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

[Leyrann]

I've changed mine to 0 with the reveal of 30 civs on launch. I've been skeptical but hopeful with the ages, but there's now no way for the game to launch with any kind of continuity across ages that satisfies me.

What's more, I do cynically think this is a conscious decision to remove content from the game that they can resell to us easier later. Massive red flag and hard pass from me as a result. I'm more than happy to stick more hours into the older games and wish everyone well with this new one if it's for you.

I don't think there's content removed from the game though.

Civilizations only last through part of the game, which you can argue removes content from them, but they also have significantly more unique bonuses than before, plus all of them have unique artwork, and altogether I'd say it's hard to justify even the argument that one civilization in Civ VII is less content than one civilization in Civ VI. Let alone that 30 civilizations in Civ VII is less content than 18 civilizations in Civ VI.

Obviously, the Civ VII setup also requires more content to work, and 30 civs is probably the absolute minimum you can justify - but that's no different from 18 being the absolute minimum you could justify for Civ VI, imo.

 

[Evolena]

Leaders also have their own event(s), does that count?

 

[Siptah]

I agree very much with this. I really want my enthusiasm to return, but then I see a new video like the Trung Trac video, and I'm just like ... meh, whatever.

I agree to some extent with this. I‘m not hyped at all by the leader FLs and I would wish we had them for civs instead.

 

[j51]

Changed my score from a 9 to a 3. Gameplay looks great but it doesn’t matter if there won’t be enough civs per era for it to feel varied. Now I’ll have to wait probably until both dlcs are out.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I don't think there's content removed from the game though.

Civilizations only last through part of the game, which you can argue removes content from them, but they also have significantly more unique bonuses than before, plus all of them have unique artwork, and altogether I'd say it's hard to justify even the argument that one civilization in Civ VII is less content than one civilization in Civ VI. Let alone that 30 civilizations in Civ VII is less content than 18 civilizations in Civ VI.

Obviously, the Civ VII setup also requires more content to work, and 30 civs is probably the absolute minimum you can justify - but that's no different from 18 being the absolute minimum you could justify for Civ VI, imo.

It is different for me. It is measurably different too. Previous 2 games had 2.25 civs available for every slot in a standard game. This game will have 1.66 civs available for every slots in a standard game on average, or 2 for every antiquity and exploration slot, and 1.2 for every modern slot. Those ratios are awful and it's going to feel repetitive quickly.

For me personally though, we have 2 civilizations, and a third of a bunch of others, and that is the most disappointing and disatisfying thing. I don't care about the quantity of fluff thrown in with each civilization, what I care about are civilizations. I think a good chunk of the player base is with me on that too, and thats why they've held them back in greater numbers for DLC bait.

I honestly think this game would be going down much better if they called it Sid Meiers Dynastic Tombola 1. This doesn't feel like a civilization game to me for the first time in the series, which I really hate to say.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I honestly think this game would be going down much better if they called it Sid Meiers Dynastic Tombola 1.

I totally disagree but this made me lol anyway, fair play

 

[AriochIV]

I agree to some extent with this. I‘m not hyped at all by the leader FLs and I would wish we had them for civs instead.

I do agree that having the First Look videos for the leaders instead of the civilizations was a questionable choice.

Leaders also have their own event(s), does that count?

We don't know, but it looks to me like it's just the typical two-option questionnaire you get periodically to earn points in A or B... in previous games like Beyond Earth I haven't found it very compelling.

Also, it looked like the context of the options seemed closely tied to the leader's native civilization (the questions for Augustus referenced Roman social structures, iirc); if so they're going to seem out of place when you're playing mismatched leaders.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I voted 6. I got over switching, briefly raised to a 7, but 30 civs per era has dropped it back down to 6.

I love huge maps, tons of civs, and marathon speed. MAX SAGA! This version will be of .... lesser saga, upon release.

I'll still buy it. But I may begin my 7 journey a little later than most, waiting for game development to increase the saga-tude.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm not as excited as I was in my earlier answer. 10 Civs per era almost confirms there will be no huge maps in the game. At least not at launch. While I don't always play huge maps, It's generally either large or huge for me. And even if you can play 10 civs on a large map, it's going to be the same 10 civs each game, at least until a decent amount of dlc civs come out. Actually I'm guessing you can't even play that many in the antiquity era.

My big thing with larger maps is immersion. I want to feel like this is an entire planet. This is even more necessary now with the map expansion feature. The map expansion feature doesn't even make sense on anything less than a planetary scale.

I actually believe it may not actually be as good as Civ 6 was at launch. And yes I know that game had it's issues at launch like religious units not having a unique layer, and AI civs complaining about troops on the border, but for the most part it was decent. Probably won't be as bad as Civ5 launch, however. I do believe eventually it will turn into a decent game.

The thing about maps is I feel like they've been getting smaller and smaller. Or perhaps my memory is faulty. I have my doubts a huge map will ever be available for this game.

 

[GIO888]

In Civ VI I play huge maps with at least 16 civ's, epic or Marathon, and reading through recent posts it may well be a 2026/7 start for me on Civ VII as well!

 

[Leyrann]

The thing about maps is I feel like they've been getting smaller and smaller. Or perhaps my memory is faulty.

Maps have not been getting smaller, but your memory isn't faulty either.

EDIT: Turns out my memory is faulty, maps (in Civ 6) are smaller than I thought they were. See below.

