Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Lord Lakely]

You see, that is something I have less of a problem with. The legacy of certain individuals is far greater than that of their own Civilization, and the unclipped leaders allows for those people to shine.

There are definitely questions whether Georgia or Mapuche should have been Civilizations in Civ6, even if Lautaro and Tamar were absolutely deserving inclusions as leaders. Civ 7 would allow them to be added to the roster without a fuss, and this is true for many a "Included because of the leader" type of Civ such as Vlad Tepes and Zenobia.

And Civ 7's system -theoretically- allows for the best leaders across the world and the best Civs to be added in order of priority. Theoretically. And this is true for the most part in practice too: Napoleon, Catherine, Friedrich, Augustus, Hatsepsut, Isabella - these are all the top choices for their respective Civs.

Where the basegame roster does err, and here I agree with Socratic, is that there is too much overlap in the basegame roster, specifically with the Europeans being weirdly clustered around Germany and France. It's very weird that there is no Greek leader (doubly insulting because Machiavelli's kit could (and SHOULD) have gone to Alcibiades instead, who would have been a brilliant choice.)

I've also never ever seen Napoleon lead a European Civ in any of my Antiquity or Exploration games (He's always Han, Mississipians or Carthage for some reason), and in Modern he has the option to lead France, and then often chooses... not to. It's strange? He's one of this game's THREE French leaders and then just... isn't one in practice.

It's almost as if the leader roster and civ roster were designed separately, rather than side-by-side.

 

[queenpea]

Like with a lot with Civ 7, I think expanding the leader selection was a great idea, just poorly executed. I don't understand the idea behind adding leaders with next to no connection with any playable civs. Having the national hero of the Phillippines without the Phillippines to lead is just wasted potential. The same can be said about leaders from civs that were already represented. I'm stuck wondering how we have 2 Americans, 2 Frenchmen, 3 Germans playable when all of East Asia has 4, two of which have no relation to any civs... I can go on and on about this because it bugs me so much (not a single Greek leader?? Simon Bolivar over literally any Mexican figure??) The leader pool feels so limiting at the moment, when expanding the roster should have done the opposite of that

I think the game of mixing and matching leaders with civs is a lot less fun in practice than it was in the minds of the developers. I understand that some people enjoy the min/maxing aspect of combining a leader with a civ with a memento to unlock powerful combinations, but I don’t think this provides satisfying gameplay for all players.

In the examples you gave above, the appeal of roleplaying may have been underestimated.

 

[Leucarum]

I think the game of mixing and matching leaders with civs is a lot less fun in practice than it was in the minds of the developers. I understand that some people enjoy the min/maxing aspect of combining a leader with a civ with a memento to unlock powerful combinations, but I don’t think this provides satisfying gameplay for all players.

In the examples you gave above, the appeal of roleplaying may have been underestimated.

I think this is my favourite out of the 1/3 new features in Civ7. Not needing a 1-1 correspondence between civs and leaders opens up so many ancient civs with poorly attested leaders, and lets us really widen the scope of who can be a leader. I love that we get Mississippians because of this for example.

How impactful it is can vary - Amina won't shake up a game much, but Tubman for sure does (as an example). So I can see why you might not find it fun, but I am a massive fan of this change.

 

[queenpea]

I think this is my favourite out of the 1/3 new features in Civ7. Not needing a 1-1 correspondence between civs and leaders opens up so many ancient civs with poorly attested leaders, and lets us really widen the scope of who can be a leader. I love that we get Mississippians because of this for example.

How impactful it is can vary - Amina won't shake up a game much, but Tubman for sure does (as an example). So I can see why you might not find it fun, but I am a massive fan of this change.

It has advantages for sure, and I’m glad you like it. For me, the leader roster consists of mostly characters I’m not enthusiastic about playing. It all comes down to personal preference. I am more irritated by the ahistorical mismatches than other players I guess.

 

[Leucarum]

It has advantages for sure, and I’m glad you like it. For me, the leader roster consists of mostly characters I’m not enthusiastic about playing. It all comes down to personal preference. I am more irritated by the ahistorical mismatches than other players I guess.

