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

[LoveOldCiv2]

Now, Firaxis could have avoided the civ change dilemma while also keeping the new Ages mechanism by just giving us the option to choose any set of “civ” advantages when we start a new age.

So, you would stay the same civ throughout but could tailor it 100 percent for each three Ages. The downside of this would be to break the history simulation fully as you would end up running around with Japanese troops and building etc. in Ages two as a Rome original Civ. Not a great option either, so I don’t have the perfect solution.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Now, Firaxis could have avoided the civ change dilemma while also keeping the new Ages mechanism by just giving us the option to choose any set of “civ” advantages when we start a new age.

So, you would stay the same civ throughout but could tailor it 100 percent for each three Ages. The downside of this would be to break the history simulation fully as you would end up running around with Japanese troops and building etc. in Ages two as a Rome original Civ. Not a great option either, so I don’t have the perfect solution.

Max roleplaying and immersion would give players the option to choose their set of unique abilities, civ name, and art style independently. This would have zero impact on gameplay for the antiquity age (uncertain impact on later ages as we don't know how transitions work). To make life easier for casual players, choosing the set of uniques would come with the default civ name and art style for that civ, its only people who want to roleplay as something else that would dig into the menus to change them.

The more I think about the complaints raised here and on other threads on this site, the more I feel like the way civ-changing is being implemented is a self-inflicted wound by Firaxis. They could have achieved the same gameplay while allowing greater player flexibility. Maybe I'll feel otherwise when I see how transitions are implemented, but right now, even though the civ-swapping doesn't fuss me personally, I feel like Firaxis unnecessarily alienated a lot of possible customers.

 

[Voidwalkin]

They could have achieved the same gameplay while allowing greater player flexibility

This is basically my feeling on it. Options for customization are easy to think up. I'm let down by the light selection of civs, too, because I think the switch really demanded more, particularly with the absence of customization options.

With that said, my excitement could really quickly change post-release. Right now, there's been many reveals of civs, but very few on my other core areas, like neutral evaluations of how the AI is gonna play the game. That sense will come out quickly post release, via community evaluation, but not before.

 

[ColtSeavers]

Yes, there's zero gameplay reasons to lock out any choice from human players.

I literally have no idea what you are talking about here.

Obviously the gameplay ist much more challening if you have to "earn" the Civs by achieving certain criteria, instead of just handing them over to you for free. If that ist not a gameplay reason, I don't know what is.

 

[Seek]

I disagree completely re: blank slate civs. It removes all context and ends up having no immersion at all imo. Bonuses go from “flavorful” to just a list of numbers to min-max. That is a large part of the criticism of Millenia and Humankind (not to mention most space 4x games). I’m all for emergent gameplay but without some grounding to begin with it can quickly feel bland.

Edit: To come back on topic, I’m at an 8, will probably preorder right before the early access when more info is out there.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I literally have no idea what you are talking about here.

Obviously the gameplay ist much more challening if you have to "earn" the Civs by achieving certain criteria, instead of just handing them over to you for free. If that ist not a gameplay reason, I don't know what is.

I'm talking exactly about this. There's no need to lock out civs completely. Unlockable civs could be interesting if done right.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I'm talking exactly about this. There's no need to lock out civs completely. Unlockable civs could be interesting if done right.

Well for me, having to earn your way to play certain Civs, is certainly part of the gameplay experience, but at the end of the day this is just semantics. Looking at this it is again quiet obvious, how problematic this whole civ switching stuff is. You want to have even less limits for it, I'd want much more.
For me, randomly collecting 3 horses (which more or less only depends on what kind of map you got) to become Mongolia is a laughing stock and not real gameplay material either. If you seriously want to do a gameplay unlock, you would have to come up with some really meaningful mechanics! E.g, half of your army consists of Horse Riders to become Mongolia, or have the largest Navy to become England. However, like in Civ 6 with the Eurekas, this seems to be more again like some meaningless gimmick nightmare, which neither of us satisfies.
At the end of the day, for me priority number 1 is though, that AI follows a fixed path, and 3 horses Mongolia is only possible, if the player actively chooses it.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

For me, randomly collecting 3 horses (which more or less only depends on what kind of map you got)

If you randomly get 3 horses now you have option to pick a civ which can make better use of them.

I do hope we get more complex requirements as well as simple ones. USA, Ottmans/Türkiye, Canada, Australia all are chances to have something creative.

 

[ColtSeavers]

If you randomly get 3 horses now you have option to pick a civ which can make better use of them.

I do hope we get more complex requirements as well as simple ones. USA, Ottmans/Türkiye, Canada, Australia all are chances to have something creative.

All Civs have the chance to get something creative, I guess though, FXS will choose the easy way here.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Back in August, I was super excited. I voted 9, because I'm not sure about pre-ordering. As I learned more, my enthusiasm died down a bit.
I knew (or thought I knew) about most of the civ choices in Civ3, Civ4, and Civ5. Venice as a one-city-challenge was new for me in Civ5. Civ6 brought me a bunch of familiar civs, with another group that I hadn't heard of: Mapuche, Khmer, Scythia. I wanted to learn more, but in a more calm way, not so excited.

