[poll] How excited are you currently about Civ7? [vol 1 - September/October 24]

[queenpea]

I don't think the term "historical path" is used in the game. In all interfaces we've seen so far, it's just "Civilization/Leader X unlocks Civilization Y".

The only time the term "historical path" was mentioned by anyone in Firaxis, if I remember correctly, was when they answered a question how AI chooses a civilization to convert to.

Ok, but the “civ choice unlock” was explained at first by the example of London (Rome -> Norman). So the logic of a civ choice unlock is based in history. I agree that “thematic” would have been a better way to describe these paths. At the same time, if the devs are saying that the civ choice unlock is the “historical path” for the AI, then I don’t see how this wouldn’t apply to how the human player is considering these same switches.

 

[Black Gate]

I move from 8 to a 9, I really like the gameplay direction they are going with cities and expansion, especially after playing Civ IV and VI these past weeks. Sometimes I feel that I'm in the minority regarding being interested in the base mechanics design, compared to the pages and pages of "which civ is included or not". TBH, I would play these games even without the heavy historical references.

The historical references are the flavour, and it's always fun when Firaxis pulls out something you don't know much about. But I agree, the actual mechanic design changes are more interesting. I like that they've moved away from a diplomatic victory for once and I'm really interested to see how each ages' victory conditions will work, especially since culture's antiquity victory is about wonder building yet it seems exploration's will be about religion. If the other three get that level of variety, I'm very excited.

 

[Evolena]

Right but leader choice is independent of civ choice.

It is, but they also never have shown Confucius leading Rome or Augustus leading the Khmers, so I believe all we've seen in this diplo screens is either from Civ to Civ unlock, Leader to Civ unlock, or Leader "historical choice" (cf. below).

I don't think the term "historical path" is used in the game. In all interfaces we've seen so far, it's just "Civilization/Leader X unlocks Civilization Y".

The only time the term "historical path" was mentioned by anyone in Firaxis, if I remember correctly, was when they answered a question how AI chooses a civilization to convert to.

In the Gameplay Showcase, we've seen the choice of various Civilizations with a Leader already picked (Aksum with Amina, Maurya with Ashoka, ...), and the screen when Hatshepsut transition from Egypt to Songhai, and right below the Civ name and attribute, there were the Leader's icon with the text "Historical choice!".
It was early, the UI may have changed since, but here it was. Also, it applies to Leaders, not Civ to Civ unlocks.

 

[Siptah]

At the same time, if the devs are saying that the civ choice unlock is the “historical path” for the AI, then I don’t see how this wouldn’t apply to how the human player is considering these same switches.

I admit that my assessment in that regard is based on the assumption that all civs have gameplay unlocks.

If this is true, "free" unlocks aren't that important for the human player. Humans will in most cases choose a civ that they can make use of in the next age. Again, an assumption, but a human controlled Maurya that isn't at the coast at all will likely go for something else than Chola - and even with only 10 civs, you'll probably almost always have a choice that makes sense for your game (or that has a requirement to unlock that isn't far off what you got/are planning to achieve anyway). Many players might plan their whole game before starting, including civ choices optimal for their victory strategy. Limiting this by free unlocks, i.e., choosing a leader that doesn't match the desired strategy to guarantee a specific civ in age 3, or a specific age 2 civ that connects the age 1 and age 3 civs, doesn't seem *that* appealing in my opinion for humans. Even for role-players, it would make sense to fulfill the condition for the wished-for civ instead of relying on the free unlock. Hence, I think the "historical path" is mostly for AI, and a fallback when a human fails to unlock anything.

 

[j51]

I move from 8 to a 9, I really like the gameplay direction they are going with cities and expansion, especially after playing Civ IV and VI these past weeks. Sometimes I feel that I'm in the minority regarding being interested in the base mechanics design, compared to the pages and pages of "which civ is included or not". TBH, I would play these games even without the heavy historical references.

The game design is arguably more interesting, but the civs speculation is so much fun.

 

[Evolena]

The game design is arguably more interesting, but the civs speculation is so much fun.

Besides, it's harder to speculate on mechanisms, and there is only that much taht you can say of each new piece of information.

