. But part of that was that it was structured in that build-focused way. VI was all about the "exploitation" and "expansion" of 4x. I would hope/predict they'll take some of that for 7 but really refocus onto "exploration" and "exterminate" (i.e. win) in order to make a more reactive game that people can play with each other/on streams. Not exactly my preference 100% (Although we do need more focus on exploration lol) but just my two cents.