Scale was always off in all Civ games and the more details they got, the worse it was. When Civ4 started using 3D for the map we suddenly realized how ridiculously huge units are compared to everything else, for example. And sure, if you're use to Civ6 graphics, Civ7 one will be off with different proportions, but I really like this diorama style on closeup.
I used to like that in Civ 6 I could potentially get an awful start, and that meant that I had to find ways to make it work, and there was a challenge to how I had to play the game. Isn't that part of what these games are about?
Civ 6 always had lots of issues in that experienced players understood all the ways to cheese the system. From swapping out the production queue when chopping or trading things, there were always lots of ways to get around systems doing cheesy things.
I think one of the issues I have with the Civ 7 system of resources is they feel intangible, they are just a set of numbers working under the hood. In Civ 6 if I didn't have Iron, I might have Horses, so I'd end up building more Cav. That was a tangible change in my game that I could see and touch. I think it means that resources really matter.
That's good point, but it has it's other side - the more impactful resources are, the less balanced game is. Also, things like "build cavalry if you have horses, but no iron" don't look like a strategic choice. They clearly alter how I play the game, but so do resources in Civ7. A lot of production resources turn capital city into production powerhouse, while a lot of gold and silver reward having as many settlements as possible.
No, it's not a part of what these games are about. It's an aspect of one or more of the iterations that you personally enjoy. I didn't. I never did. I dislike being hamstrung by poor RNG because it qualitatively affects the enjoyment I get out of spending my incredibly limited time playing a video game. Challenge should be present, but unless I choose it, it shouldn't be a dice roll whether or not as to whether my chosen faction starts completely hamstrung.
What I like about the resource requirements is that it feels like it reflects reality somewhat. If I lived on the Steppe my main resource is horses, and probably not iron mines. So naturally I lean towards horses as my main weapon. Civ 6 did a decent job of giving you options. If you didn't have access to Iron and Horses, well maybe you need to build archers and hold tight for a few ages till you get something you can work with, or you use something else you have to trade for Iron etc. The game was flexible enough to give you those options (although, yeah trade was pretty much broken, especially if you used the trade mod)
Sure, maybe its not for everyone, though I think 6 gave you the option of abundant resources if you wanted to play that way too. However I just don't agree that there was ever a point where you were hamstrung by poor RNG, unless you end up on a 1 tile island or something. You always had options on how to play the game, and like my above example, you always had a way to adapt your game to suit the situation.
It's just not impactful, especially when you can get so much more combat strength through basically a million other methods. There are many aspects where the game has leaned far too much into be being balanced, so nothing feels interesting. I am a big believer that what people find interesting is 'contrast', and it's fun to see different things interact. That might be different civs against each other, different units fighting it out etc. Civ 7 has so much balance that you rarely get that contrast. I know they are making moves to make Civs more distinct, but I feel like Ages is a real limiting factor.
It definitely is - do I settle a crap city for iron, do I trade for it and if so how much wilI I pay, do I build a handful of cavalry and take it from someone.
Iron is literally the only early game power spike in VI (apart from Horses, which have their own trade-offs) to the extent that UUs that don't require Iron are incredibly valuable in the early game.
But you care about the balance of resources in VII? Because they don't feel fun to you? It's literally the inverse of where I'm coming from! I care about the balance of resources in VI, because they frequently didn't feel fun for me. And I played quite a bit of VI (I'm not winning any contests, but by my standards of "free time to sink into a video game", VI is up there for me).
It's a power spike, but there are multiple ways to get your own power spike or counter act another players power spike. You realise you don't have iron and your neighbour does? Cool, build walls, get archers. They won't be able to cope. They have horses? Get spears, they are cheap. There were very few genuine power spikes that couldn't be countered.
Depends what you mean by balance. I want there to be comparative advantages for players, I want strategies that take you down differing paths to victory, and I want choices in the game to be impactful. When it comes to resources in Civ 7, they don't have any meaningful impact on how you play the game, most of them are nice to haves (maybe camels is the exception). I can safely ignore which resources are where on the map knowing it won't really do much to my game. That shouldn't be how the game is played.
I just don't see how that is true. With walls and archers you can easily play on the defensive and it's really tough for swordsmen to even touch you. If you get horsemen it's especially untrue. It just means you can't be super aggressive during classical.. so what? Isn't that part of the game. Resources really should be all or nothing to some extent, because that is pretty much how the world works.
Building walls and getting Archers is a more expensive strategy that occupies your city's build queue for longer vs. being able to improve Iron (which can happen externally, while your city works on other things). Iron is also a significant production boost, and in VI hammers were king (vs. science being king in V). Multiple points of impact compound the playthrough's viability.
There being room for systems to improve in VII doesn't mean that the iteration in VI is necessarily better.
Graphics does not equal scale. Just because Civ 7 uses the diorama style (which I vastly prefer over the Civ 6 style) does not mean that distorting the scale that much was necessary. Yes, the series has always had wonkiness in this regard, but IMO this is the first time when it became that noticeable to me with settlements, and not just units.
I agree with this to an extent. I think resources are overly abundant and/or homogenized in Civ 7 (with the exception of Camels and maybe treasure resources), to the point where you rarely feel the impact of shortage, or don’t feel like you’re unlocking new gameplay potential by getting them. Everything giving +X yield just doesn’t feel the same as various resources giving Amenities for expansion, granting access to units, or unlocking new mechanics like power.
I couldn’t agree with this more. Limitations are good, because they force players to make strategic decisions. In Civ 5 and Civ 6, I liked that oil tended to spawn in places that typically wouldn’t be the best places to settle. It forced me to make decision whether to eat the cost of an otherwise unproductive city in order to get a valuable resource, or not. Resource limitations drove my diplomacy and military strategies. If you remove those limitations, it removes the spur that gets players to take risks.
NO IT IS NOT how the world worked for most of history.
I think the way Civ has modelled this in past is good enough. Absolutely some resources were not accessible everywhere in the world, the Aztecs didn’t use iron weapons for instance. The game utilises trade as the method for spreading resources if you don’t have access to them. That is the point of comparative advantage. If your civ doesn’t have iron but has resources which other civs want then you trade. I don’t see the issue, that is really how the world works.