 

[queenpea]

In the Gameplay Showcase, we've seen the choice of various Civilizations with a Leader already picked (Aksum with Amina, Maurya with Ashoka, ...), and the screen when Hatshepsut transition from Egypt to Songhai, and right below the Civ name and attribute, there were the Leader's icon with the text "Historical choice!".

Thank you, I knew that this had been labeled this way somewhere. Good memory!

 

[Evolena]

Thank you, I knew that this had been labeled this way somewhere. Good memory!

That's part of what I do and look for for my little "civ & leaders graphs" site

 

[stealth_nsk]

I admit that my assessment in that regard is based on the assumption that all civs have gameplay unlocks.

If this is true, "free" unlocks aren't that important for the human player. Humans will in most cases choose a civ that they can make use of in the next age. Again, an assumption, but a human controlled Maurya that isn't at the coast at all will likely go for something else than Chola - and even with only 10 civs, you'll probably almost always have a choice that makes sense for your game (or that has a requirement to unlock that isn't far off what you got/are planning to achieve anyway). Many players might plan their whole game before starting, including civ choices optimal for their victory strategy. Limiting this by free unlocks, i.e., choosing a leader that doesn't match the desired strategy to guarantee a specific civ in age 3, or a specific age 2 civ that connects the age 1 and age 3 civs, doesn't seem *that* appealing in my opinion for humans. Even for role-players, it would make sense to fulfill the condition for the wished-for civ instead of relying on the free unlock. Hence, I think the "historical path" is mostly for AI, and a fallback when a human fails to unlock anything.

Yes, there's zero gameplay reasons to lock out any choice from human players. They are either opened by default or unlocked based on player actions or situation. Coastal settlements should unlock sea-focused civs, etc.

In the Gameplay Showcase, we've seen the choice of various Civilizations with a Leader already picked (Aksum with Amina, Maurya with Ashoka, ...), and the screen when Hatshepsut transition from Egypt to Songhai, and right below the Civ name and attribute, there were the Leader's icon with the text "Historical choice!".
It was early, the UI may have changed since, but here it was. Also, it applies to Leaders, not Civ to Civ unlocks.

Yes, good catch. Still, I believe it's used for leaders only, so no such thing as "historical path"

 

[Evolena]

Yes, good catch. Still, I believe it's used for leaders only, so no such thing as "historical path"

Yes, only for the pairing of Civs with Leaders.

 

[chaosprophet]

Just a last addition to the discussion about European civs, I bet at least one of the two initial dlcs collections, if not part of the other, will have European civs to dd to the early rooster and ones they may have missed on the base game. So chances are the game will be very european heavy at least on the earlier stages, albeit will likely be more diverse than any other civ eventually as they may try to add more civs for each region on each age.

I move from 8 to a 9, I really like the gameplay direction they are going with cities and expansion, especially after playing Civ IV and VI these past weeks. Sometimes I feel that I'm in the minority regarding being interested in the base mechanics design, compared to the pages and pages of "which civ is included or not". TBH, I would play these games even without the heavy historical references.

Oh, I like a lot if not most of the new gameplay changes. Just don't have much to talk about it before I get to actually play the game and use them myself. Generally comment on how I like how X looks like, but don't tend to generate as much conversation.

The game design is arguably more interesting, but the civs speculation is so much fun.

But then, we were so good at getting every single piece of information and hint out there, that we know almost all civs, and have strong hints on what the full roster will be. So not as fun anymore. Right now, the only big question seems to be which of the 4 non confirmed but likely modern civ will be the one that won't be in the base game, but that info is likely to come only very close to release.

 

[Emotional Husky]

I expect to be a little disappointed. But it's CIV - take my money! Take it!

 

[Stomper66]

Europe is a small continent, you really think the "Europe" itself is enough vast and various as much as the entire "Asia", which was originally not even considered as a single continent?

Civ 5 list looks like to me:

East Asian: China, Japan
SE Asian: Siamese
South Asian: India
West Asian: Arabia, Persia, Ottoman
North African: Egypt
Sentral African: Songhai
South African: Nobody
North American: Iroquois
Central American: Aztecs
South American: Nobody
Polynesian: Nobody Again
European: America, Rome, Greece, England, France, Germany, Russia

I didn't counted America as European when I said "33%", but this is more accurate. Now 39%.