With Civ7, so many Antiquity civs are new to me, along with a bunch of new Exploration civs. It's going to be a lot of learning. It's going to be fun figuring out the new mechanics. But it's a lot less about, "OMG I just can't wait to play this!" I have a bunch of questions that won't really be answered in pre-release videos.
I'm less enthusiastic, because I won't really get answers until February 2025. I'm probably down to a 7 now, knowing that I'm gonna have to wait until Feb.

 

[Aeon221]

After seeing additional information I am updating my excitement level as this post is clearly out of date https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...you-currently-about-civ7.692273/post-16684768

My excitement level is now 11/10. The only issue is I have a conference for work starting on February 11th.

The solution here is simple: company must go out of business

 

[chaosprophet]

After seeing additional information I am updating my excitement level as this post is clearly out of date https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...you-currently-about-civ7.692273/post-16684768

My excitement level is now 11/10. The only issue is I have a conference for work starting on February 11th.

The solution here is simple: company must go out of business

Looking at your earlier post, I have a more peaceful solution. You pre-ordered the more expensive edition, that comes with the advanced access, so you will be able to start playing it 5 days earlier from February 6th.

 

[Aeon221]

Hmm yes that does appear the simpler, less violent option. I’ll consult my advisors from Civ 2 and see what they think.

 

[Morningcalm]

6 out of 10 for me on excitement. I have strong concerns about Denuvo, and I hate the split-screen leader interactions and leader models generally. I suspect I will enjoy the streamlined gameplay elements that won't force me to manage 50 cities in a tedious homework-like fashion, and from what I've heard of the music so far I will enjoy the music. I also like the leader selections a lot so far, and the narrator choice and graphics. Graphics in particular are a big improvement over Civ 6 for me.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Hmm yes that does appear the simpler, less violent option. I’ll consult my advisors from Civ 2 and see what they think.

Build more barracks, sire!

 

[Psychotronics]

I like new things, since for old things I could just play old games. And to me it looks like Civ7 does it right - not just experimenting, but also moving forward, trying to solve problems which were there before, while standing on the shoulders of previous games.

Yep. I can't say I liked the changes they presented, but at worst, this will be the Windows Vista of Civilization games. It'll suck, but they'll explore new things which will help them make a better game on the next iteration.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Yep. I can't say I liked the changes they presented, but at worst, this will be the Windows Vista of Civilization games. It'll suck, but they'll explore new things which will help them make a better game on the next iteration.

Personally I'm pretty confident that it won't suck but I am expecting a few teething problems and a couple of years needed to iron them out. Either way, for me it can only be a good thing that they are taking risks and making bold decisions.

 

[Elhoim]

I'm playing Civ VI now, and I'm really liking the towns idea and city expansion of 7. Towns can definitely help with radius overlap, so you can focus on giving the best locations to cities, and fill the in betweens with towns. Also expanding tiles with population is a nice streamline that can help lower the decision noise, especially when having a lot of settlements. 90% of the builder time is just syncing number of population with improved tiles. I will miss a bit of the decision of which type of improvement to select in some situations, but I think they off-loaded a bit of that decision making to distributing luxuries. All in all, it's a good evolution of the issues of Civ VI gameplay.

Really eager to get the game to see how it works out

 

[dtarchon]

I played civilization on MS-DOS on a 486, and played all the sequels since then.
Solid 1 for me here close to zero. I am surprised browsing through here no one is talking about the insidious DLCs which should be a feature of the base game itself, when DLCs actually mean something instead of intentionally cutting out bit and pieces of game in order to EXTORT more money from its fans.
Just look at Baldur's Gate 3 and see what a true game for fans look like.
The best way for change is simply not to buy ANY DLC, buy just the base game itself or not buy at all. But I doubt the majority of seasoned strategy gamers will even care, so let them earn money and perpetuate this cash grab greedy model. Have fun guys.

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

I played civilization on MS-DOS on a 486, and played all the sequels since then.
Solid 1 for me here close to zero. I am surprised browsing through here no one is talking about the insidious DLCs which should be a feature of the base game itself, when DLCs actually mean something instead of intentionally cutting out bit and pieces of game in order to EXTORT more money from its fans.
Just look at Baldur's Gate 3 and see what a true game for fans look like.
The best way for change is simply not to buy ANY DLC, buy just the base game itself or not buy at all. But I doubt the majority of seasoned strategy gamers will even care, so let them earn money and perpetuate this cash grab greedy model. Have fun guys.

Yes, DLC model is evil, and it's a tragedy that the market equilibrium is set where it's set.

But I think most people simply don't factor it, when estimating their excitement for the game. I certainly don't. Even though, Larian rightfully deserve massive praise for the integrity of releasing a full experience for a single price, sales practices are a separate thing from the game itself.

The best way would be to buy the heavily discounted complete edition several years later.