I get that, and hopefully as the roster grows there will be more that appeals to you! I don't mind the ahistorical mismatches personally. I think the benefits probably outweigh the drawbacks

 

[kaspergm]

It has advantages for sure, and I’m glad you like it. For me, the leader roster consists of mostly characters I’m not enthusiastic about playing. It all comes down to personal preference. I am more irritated by the ahistorical mismatches than other players I guess.

Well you're not alone. The leader/civ-miss-matching is probably the single feature that has had the strongest impact on alienating me from Civ7. I mean, I'm not a fan of the Civ switching either, but if it had been implemented in a good way, I'm pretty sure I could have lived with that.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don't understand the idea behind adding leaders with next to no connection with any playable civs. Having the national hero of the Phillippines without the Phillippines to lead is just wasted potential.

Not only that but he unlocks Hawaii. I could have understood it better if he at least unlocked the Majapahit which is also another island nation from SEA.

Not needing a 1-1 correspondence between civs and leaders opens up so many ancient civs with poorly attested leaders, and lets us really widen the scope of who can be a leader. I love that we get Mississippians because of this for example.

Well, the Mississippians at least have Tuskaloosa as an option. I think the biggest drawback for the Mississippians from past games is the fact that would be considered a "blob" civ. By separating the civs into Ages they are able to at least start out into Antiquity and evolve into other tribes that developed from their culture.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Just to unlock you some memories... 25 Eur for the Deluxe, physical edition, with full printed manual, including Play the world and the Original Civ III.
Which means... the final "Conquer the world" version still wasn't on the shelves...

The manual explains the Capture the Princess option in Regicide and Mass Regicide... 25 euros...
Full physical CD, printed manual... this is the kind of options we would like to see...

Treasure fleet is just like the relics options that counted as victory point. SAME - THING.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I've also never ever seen Napoleon lead a European Civ in any of my Antiquity or Exploration games (He's always Han, Mississipians or Carthage for some reason), and in Modern he has the option to lead France, and then often chooses... not to. It's strange? He's one of this game's THREE French leaders and then just... isn't one in practice.

I just finished playing a Civ IV game with Napoleon as leader of France, OP Musketeers, Immortal difficulty, was in war with Russia and China for half the game, with good Netherland neighbours and Sitting Bull doing its own business... crushed both China and Russia before getting a World Domination victory in 1886. Just glorious. China Capital revolted and joined my empire how much culture we were producing... If I had culture victory enabled the game would have ended in 1450 AD.. Napoleon is great leader... nowhere to be seen ever since... I had 8 core cities, Russia had like 20, and so China... Huge Pangea Map...
Paris could produce two Musketeers per turn, fast as Cavalry units. Russia was bloody aggressive but couldn't take none of my cities... when I unlocked infantry I upgraded the OP Musketeers with full upgrades and it was over for Russia... completely obliterated...

In Civ IV France is pure magic.
A stack of 10 Musketeers against Russia stacks of 10 Trebuchets, 20 cavalry units, 10 melee units... HUGE stacks... EPIC Resistance... China was much less aggressive, but allied with Russia... big mistake...

 

[Pfeffersack]

I mean... That's a little bit of a leap/kinda subjective.

There's many reasons beyond a "one more turn" feeling that might underlie lower than desired sales... And what even is "one more turn" feeling anyway. Seems like something everyone's gonna have a differend idea of.

A lot of people clearly aren't vibing with Civ7... But I don't think we can have quite that much certainty as to why.

I think you misunderstood my post.

The poster that I was responding to wrote that Civ games lost that "one more turn" feeling in V-VII. I simply said that based on the massive sales of V and VI and the OK sales of VII, I don't think that's correct. It's nothing to do with why people don't like VII.

