Overall impression (poll)

[thecrazyscot]

It's been a couple of days, and I've been trying to absorb as much of the new information as possible without making a judgment one way or another. After sitting with it for a bit, I'm feeling overall optimistic regarding some fundamental mechanical and pacing changes but a bit wary that ancillary systems will continue to be represented in a way that I find tedious.

I like that they are trying something different. I think I got burnt out on the formula for the past few games after a lot of time with Civ 6, so I'm excited that they are shaking up the fundamental structure of a game via Ages, map expansion, and civilization switching. If they are tackling the fundamental problems plaguing late game that's a huge deal. But we need to see more about what happens during an Age Transition and just how much of your hard work is removed when starting the next Age. Definite feelsbadman potential.
The updated terrain looks amazing, with a height system and navigable rivers.
I like what they seem to be doing with city-states/independent peoples - seems much more dynamic and player-influenced.

I'm unsure about the RPG-lite Leader system, with all those Attribute trees to upgrade throughout the game. Is it just going to be a min-max mechanic or will it actually feel meaningful in pursuing dynamic strategies?
There's a bunch of important, but ancillary systems which appear to be in the game, but I don't know if I'm going to care for (Religion, Espionage, etc). I don't think Civ 6 got them right, but if they are in the "33% keep" category since a lot of other stuff is changing I'd be a bit bummed.
There are other "fluffy" systems (like Great People and Great Works) which seemed cool to me at first but I quickly found rather annoying in Civ 6. They seem to be here in some fashion, and I hope they don't end up being obstructive systems rather than something that is consistently engaging to manage.
Combat logistics problems and tediousness could be nicely addressed by the Commander system, or not. I want to see more.

 

[Vertico]

I'm honestly disappointed, not so much by the features presented but by the lack of innovation. I've been a big CIV fan since my childhood, ever since I bought the first Civilization on floppy disk. That was a revolution. CIV 2 was another leap forward - not just in gameplay but with unforgettable features like the council videos, and later with Test of Time, the possibility of parallel maps! CIV III wasn’t as innovative compared to the Call to Power series, but it did introduce cultural borders and more advanced diplomacy. I really enjoyed the first World Wars there, especially with the web of mutual defensive treaties. CIV IV brought in civics (so governments weren’t all the same anymore), religion, and probably the most robust support for mods of any CIV game. People still play some of those popular mods today, like Rhye's and Fall or Realism Invictus. Civilization V gave us hexes, city-states, tourism, and art. CIV VI added weather, districts, ages, and social techs.

So, what exactly is the innovation in CIV VII?

• No workers? That was already in Call to Power.
• 1UPT? Already in CIV I, V, VI etc.
• Armies led by commanders? Already in CIV III.
• Specific eras? Already in Humankind and Millennia.
• Settlements? Already in Humankind and Millennia.
• Culture swapping? Already in Humankind.
• Navigable rivers? Already in CIV II, though without special graphics.
• Influence? Already in Humankind.

What I expected from the genre leader were BOLD NEW ideas and mechanics, like:

• Completely new resource types, like in Old World.
• A new way to deal with leaders and their personalities, again like in Old World.
• Fresh concepts for buildings and economy, like in Millennia.
• Innovative ideas for alternative eras, like in Millennia.
• New approaches to armies, combat, and initiative, like in Endless Legend.
• Unique, non-symmetrical civilizations and mechanics, like in Endless Legend.

Remember the goood old game of Sim City?
It also lacked innovation, just copying and pasting the same old features at higher and higher prices... until Cities: Skylines...

 

[Binkov]

Some good and some bad. I like the civ evolutions. Diplomacy looks more involved now. Visuals are solid.

My main concern is the bad aspects of Civ VI they didn't get rid of, such as policy cards. I can not believe they kept that horrible chore of a system that grinds the game to a halt every few turns as you have to pick the optimal set of half a dozen cards out of a deck of several dozen to use for... just the next few turns until you have to do it all over again.

One youtuber who played 7 said that while policy cards mechanic is similar to 6, the frequency of fiddling with the cards has somehow been lowered.

 

[MasterPaw]

I mean, HK was released three years ago, plenty of time to scrap the entire idea if Firaxis came to conclusion Humanknd's failure invalidates the notion. It is not that crucial feature for the entire game - Three Ages and Crises system is crucial, and it can acommodate old "4000 BC to 2000 AD" civilizations. Or create shakeup in less controversial way, such as my age old proposal "can we like make some new major civilizations appear at the later stages of the game" to join the struggle against 4000 BC ones.