Now Civ 7 with confirmed civs:

East Asian: Han, Ming, Mongolia, Meiji Japan
SE Asian: Khmer, Majapahit, Siamese
South Asian: Mauria, Chola, Mughal
West Asian: Abbasid, Persia
North African: Aksum, Egypt
Sentral African: Songhai, Buganda
South African: Nobody
North American: Mississippian, Shawnee
Central American: Maya
South American: Inca
Polynesian: Tonga/Hawaiian
European: Rome, Greece, Norman, Spain, France, Britain, America

Wow, there're still so many Europeans here. However, 23% seems fairer percentage.

You cant't really measure against civ5 until we know all the civs released in 7. That's why a lot of my post have mentioned that 'if' Spain and french viking vassal state are the only the only two european civ's in exploration they'll be 4 European civs in the first two thirds of the game, and nobody representing northern and eastern europe until the last third of the game. Its not a competition but yes I do think from north and east from Germany to the Ural mountains there should be some civ on that landmass in antiquity and exploration.

They definitely want to give a more global representation, after all this is a game supposed to represent civs from the past and present all around the world.

But, the main reason that Europe will have a smaller representation than usual at the base game is more likely because with the age system and with a limit of 10 civs per age, they want to have the base game be more diversified, covering at least a bit of each region, to when they add civs in new dlcs, there at least some base game ones where it would make sense for them to link, even if just by region to in case the player only has the base game and a specific DLC. Heck, the reason they still put 2~3 Europe civs per age when the region is such a small part of the world is because they still went to give it some prominence from being important markets and civilization series classics. Still is about 6~8 civs of the total. Even the smaller amount of 6 still means 1/5 of all base game civs.

There always was global representation in civ5 on launch. All besides Oceania which they brought with Polynesia eventually. I understand that from antiquity they wanted to concentrate more around the mediterranean, but what is the excuse for exploration? After the Mongol conquests Europe went from third place with China and the middle east to the leaders of scientific discovery, the arts and exploration. By not including England, France, Portugal and the Netherlands until the modern age, they are not acknowledging the importance and prominence of these nations, who all had empires across the world well before the 1800s. Besides Spain they are excluding all the famous exploration civs in the exploration age.

They just have a very limited number of slots (10) for each era and Northern Europe was just not a very important, nor urban (aka ‘civilized’) area until after the Classical period. Having civs tied to eras means that some regions will be better represented in different parts of the game.

France and England (well Britain) are going to be in the modern period in the base game. Sweden and the Dutch will eventually be added as modern dlc. Portugal, Byzantium, The HRE or Francia, and Muscovy or Kievan Rus are all gonna come to the exploration period eventually.

It’s not the ‘culture wars’ limiting European civs in the base game. If anything, it’s pure capitalism. More familiar civs (like those mentioned above) are easier to sell as DLC.

I didn't even quote your first sentence as it was petulant and rude really. Yes Northern Europe isn't important in classical if the number is limited, but they become pretty important in exploration I would say. Its not capitalism, capitalism is giving the customer what they want. A poll done on this forum ranked France the most popular civ to play as in civ 5. If France is only in the modern age you are only allowing players to play the most popular civ until the last third of the game, which means no Gauls, no Franks, no Medieval French Knights, no Joan of Arc, no hundred years war, no thirty years war, no seven year war, no Chateaus, no musketeers, no French exploration, no French revolution. France exists after Napoleon is born. Yes you can eventually bring a full version of the most popular civ in through DLC, but by withholding and charging extra for something that a lot of people think should really be in the base game you really risk annoying your customers and putting them off buying the game altogether.

 

[gdr_willter]

You cant't really measure against civ5 until we know all the civs released in 7. That's why a lot of my post have mentioned that 'if' Spain and french viking vassal state are the only the only two european civ's in exploration they'll be 4 European civs in the first two thirds of the game, and nobody representing northern and eastern europe until the last third of the game. Its not a competition but yes I do think from north and east from Germany to the Ural mountains there should be some civ on that landmass in antiquity and exploration.

You still did not answer to me that there were tooooooo many European civs in the base game of Civ 5. "East Asia, West Asia, South Europe, North Europe, OH ITS FAIR ENOUGH!" Absolute comedy. The European civilization lies on the Greco-Roman legacy, so Greece and Rome are shown in base game and it's enough. Your beloved France also based on the romanized Franks.