While Civ7 might have issues on the "One more turn" side, to me the real problem lays rather on the side of "One more game". I robbed the latter line from the review thread of @CGPanama because it pretty much nails my feelings. I hesisted long to buy Civ7 at all, then at some point decided to get the base version. While being in my first games that desire to continue "just a bit" was there, as within a playthrough the usual 4X formula works and on the detail level many things in Civ7 are great or at least better than in Civ6. The problems start as soon as you rise above the ground. Starting when reaching the end of an age and continue when having finished your game. Terms like repetition, railroading and replayability interfer with the desire to boot up a new game. My main motivation is usually trying out the next patch. I'm not saying that this pattern in Civ7 exclusive...it is my approach with the Paradox GSG and it happened with Civ6, too. But the former aren't really comparable (a patch/DLC has a much higher magnitude in terms of shaking your gameplay experience, also my playthroughs drag out longer and those big patches aren't compatible with old games) and with Civ6 I hit that point only after many more games.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

While Civ7 might have issues on the "One more turn" side, to me the real problem ...(a patch/DLC has a much higher magnitude in terms of shaking your gameplay experience, also my playthroughs drag out longer and those big patches aren't compatible with old games)

They created a problem by simplifying the Sea-land transition, taking out transport vessels, also because 1upt never worked in the first place, so they needed troops that could walk on the waters...
They did the same with Civ VI trade routes, that would transitions from land to sea automatically, and now Treasure fleet...
it's the same, broken pattern... now, if we had Oil tankers in the modern age... and proper infrastructure instead of Oil magically flying to where it's needed, maybe...
just maybe... with some actual complexity and innovation... there could be some revived interest in this mechanic... otherwise it will fly under the carpet and collect dust, as
it's nothing new...

 

[trev1972]

I was expecting more of a bump from the patch given it is a very large patch?
Maybe we will see it at the weekend?

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

I was expecting more of a bump from the patch given it is a very large patch?
Maybe we will see it at the weekend?

It looked like a reasonable bump compared to the last few Mondays when I checked midday yesterday, but I didn't have time to grab exact numbers. This weekend will be the more interesting time frame, as there's time before then for positive (or negative) buzz re the patch to circulate.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Yeah it's definitely a significant bump for the numbers the game has recently been having. The real telling sign is if it stems the player loss or even lifts the base player count. If it can do that, other players will start rumbling back in more regularly.

There isn't a massive swathe of people waiting to try out the patch the moment it dropped though, so I think that confirms the content of it isn't a deal breaker for people who don't already like it so much as an enhancement for those who do, which is in line with expectations

 

[user746383]

I'd agree this is a nice patch for people who like the game, but doesn't really do much for people who didn't. You can turn off a bunch of features, but there's nothing to replace them.

 

[Xur]

I was expecting more of a bump from the patch given it is a very large patch?
Maybe we will see it at the weekend?

Was it a large patch? I don't think so. It looks like damage control to me - they are trying to hang on to the people that still play.

They have done nothing to address the real problems yet. I'm not sure they even know what is wrong at this point. There was nothing in this patch that would get someone to buy the game / change opinion about systems.

 

[0urBall]

Was it a large patch? I don't think so. It looks like damage control to me - they are trying to hang on to the people that still play.

They have done nothing to address the real problems yet. I'm not sure they even know what is wrong at this point. There was nothing in this patch that would get someone to buy the game / change opinion about systems.

I'd say they know exactly what's wrong, but "can't" fix it as it is slated to be on a, or several, DLCs

 

[stealth_nsk]

I was expecting more of a bump from the patch given it is a very large patch?
Maybe we will see it at the weekend?

We got the same data after every patch. No, patches themselves, even good ones don't bump the simultaneous player number (mostly because it's s***ty metric, but that's another story). I wouldn't expect anything trend-breaking at least until first discounts or the next DLC.

 

[Xur]

I'd say they know exactly what's wrong, but "can't" fix it as it is slated to be on a, or several, DLCs

If people dont like the base game, then their entire DLC model is dead. For a DLC to be viable you need a healthy playerbase. It's like a nesting doll - the DLC's success is limited by how many people are still playing.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I'd say they know exactly what's wrong, but "can't" fix it as it is slated to be on a, or several, DLCs

If you are right then that's even more cynical then I could imagine, and they'd lose not just a Civ VII sale but I'd just steer clear of the series in the future.

It would be so distasteful to remove the "civilization" from civilization only to sell it back as dlc. Absolutely no chance I'd buy that even if it does "fix" the game.