Yes, I agree to the points in your post and I only want to help Firaxis to improve Civ 7 to become better and more acceptable for me and many other civers.
Sorry, I don't understand how your comment relates to code mods being possible on consoles now?
You can call whatever you want better. But to me, when discussing game features, "a mod did X" isn't the same as the developers putting it in the game themselves.
You can find it at CFC here: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/ccm3-epic-mod.690497/
Spoiler :
During the rough start of Civ 7 it has nearly trippled its yearly download numbers.
Edit: I don´t want to provoke you here, but I want to improve the current Civ 7, so it becomes more acceptable for me and many others. I like the navigable rivers in civ 7.
The decisive question about mentioning CCM 3 in the Civ 7 forums in my eyes is, how can that Civ 3 mod help Civ 7 to inspire more civers who have doubts about civ/leader switching ?
I noticed the same thing. It’s not great.
Civ 7 player count is only "a very low number" by the standards of the Civ franchise. Most game developers would be ecstatic to consistently have over 6,000 concurrent players. That Civ 5 consistently has over 10,000 concurrent players 15 years after its release speaks to the longevity and success of the Civ franchise.
Not just the Civ series to be honest. By the standards of AAA, it's not very good. It's barely scraping the top 200, and that's for a game with enormous backing, huge existing playerbase that is decades old, and released only a couple months ago.
Also, Paradox GSG's sometimes evolve quite a bit from the release version...if they get the usual support duration (IR being the unfortnate exception). So it is not impossible that Vic3 will gain more players over time - next chance is already only two weeks away, where it will see a fundamental rework of its trade/world market system.
Victoria 3 was also pretty experimental, and things like the controversial millitary system clearly are/have been on their radar. Firaxis might want to take some notes...
To me the caveat here is that the code (and the resulting game) an AI produces depends on getting the correct input. Even if I assume the AI in charge codes flawlessly and efficient, I strongly doubt that just telling it "make things bteer" or some rough ides will do the job. Take e.g. the religious mechanic with the tedious need of moving missionaries around. Yes, that future AI probably technically could rework that...if I would e.g. tell it "make it like Civ6, but keep rule X, improve situation Y and don't add Z". But it will fail, if I just to say "make it better". So the crucial part is that first it has to be worked out in what direction Civ7 should evolve. And the region/missionary case is even an easier case (we here it is likely very clear that the current system isn't desireable and you just have to invent a cool improvement)...if we come to things like eras or civ switching, we are starting to look on the core pillars of the game and the question whether they should stay (and see some mild refinement) or should be ripped out and replaced.