 

[Leucarum]

The age system means that firaxis needed to span the world 3 times over with just 10 civs. Not a task I envy to be honest, and I wonder if firaxis underestimated how big a group of players only want to play a specific civ, ignoring all others.

As Europe was always the most over-represented region, I suspect it's going to feel the most reduced. They can try to fill in some of the gaps of civs people want to play with leaders, but I doubt that scratches the same itch...

Personally, I prefer the alt-history of letting a civ(s) which didn't make it in reality rise to power. Honestly, I think they're still over-prioritizing europe for what I'd want, but given that they have such a limited roster to work with at launch what can they do/have they backed themselves into a corner/this is a cunning ploy to sell DLC (delete as appropriate)

 

[Stomper66]

You still did not answer to me that there were tooooooo many European civs in the base game of Civ 5. "East Asia, West Asia, South Europe, North Europe, OH ITS FAIR ENOUGH!" Absolute comedy. The European civilization lies on the Greco-Roman legacy, so Greece and Rome are shown in base game and it's enough. Your beloved France also based on the romanized Franks.

If you calm down for just a few seconds you can see that I did answer your question. If you think there's too many european civs in civ5 that's your opinion. My opinion is that in the real exploration age, England, France, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal end up becoming the world superpowers and taking up huge swathes of the world landmass and controlling the world economy, as well as becoming the leaders in science and political thought that take us to the modern age. You can still have non European powers in the base game but acknowledge the world powers in the exploration age for players that want to reflect real world history. If you open a history book you can see that the Roman empire did not control half of Europe. What truly is comical is having to see the Normans and Spain duking it out in the 1700s as the only European powers in exploration. One civ came like 400 years after the other.

The age system means that firaxis needed to span the world 3 times over with just 10 civs. Not a task I envy to be honest, and I wonder if firaxis underestimated how big a group of players only want to play a specific civ, ignoring all others.

As Europe was always the most over-represented region, I suspect it's going to feel the most reduced. They can try to fill in some of the gaps of civs people want to play with leaders, but I doubt that scratches the same itch...

Personally, I prefer the alt-history of letting a civ(s) which didn't make it in reality rise to power. Honestly, I think they're still over-prioritizing europe for what I'd want, but given that they have such a limited roster to work with at launch what can they do/have they backed themselves into a corner/this is a cunning ploy to sell DLC (delete as appropriate)

I don't think they underestimated the amount of European players who wanted to play their own country throughout the game. I think it was a deliberate ploy to antagonise traditional civ fans to court a new modern audience. Moderator Action: *SNIP* Keep this nonsense out of the gaming forums. Do not do it again. -lymond . It's even more evident with people getting to lead any civ and not even having to be leaders of nations in real life. it's just an excuse to distort and re write history.

No, leading Rome and Spain with Elizebeth I is not going to satisfy the same itch as playing full England, the complete opposite if you look at real history.

If you prefer alt history then great, looks like this will be the civ for you. The look of the game is great and I'm glad to see all the unit, architecture and civ goal diversity. But I want to play reflecting real life history and Im sorry to say that Europe plays too big a role in real exploration history to be dismissed like it is likely to be. I understand that there is a limited civ roster for each region, which makes the choice to but Normandy (a short lasting empire that doesn't represent any European nation for this long an era) baffling.

If it's cunning play to sell DLC i would consider it, but it better be bloody good DLC, like a 3 era France and England with 2 leaders and a hundred years war scenario included, or a into the renaissance scenario with all the other European powers in all eras. Same with all the other civs in different regions of the world. But if its too expensive and done reluctantly at the end of the games life with no scenarios and recycled leaders I doubt id purchase anything.

 

[gdr_willter]

If you calm down for just a few seconds you can see that I did answer your question. If you think there's too many european civs in civ5 that's your opinion. My opinion is that in the real exploration age, England, France, Netherlands, Spain and Portugal end up becoming the world superpowers and taking up huge swathes of the world landmass and controlling the world economy, as well as becoming the leaders in science and political thought that take us to the modern age. You can still have non European powers in the base game but acknowledge the world powers in the exploration age for players that want to reflect real world history. If you open a history book you can see that the Roman empire did not control half of Europe. What truly is comical is having to see the Normans and Spain duking it out in the 1700s as the only European powers in exploration. One civ came like 400 years after the other.