I'm pretty sure major civ arriving later is whats happening as mp mention map size increasing and max player being 5 in age 1/2 and 8 in age 3

 

[MasterPaw]

I'm honestly disappointed, not so much by the features presented but by the lack of innovation. I've been a big CIV fan since my childhood, ever since I bought the first Civilization on floppy disk. That was a revolution. CIV 2 was another leap forward - not just in gameplay but with unforgettable features like the council videos, and later with Test of Time, the possibility of parallel maps! CIV III wasn’t as innovative compared to the Call to Power series, but it did introduce cultural borders and more advanced diplomacy. I really enjoyed the first World Wars there, especially with the web of mutual defensive treaties. CIV IV brought in civics (so governments weren’t all the same anymore), religion, and probably the most robust support for mods of any CIV game. People still play some of those popular mods today, like Rhye's and Fall or Realism Invictus. Civilization V gave us hexes, city-states, tourism, and art. CIV VI added weather, districts, ages, and social techs.

So, what exactly is the innovation in CIV VII?

• No workers? That was already in Call to Power.
• 1UPT? Already in CIV I, V, VI etc.
• Armies led by commanders? Already in CIV III.
• Specific eras? Already in Humankind and Millennia.
• Settlements? Already in Humankind and Millennia.
• Culture swapping? Already in Humankind.
• Navigable rivers? Already in CIV II, though without special graphics.
• Influence? Already in Humankind.

What I expected from the genre leader were BOLD NEW ideas and mechanics, like:

• Completely new resource types, like in Old World.
• A new way to deal with leaders and their personalities, again like in Old World.
• Fresh concepts for buildings and economy, like in Millennia.
• Innovative ideas for alternative eras, like in Millennia.
• New approaches to armies, combat, and initiative, like in Endless Legend.
• Unique, non-symmetrical civilizations and mechanics, like in Endless Legend.

Remember the goood old game of Sim City?
It also lacked innovation, just copying and pasting the same old features at higher and higher prices... until Cities: Skylines...

I'm not sure to understand, are you saying it's not innovating because the new features are already seen in other 4x kinda, but you suggest instead other features already seen in other 4x?

 

[SirWill90]

Been playing Civ since 1999, when I first played to pass the time while stuck aboard on duty in the Navy - Civ directly led to me buying my first PC. I've bought every version (pre-ordered every version I could) since Civ 2 and it's always been my "main" game - my PC purchases have often coincided with the current Civ release. So not the greatest player in the world, but yes I am a fanatic.

The gameplay reveal had me ready to pre-order that night - until it got to the civ switch part. A serious disappointment - it's all been said here already really - especially the question, Why copy HK's worst failure? I never tried HK once I found out about that, just not appealing to me at all. And as others have also said, it's Civilization, not Great Leader.

At this point I have jumped off the pre-order train and I am standing on the platform wondering if I am even going to take the trip at all over what looks to me like a real fatal flaw. Firaxis - please put out some word that Civ switching will be optional, or at least that it will (or there will be an option for it to) make some kind of culturally historical sense i.e. Britons to English to UK, or Celts to Gaul to France, not the kind of thing where you can have Egypt morph into Songhai or Mongolia... lots of us might want to preorder again if there were some such assurances. Not saying I will never buy this game, but preordering as of right now is definitely off the table.

A shame because frankly the rest of it looks great.

 

[Vertico]

I'm not sure to understand, are you saying it's not innovating because the new features are already seen in other 4x kinda, but you suggest instead other features already seen in other 4x?

I just mentioned examples of new concepts and mechanics in other games, which were brave enough to innovate, instead of just copy pasting like CIV 7.
I expected it to be the leader and propose something I haven't seen before.

 

[MasterPaw]

I just mentioned examples of new concepts and mechanics in other games, which were brave enough to innovate, instead of just copy pasting like CIV 7.
I expected it to be the leader and propose something I haven't seen before.

Ah so makes more sense

 

[Gorbles]

I just mentioned examples of new concepts and mechanics in other games, which were brave enough to innovate, instead of just copy pasting like CIV 7.
I expected it to be the leader and propose something I haven't seen before.

Most, if not all things, have their roots in something else. The turning point from "imitation" to "innovation" is a sliding scale that requires contextual analysis, and not off-the-cuff claims that a game isn't being innovative because it's imitating others.

(also, as repeatedly mentioned at this point - Civ VII developed its systems in parallel with Humankind's - the path was pitched before any imitation was possible)

 

[Aquatic]

There are many things I like from what I've seen of Civ 7, including how army commanders work, both in being able to be promoted and in the easy transportation of units they provide. I am not all certain, however, that it is good not to be able to level up the fighting units themselves. They should get stronger as they gain experience. I think there should be four levels, each increasingly more difficult to reach and, at each level, there should some extra strength (for instance 1 hit point, depending upon the numbers and what may be a feasible bonus). The levels could be: cadet, trained, veteran, elite. When a unit upgrades it should lose a level of promotion, because it needs to retrain with its new weapons. In this case, for example, an upgraded elite unit would go to being veteran, though in time could return to being elite. Cadets would stay cadets.