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

[Siptah]

Hk I haven't yet understood if it is possible to get more than like 6 cities max cap... at the end of the game...
How do they envisioned TOTAL WORLD DOMINATION is beyond me... it's literally impossible

Sorry for the off-topic, but no, it is not impossible to do total world domination in HK.
1) the cap is higher than 6. I'm don't remember it exactly, but it should be around 10.
2) it's a soft cap. You can go over it and just pay a penalty in influence. In the mid game, the penalty for going over the cap by 2 cities isn't noteworthy. In the late game, you can be above the cap with several cities without it being problematic.
3) you are supposed to combine cities at some point when you are going really wide. A late game HK city can easily include the territories of 5 early cities (~20 regions).

 

[SirWill90]

Voted 5. Civ switching, and the look of the leaders alone are quite off putting at this point. I'm in wait/see mode on this one, been playing since Civ 2 and this looks like it *could* be good but maybe won't start out that way. But it also looks like it might very well be a worst-of-both-worlds HK/Civ hybrid inexplicably foisted on us.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's interesting how the overall approval slowly drops. After we got significant amount of votes and the whole day (thus all time zones), the general approval (7+) was more than 75%. Now it's 66.3%. Looks like there's a statistical difference between active civfanatics monitoring this site daily and less active ones.

 

[uppi]

It's interesting how the overall approval slowly drops. After we got significant amount of votes and the whole day (thus all time zones), the general approval (7+) was more than 75%. Now it's 66.3%. Looks like there's a statistical difference between active civfanatics monitoring this site daily and less active ones.

I don't think this is very surprising. The more excited you are, the more often you will check this subforum. I am not sure, what the people voting 0 are even doing here.

 

[Xandinho]

8. I really like most of the things I've seen so far, but the civ switching and especially leaders not leading their civs still makes me wary.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think this is very surprising. The more excited you are, the more often you will check this subforum. I am not sure, what the people voting 0 are even doing here.

Yep, but as a person who works in product management, I'm always excited when hypotheses get statistical confirmation

 

[Aeon221]

Voted ten and got the fancy edition with the two expansions included.

I've had some pretty terrible experiences with Civ launches. Civ 3 killed my computer -- and younger me got pretty mad about it on here -- and Civ2 took me months of fiddling to get running. I didn't much enjoy Civ6 on launch and still have trouble getting into it with the graphics choices it made and the constant building of builders.

But Civ7 looks like it'll be solving the issues with bloat and worker spam and the late game boredom that have cheesed me off since the early days of the franchise. So I'm quite excited.

Pace others on here, I think breaking civ and leader is great. A big issue with modding civs in Civ3 was that making leaders was a pain and it has only gotten worse from there. Being able to create civilizations separate from leaders means a ton more freedom to create mechanically interesting gameplay choices without having to have professional modeling skills. So I am very pleased about that and I can see it being pretty fun.

I also love the idea of ages as a series of self contained scenarios with their own rulesets and mechanics. You can totally imagine a campaign where the standard ancient leads into a more dark ages themed medieval rather than the age of discovery, or where modern is replaced with a steampunk age. Or Firaxis themselves releasing an Information Age -- or a zombie apocalypse age.

I'm not bothered by civ switching because I always thought stone age Lech Walesa (call to power) or George Washington was pretty silly. Cavebraham Lincoln from civ 3 always made me laugh. A more realistic feel is worth it.

Also, Cavebraham Lincoln should really serve as an excellent reminder to all concerned that Firaxis has never done beautiful leaders.

 

[Eyswein]

I'm a big ol' 10. I was most happy about them stating they doubled the size of their AI team and eliminated boring decisions which helps the AI function better and will improve gameplay fun for all of us. I've really noticed lately I spend more time in Civ 6 with builders than any other mechanic, so glad to see that mechanic gone. I typically play Civ 6 on Deity and find it far too easy to win, though I didn't start off at that level and Civ 6 took me some time to learn how to play at that level. I look forward to the tougher levels potentially being extremely difficult to beat and potentially permanently settling into a lower difficulty level.

 

[RedCourtJester]

Yesterday I was at a 1, after the Khmer reveal. But after processing it, I am hopeful that maybe this is all pointing toward some very cool and creative leader choices on release like Queen Soma, Spear-Thrower Owl, 'Aho'Eitu, Olga of Kiev. So maybe like a modest 7.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I need it in my veins. I'm easily at a 10. It'll be the last game I ever pre-order.

 

[Siptah]

It'll be the last game I ever pre-order.

and the expansions? Season passes? Civiliz8ion?

 

[Professor Phobo]

and the expansions? Season passes? Civiliz8ion?

I said last and I meant second to last!

 

[Naokaukodem]

It's a 6 here. More than average, because I'm quite committed with the Civ series that has huge potential, but quite disappointed that they didn't go the rise & fall path which is linked in my signature. Overall I think the path of Civ7 so far is quite odd, and I really wonder how it will play (I hope for a more streamlined way more like Civ5 than Civ6) Also, I'm not chasing for every bit of info, and will try to not watch Youtube at release. Also, I will wait until the Denuvo is removed before buying it on PC, meanwhile I will play on PS5. (without multiplayer unfortunately, and only if it doesn't require online subscription)
From the info that I barely got, here is what I like :
- With leaders still here, I appreciate that at least we can see the one we incarnate : much appreciated. (even if I would have liked no leaders at all)
- Less mind-cracker leaders abilities. Quickly identifiable abilities like in Civ4.
- More streamlined way to build cities : no more builders, borders growing with population, culture bomb from districts ?, districts being more generic and offering lot more flexibility, etc.
- The late eras crisis, which is maybe a playable version of my rise & fall. (which will probably end up as best players always triumphing, while putting others in annoying/unplayable troubles. I'm saying it again : if we incorporate the "falling" as part of normal gameplay, it wouldn't be such an issue, while still be represented ; if my method doesn't work, find another one, it's your job. What should be normal is to fall, and rise again, not trying to avoid any crisis or struggle not to fall/straight up lose)
- the mention of "towns" within regular cities almost makes me horny, there is so much potential.
- Navigable rivers, although I wonder if they are not dedicated to trade only.
What I dislike :
- Navigable rivers tiles look ugly.
- Huge focus on leaders. I'm especially not fond of all the leaders talking here, I just don't read it. (and it's a huge part of this forum, unfortunately) I really want to faint not understanding it rather that make efforts in the other way.
- Few identifiable sources of food so far. Cities may appear huge, but there should be at least magnificent fields of crops between them like in France (never got out of it).
- Wonders still taking their own full tile. I would see this less as an issue if we could work them like some natural wonders in Civ5.
- Mountains still impassable. Poses problems both for realism and gameplay. It's way too much arbitrary, especially with 1UPT. Mountains should have a minimum porosity, not sure how to represent that, but it's not my job.
What I didn't see but is what I consider should be a must-have in any Civ :
- Representation of land porosity in some way or another. So, again, we won't have it ? Devs should strongly consider not to develop on Switch or smartphones.
- Hunters-gatherers/nomadic era : to make it interesting is NOT my job !!! But in my opinion, it's a must-have for any Civilization-type game. (eventhough it's represented in some way, I would like an entire era for it, and the transition with sedentary way of life natural. Go back to hunters-gatherers/nomadic when needed. Hunters-gatherers/nomadic way of life has plenty advantages over sedentary one : more healthy, more free, more happy. Sedentary way of life is better only for a handful of people and dreams of conquest and power, and their lies about life being better like so. (not to mention slavery and all things alike)

 

[Stomper66]

Im giving it a 6 for now but I'm hoping that the number climbs the more information comes out.

Pros
+ I really like that the game is returning to civ 5 more in tone and art style. I prefer this to this more cartoony civ6.

+ I love the idea of unit and building diversity. Something that I had to use mods to do in the previous 2 games.

+ I was a tall player in 5 mostly so the idea of city number limits is a good one for me. For wide players I would rather them spread with small towns than cities because if you think of real world wide nations they are not developed cities throughout but more on the periphery eg USA, Russia, China, Australia etc

+ Warfare and exploration will be better as there will be more of a wilderness feeling throughout the game with distance between civs. Battles can now take place in the countryside instead of between cities all the time.

+ I don't really mind poly cards, especially as they are now specific to each civ and I like the idea of civ specific wonders and victory goals.

+ I like the idea of a expanding map. Hopefully a system will be there to place real geographical civ close to each other and introduce more exotic civs on further continents in later eras.

+ City expansion. It looks like 7 will have the best of both worlds. Beautiful and unique cities but will limitations on how many can be built and how far they can expand.

+ I do like the idea of changing civ in different eras if its very specific to each nation. Some examples include:

- Britons, England, Great Britain
- Gauls, Kingdom of France, French Republic
- Pilgrims, Thirteen Colonies, USA

Cons
- The idea of any leader leading any civilisation

- Civs being given the colour scheme of their leader, not of their civ.

- The eras are two broad. From what Ive seen exploration goes from the 1000s to the 1800s. The Normans might be relevant the start of the age but how are they relevant at the end? I anticipate that 2 or 3 more more eras will be introduced with each dlc to give us the classic 8 eras in the end. I don't mind paying for this as long as the new eras introduce some new civs with some new buildings, units and scenarios. Civ5s into the renaissance is still awesome to play and i'd love to play a new version of this.

- The fear that European civs will not be as specific as I want them to be. I think its more likely that I will not get to be a Britain or France without having to be Rome and Normans first. I know they've used London for the idea but I don't know why it has to be specific to my county and European counties. After all, India, China, and Japan, three fragmented countries that nationalised late, still get to be India, China, and Japan throughout the game. I get why they've used Romans and Normans as a generic European 'Classical and Medieval Civs' but I want to be able to play my own country throughout the playthrough. Having naval battles in the 1600s between Spain and the Normans seems silly and not immersive compared to the real naval powers of the time. Maybe the European Civs will be more detailed out in the DlC but i resent having to wait and pay for this. Feels a bit deliberately antagonistic to the European market.

That's my thoughts anyway looking forward to seeing more in the next few weeks/ months.

 

[Zaarin]

I'm very excited. While I still have some reservations, I'd call my excitement at this point a 9.5, which I'll round up. My chief dislike at this point remains the leaders and the Mortal Kombat diplomacy screen.

Also, Cavebraham Lincoln should really serve as an excellent reminder to all concerned that Firaxis has never done beautiful leaders.

Seems to be an odd numbered thing. Civ3's leaders were nightmare fuel. Civ4's leaders were good. Civ5's leaders were bad (everyone remembers the beautiful environments and forgets how ugly and animatronic the leaders themselves were). Civ6's leaders were mostly gorgeous. The Tecumseh First Look at least gives me hope that maybe by launch the leaders won't look as wretched as they did when the game was announced.

The eras are two broad. From what Ive seen exploration goes from the 1000s to the 1800s. The Normans might be relevant the start of the age but how are they relevant at the end? I anticipate that 2 or 3 more more eras will be introduced with each dlc to give us the classic 8 eras in the end.

I don't think we'll see more Ages. The Age boundaries were chosen thoughtfully, and every Age has to have unique game play, a complete civ roster, and +200 turns. Who wants to play a 1600 turn Civ game on Standard? Can you imagine the poor Marathon gamers? They'll die of old age before they finish their game.

- The fear that European civs will not be as specific as I want them to be. I think its more likely that I will not get to be a Britain or France without having to be Rome and Normans first. I know they've used London for the idea but I don't know why it has to be specific to my county and European counties. After all, India, China, and Japan, three fragmented countries that nationalised late, still get to be India, China, and Japan throughout the game. I get why they've used Romans and Normans as a generic European 'Classical and Medieval Civs' but I want to be able to play my own country throughout the playthrough.

I mean, it's worth recalling that Europe was a backwards, illiterate backwater for most of Antiquity--and then was a hegemony under Rome until the end of Antiquity. That being said, I'm almost positive we'll see Tudor England added to the Exploration Age in the future.

 

[Voidwalkin]

Can you imagine the poor Marathon gamers? They'll die of old age before they finish their game

Long term marathon player. I would enjoy that epic.

I might switch down a speed if it were really an issue. I doubt it would be, though.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Mountains still impassable. Poses problems both for realism and gameplay. It's way too much arbitrary, especially with 1UPT. Mountains should have a minimum porosity, not sure how to represent that, but it's not my job.
What I didn't see but is what I consider should be a must-have in any Civ :
- Representation of land porosity in some way or another. So, again, we won't have it ? Devs should strongly consider not to develop on Switch or smartphones.

I guess for porosity you mean some sort of modifier that affects units movements...? Or has it to do with something more in line with real physic and eventual shift to terraforming???
For example a Volcano island after a blast would become an archipelago, or has it more to do with water and liquid physics?? Mountains are sources of water, rivers.
Mountain tops can be leveled by nature, and Highplains are formed naturally over long periods of time, but man could terraform nature also. Nazca culture is an example of that.

After the great flood, man vanished form the coasts and took refuge on the highest possible mountain tops for a very long time. The Etruskan civ in Italy was born from the ashes of the
other Sea people cultures of the area, after their civ was almost completely wiped out by a massive flood event, vulcano blast and massive tsunami, meteorite strike, whatever.
Still mountains harboured men in both city dwellings and natural, cave and tents environment, for thousands upon thousands of years.

 

[Leyrann]

I guess for porosity you mean some sort of modifier that affects units movements...? Or has it to do with something more in line with real physic and eventual shift to terraforming???

He probably just means that actual mountains aren't impassable. Most mountain ranges contain at least a few passes that are pretty easy to traverse (some, such as the Brenner Pass, even for entire armies and the like), and even absent such convenient passes, it's perfectly possible to travel through a mountain valley until you get to the end, set up camp, and then the next day you scale towards a saddle point on the ridge so that you can check out the other side, and you've got plenty of time to descend back to your camp while considering whether you want to make preparations for an expedition to the other side.

You can't go on a random walk and expect to have it go smoothly, but even in prehistory without any paths, at least 90% of mountainous land was accessible to prepared humans.

 

[Zaarin]

Long term marathon player. I would enjoy that epic.

I might switch down a speed if it were really an issue. I doubt it would be, though.

Well, speaking as an Epic player who has long wanted a somewhat longer game...I'm not up for a 2400 turn game.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

1) unsure of the civ switching.
2) Denuvo. this makes a hard no
3) Why do I need a 2k account for online play? git stuffed.
4) bloody expensive.

Those are some of the excitement killers for me.

1) Graphics do look cool.
2) Navi rivers! I really do like this one!
3) Native Linux version.

Those I do like.

Rest of the stuff is wait and see.