I don't think they underestimated the amount of European players who wanted to play their own country throughout the game. I think it was a deliberate ploy to antagonise traditional civ fans to court a new modern audience. Moderator Action: *SNIP* Removed deleted section from quote - lymond . It's even more evident with people getting to lead any civ and not even having to be leaders of nations in real life. it's just an excuse to distort and re write history.

No, leading Rome and Spain with Elizebeth I is not going to satisfy the same itch as playing full England, the complete opposite if you look at real history.

If you prefer alt history then great, looks like this will be the civ for you. The look of the game is great and I'm glad to see all the unit, architecture and civ goal diversity. But I want to play reflecting real life history and Im sorry to say that Europe plays too big a role in real exploration history to be dismissed like it is likely to be. I understand that there is a limited civ roster for each region, which makes the choice to but Normandy (a short lasting empire that doesn't represent any European nation for this long an era) baffling.

If it's cunning play to sell DLC i would consider it, but it better be bloody good DLC, like a 3 era France and England with 2 leaders and a hundred years war scenario included, or a into the renaissance scenario with all the other European powers in all eras. Same with all the other civs in different regions of the world. But if its too expensive and done reluctantly at the end of the games life with no scenarios and recycled leaders I doubt id purchase anything.

Just don't buy this game then. You already have a lot of previous titles, go back to them.

 

[chaosprophet]

There always was global representation in civ5 on launch. All besides Oceania which they brought with Polynesia eventually. I understand that from antiquity they wanted to concentrate more around the mediterranean, but what is the excuse for exploration?

As I said in my post you quoted, because of the age system and how unlock works with each civ also having some free unlocks, they need the base game to be more diversified and cover at least a bit of each region on every age, so it is easier to insert any DLC civ eventually.

The age system means that firaxis needed to span the world 3 times over with just 10 civs. Not a task I envy to be honest, and I wonder if firaxis underestimated how big a group of players only want to play a specific civ, ignoring all others.

As Europe was always the most over-represented region, I suspect it's going to feel the most reduced. They can try to fill in some of the gaps of civs people want to play with leaders, but I doubt that scratches the same itch...

Yep, pretty much what I mean.

 

[Nikolai II]

Moderator Action: Let's all take a step back and breathe. Stop this bickering now and get back to the topic at hand. Several posts have been removed. Keep the political nonsense out of the gaming forums. Discuss the game and not each other.

 

[LoveOldCiv2]

Well, on the scale of strategy-simulation (like Sims games), EU games are much further to simulation end than Civilization. It always was like this and Civ7 is not an exception. Civ5 was heavily criticized for backstabber AI who tried to provide challenge instead of roleplay.

I understand there are people who enjoy historical simulation a lot (and loving EU could be an indicator) and for those players Civ7 changes should be felt as a downgrade. But that's exactly about positioning. Firaxis tries to make Civ7 more interesting as a strategic game. They want to address snowballing, they want to address balance between civilizations of different eras, they want to address boring late game. And they are ready to sacrifice some piece of simulation quality to achieve this.

So, it's like this to me. Civ7 shifts a bit more from simulation to strategy and on this way it will probably lose some fans, but probably gain some as well. Especially if multiplayer really will be significantly better, as a lot of people with more "strategic" preferences enjoy competitive multiplayer.

You bring up an excellent point and I guess that is the reason I'm very excited about Civ VII: It does look like the strategic game mechanics is emphasized over historical simulation. The Ages and the ability to change Civs with their specific strong points should make it much easier to play with a different game plan and focus through the different Ages. It always felt a bit tricky for me to select a Civ that I knew would be great early in the game but suck in later parts, or the other way around.

Now I can do an expansionist and military focused game in the first age, culture and religion in the second and science and economics in the last, if I so please.

Sure, it is a bit wacky mentality to change a civ during the game, but to some extent it is just a name. I suppose someone could make a mod and just call whatever civs you choose the same, so you end up running with the civ called Oompa Loompa 1, Oompa Loompa 2, and Oompa Loompa 3 through the three different ages.

Historical simulation is down the drain anyway, when you have a leader that can live 4000 years with ease!