Despite remaining roughly the same size (10 000 tiles maximum), maps have started to feel smaller because of:
-1 unit per tile, instead of an entire stack
-cities now have 36 tiles (excl. city center) in their workable range instead of 20
-units now have 2 movement points by default instead of 1
-cities now occupy multiple tiles, thus appearing far bigger and requiring more tiles than they did before, meaning there's less room for more cities

 

[Disgustipated]

Maps have not been getting smaller, but your memory isn't faulty either.

Perhaps you are right. I'm just remembering based on the largest Earth TSL map. I seem to remember Civ 2 being able to fit most major American cities in it. I could get one on the East coast, one on the Mississippi, one or maybe it was 2 in the middle of the west (I'd usually put in Denver and my city of Las Vegas), and one on the West coast. That's 5 cities across. But yeah, the smaller city radius does factor into that. And there were no restrictions of 4 tiles between cities.

 

[ColtSeavers]

I agree to some extent with this. I‘m not hyped at all by the leader FLs and I would wish we had them for civs instead.

Well for me it is obvious, the Civs in this game are merely meant as a by product for the respective Leaders. So clearly the First Looks focus on the Leaders, too. The whole Idea of Civilization as been turned upside down, you are not building an Empire, but developing an eternal leader, who can take over any Civ as he chooses (with some gimmicky limitations, like collecting 3 horses etc. if you want to take over a certain Civ). It is exaclty this change in philosophy, which made me oppose Civ Switching in the first place.

 

[pokiehl]

I agree to some extent with this. I‘m not hyped at all by the leader FLs and I would wish we had them for civs instead.

It would've been even more fun to have both, but I get that that's a lot of content to produce on a weekly basis.

 

[RedCourtJester]

It would've been even more fun to have both, but I get that that's a lot of content to produce on a weekly basis.

Honestly, this early out I was surprised we were getting them at the rate we are. Practically a civ and leader announcement each week, along with little associated wonder and unit video blurbs.

I think there's a good chance they may maintain that momentum/pace through launch. Very confident start.

 

[Leyrann]

Perhaps you are right. I'm just remembering based on the largest Earth TSL map. I seem to remember Civ 2 being able to fit most major American cities in it. I could get one on the East coast, one on the Mississippi, one or maybe it was 2 in the middle of the west (I'd usually put in Denver and my city of Las Vegas), and one on the West coast. That's 5 cities across. But yeah, the smaller city radius does factor into that. And there were no restrictions of 4 tiles between cities.

Whoops, turns out I was wrong and you're right. That's what I get for going off of a half-remembered statement by someone else on the forum instead of doing my own research.

I remembered that for Civ 2, the maximum map size is 10 000 tiles, with custom dimensions, while the 'Large' map size would be 9 000 tiles (120x75). However, Civ 6 maps are smaller than I thought - 'Huge' map size is merely 106x66 = 6 996 tiles.

For Civ 5 Huge, this is actually 128x80 = 10 240 tiles (not sure what the point of that is considering you're effectively being kicked in the privates every time you try to build a city beyond your fourth...), and Civ 4 is the same (although I think Civ 4 maps tend to be more watery than their Civ 5 and 6 equivalents).

Perhaps of note is that this doesn't hold for standard map sizes. Standard in Civ 4 is 84x52 = 4368 tiles, in Civ 5 it's 80x52 = 4160, and in Civ 6 it's 84x54 = 4536. For reference, Civ 2's standard map size was 80x50 = 4000 tiles.

 

[Xur]

I’m at a zero. I’m not buying the game. Why am I here? It’s like watching a train crash in slow motion I guess. And I used to love the franchise.

I was originally at a 7 when they announced the game, but civ switching and how eras work dropped that to a 2’ish. It’s like their solution to late game slow down, is to remove what made it a civ game. The DLC plans and denuvo finally dropped me to a big fat zero.

I don’t know if the devs have lived under a rock in regards to Humankind or if it’s a question of another company afflicted by toxic positivity. It is just disappointing.

 

[KayAU]

It's currently a 4 for me, which is very unusual for a new Civ game. Right now, I'm not even watching any preview material.

I have an open mind about the civ switching, I'm positive about there seeming to be more unique things for each leader, I think the game looks very good visually. I am concerned about Denuvo and the greed of 2K having a negative impact on the game, as I believe it did for Civ 6.

 

[UWHabs]

I've grown on a lot of the civ switching and mechanics. I'm enjoying the uniques and the variety we've seen so far, and from the gameplay snippets we've seen, there's a lot of smaller changes that I'm excited to dig into.

The "low" civ count on launch is unfortunate. But that's always the problem with a new game. Comparing the end of cycle 6 when you have 50 civs to play, to drop to the 18ish like we had in other games (not sure how to "count" the current version), is always a pain. And the pricing of the deluxe and founders editions just feels way too high for me to justify it - you're spending almost double the base game price to get the Founders pack, and all you really get is 4 leaders, 8 civs, and some cosmetics. If they were maybe half the price they are (ie. the Founders pack was the same price as the Deluxe is coming out as), I'd probably opt for that.

But all in all, I think I've seen enough that the pre-order will be warranted whenever I get around to it, and I'm excited enough to see how the game progresses. Hopefully they can get the price of new civs cheaper, and can fairly quickly bulk out the roster. Once you get to like 15 civs per era, my early sense is that will be the sweet spot of having the choice and variety to fully get the replay aspect working.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Changed from 2 to 5.

The Leaders are looking a bit better.

And afaik, the devs are at least aware of Dunevo being a problem and possibly costing them sales, while the hotseat situation seems to be possibly resolved (though considering how much they flopped it in 5 I don't have high hopes).

However, the limit of possibly 10 players per game is a new knockback.

But the mechanics are very intriguing the more I see content, so.... maybe I'll get it.