Aquila SPQR
Prince
Good things:
1. Graphics - that's a huge relief because it's exactly what I was hoping for. Looking more realistic while still being vibrant and pretty. Different looks for different cultures. Everything is beautiful - units, cities, buildings, leaders and the map. Lovely.
2. Cities have districts, good feature carried over. And they look more realistic/organic than in Civ VI which is a relief.
3. It seems units can be grouped into armies (possibly led by a commander?), but still fight as 1UPT. Possible clone of Humankind's system, which would be great.
4. Leaders speak in their native languages! Augustus' Latin sounds good. Fantastic thing when it comes to immersion and I always loved it in Civ V. I also like the leaders are interacting on the screen when conducting diplomacy.
5. Independent peoples that can be interacted with (another clone of Humankind's feature).
6. Navigable rivers and rivers flowing through the hexes instead of between them (a feature I was hoping for since they announced Civ V).
7. best Roman emperor (Augustus) as leader, good choice
Bad things:
1. civs changing in time. That's the most disliked feature from Humankind to me. I disliked that idea since Humankind's devs announced it and all my fears were realized when they released it. When I play a Civ game - I like to guide my chosen civilization through the entire game - since ancient times to modern, no matter how ahistorical that is. I also like to compete with predetermined civs I chose (I never played against random AI civs in any Civ game I played in the last two decades). For example if I play as Romans, I like to compete against the Greeks and Egyptians, and when I play as America I like to compete against Russians and French. This new system seems to ruin it, because I won't be able to determine against which civ I will compete in every age.
At least it seems we'll have the ability to continue as the previous civ, but that's a choice for the player (possible with some penalty or lack of additional useful features, "punishing" those who did not transition to some other civ). The AI will probably be free to morph into any civ they please (unless there will be some option to prevent it in the game setup). All of this create the same problems that exist in Humankind and greatly reduce my satisfaction. Since there will be no way to play as "modern" civs early in the game - diversity of early age will be reduced. We will see the same ancient civs over and over again, just like we see it in Humankind (the same set of few cities as capitals for the entire game, no matter what civs appear later on). We will witness strange evolution - Romans becoming Japanese, Mauryans becoming Spanish (unless there will be an option to force AI to keep more historical transitions). It breaks the immersion to me. And what if I would like to play as Americans, but someone will pick it first? Will the city names change in time? Or will we see AI Americans in modern age with Egyptian city names and Waset as their capital?
I always liked the idea of giving players as many ways to customize their game as they want and disliked the idea of forcing me to use features I dislike. That's why I still hope for a custom setup option for an "old-style" gameplay, but since it looks the civs will be restricted to their own ages (like they are in Humankind) and overall excitement of devs when they were talking about it - it seems it'll be unlikely. If so - I hope the modders will step in and bring the old Civ style back somehow.
2. only three ages seems a bit disappointing, especially that the glimpse of the tech tree we saw looks rather small (it seems every tech will be able to reach "mastery" which essentially doubles the tech tree, but I would still prefer a larger tree than that.
3. wonders occupying the entire hex. I disliked this feature in Civ VI, but I noticed it's quite popular, so no suprise it's here. To me it creates problems with cities looking bad when they have few oversized wonders spread around the entire area and require unrealistic planning ahead (I have to keep this hex empty for a future wonder, especially if wonders will have placing requirements).
4. borders look as ugly as in Civ VI. They are too angled, too unrealistic, sticking to the straight hex lines too much. I prefer Civ IV/Civ V borders which are more soft, more reacting to the terrain, more realistic and more pleasing to look at. A minor complaint, but still a complaint.
Overall - it's a 50/50 so far. While I love some elements - that one feature (changing of civs, civs locked to eras) kills the excitement. I didn't like it in Humankind at all, it's unlikely I will like it in Civ VII.
1. Graphics - that's a huge relief because it's exactly what I was hoping for. Looking more realistic while still being vibrant and pretty. Different looks for different cultures. Everything is beautiful - units, cities, buildings, leaders and the map. Lovely.
2. Cities have districts, good feature carried over. And they look more realistic/organic than in Civ VI which is a relief.
3. It seems units can be grouped into armies (possibly led by a commander?), but still fight as 1UPT. Possible clone of Humankind's system, which would be great.
4. Leaders speak in their native languages! Augustus' Latin sounds good. Fantastic thing when it comes to immersion and I always loved it in Civ V. I also like the leaders are interacting on the screen when conducting diplomacy.
5. Independent peoples that can be interacted with (another clone of Humankind's feature).
6. Navigable rivers and rivers flowing through the hexes instead of between them (a feature I was hoping for since they announced Civ V).
7. best Roman emperor (Augustus) as leader, good choice
Bad things:
1. civs changing in time. That's the most disliked feature from Humankind to me. I disliked that idea since Humankind's devs announced it and all my fears were realized when they released it. When I play a Civ game - I like to guide my chosen civilization through the entire game - since ancient times to modern, no matter how ahistorical that is. I also like to compete with predetermined civs I chose (I never played against random AI civs in any Civ game I played in the last two decades). For example if I play as Romans, I like to compete against the Greeks and Egyptians, and when I play as America I like to compete against Russians and French. This new system seems to ruin it, because I won't be able to determine against which civ I will compete in every age.
At least it seems we'll have the ability to continue as the previous civ, but that's a choice for the player (possible with some penalty or lack of additional useful features, "punishing" those who did not transition to some other civ). The AI will probably be free to morph into any civ they please (unless there will be some option to prevent it in the game setup). All of this create the same problems that exist in Humankind and greatly reduce my satisfaction. Since there will be no way to play as "modern" civs early in the game - diversity of early age will be reduced. We will see the same ancient civs over and over again, just like we see it in Humankind (the same set of few cities as capitals for the entire game, no matter what civs appear later on). We will witness strange evolution - Romans becoming Japanese, Mauryans becoming Spanish (unless there will be an option to force AI to keep more historical transitions). It breaks the immersion to me. And what if I would like to play as Americans, but someone will pick it first? Will the city names change in time? Or will we see AI Americans in modern age with Egyptian city names and Waset as their capital?
I always liked the idea of giving players as many ways to customize their game as they want and disliked the idea of forcing me to use features I dislike. That's why I still hope for a custom setup option for an "old-style" gameplay, but since it looks the civs will be restricted to their own ages (like they are in Humankind) and overall excitement of devs when they were talking about it - it seems it'll be unlikely. If so - I hope the modders will step in and bring the old Civ style back somehow.
2. only three ages seems a bit disappointing, especially that the glimpse of the tech tree we saw looks rather small (it seems every tech will be able to reach "mastery" which essentially doubles the tech tree, but I would still prefer a larger tree than that.
3. wonders occupying the entire hex. I disliked this feature in Civ VI, but I noticed it's quite popular, so no suprise it's here. To me it creates problems with cities looking bad when they have few oversized wonders spread around the entire area and require unrealistic planning ahead (I have to keep this hex empty for a future wonder, especially if wonders will have placing requirements).
4. borders look as ugly as in Civ VI. They are too angled, too unrealistic, sticking to the straight hex lines too much. I prefer Civ IV/Civ V borders which are more soft, more reacting to the terrain, more realistic and more pleasing to look at. A minor complaint, but still a complaint.
Overall - it's a 50/50 so far. While I love some elements - that one feature (changing of civs, civs locked to eras) kills the excitement. I didn't like it in Humankind at all, it's unlikely I will like it in Civ VII.
Last edited:
