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

[Stomper66]

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.

It wouldn't be a a typical civ game with standard speeds. Into the renaissance on civ 5 is a good example. You get to play a European civ over the medieval era with a bit of renaissance at the end. There's scenario set religions and goals and I think its about 200 turns and just feels right. If its 8 of these scenarios in a row things will always feel new and exciting. Maybe you don't even need to play all eras and could have a 200 turn play through in one era. Or you could have your game begin and end in certain eras. It's why I like the idea of changing civs you play the civ relevant to the era.

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.

It was but that doesn't mean it still can't be fun. I'd love to play ancient Britons or Germanic tribes in the antiquity age almost like a barbarian civ. I might be wrong but if ages were to be broken down I would love to see the following;

Ancient - Britons - War Chariot
Classical - Anglo Saxons - Hearthweru
Medieval - Angevin Empire - Longbowmen
Renaissance - Tudor England - Carracks
Industrial - Georgian United Kingdom - Redcoats
Modern - Edwardian United Kingdom - Landships
Atomic - Churchills Britain - Spitfires
Information - Modern Britain - SAS

Just a rough idea and I suppose If there is only 3 eras at the end of the games life these could be put into historical scenarios.

 

[Naokaukodem]

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

Both I would say. The two "porosity" terms I employ closely represent the same general idea, although it would work differently for movements and other things.
For movement :

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.

As said Leyrann, I just meant that in the first word.
In the second, I was more thinking about like if in Civ6 for example loyalty pressure would be affected by land "porosity", it is to say the influence of a given city would go deep in the land if this land is grassland, or even deeper if this is a river or a coast (with and only with the seafaring technology), less far if this is plains, less far yet if this is wood, less yet if this is jungle or tundra, and minimal if this is mountains or deserts or ice. (Obviously there could be mixes of several types of terrain, hence the remark about power because I'm not a programmer but it might take some power to make it all up and running fast enough)
This porosity system could also be applied to things like cultural mixing, which we never seen barely so, trade system, with revenues depending on it, or even automatic colonization/expansion that could be done with culture power rather than settlers. (and you would still have to place your city manually in a range depending of this porosity)
But your ideas are interesting.

 

[Zaarin]

It wouldn't be a a typical civ game with standard speeds. Into the renaissance on civ 5 is a good example. You get to play a European civ over the medieval era with a bit of renaissance at the end. There's scenario set religions and goals and I think its about 200 turns and just feels right. If its 8 of these scenarios in a row things will always feel new and exciting. Maybe you don't even need to play all eras and could have a 200 turn play through in one era. Or you could have your game begin and end in certain eras. It's why I like the idea of changing civs you play the civ relevant to the era.

Might be fine for a scenario, but changing civs 8 times in the base game is just going back to the Humankind model where you're switching civs before you've even gotten comfortable with your current civ.

 

[RedCourtJester]

It wouldn't be a a typical civ game with standard speeds. Into the renaissance on civ 5 is a good example. You get to play a European civ over the medieval era with a bit of renaissance at the end. There's scenario set religions and goals and I think its about 200 turns and just feels right. If its 8 of these scenarios in a row things will always feel new and exciting. Maybe you don't even need to play all eras and could have a 200 turn play through in one era. Or you could have your game begin and end in certain eras. It's why I like the idea of changing civs you play the civ relevant to the era.

I think Tudor England is an inevitability. In my model America stole the Rome -> Norman -> Britain path and Norway stole the Norse -> Norman -> Britain path. Nothing else makes sense for an English leader, which I don't think we will see at launch. So there will be necessary redemption at some point with England and probably some sort of Gael or Anglo civ to give the British their own pathway. Which is actually the best thing for them, since I think a full British path is what the English leader should lead, not something that starts in Rome (similarly I think we won't see a Spanish leader until we get a proper Andalus/Cordoba, or even Goths, to proceed from).

 

[Piranga]

Despise the Humankind civ switching mechanics. It's the least excited I've been for anything civ related since I discovered the series, back at III.

Voted 1 instead of 0 only because maybe someone will be able to make a mod to disable the trash gameplay mechanic. That and a 75% off sale after a while.

 

[Voidwalkin]

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

That was great and I for one want it back. It had charm.

I can totally envisage Lincoln as a leader of a stone age tribe. He may have personally enjoyed that more than he did the actual nation he led

 

[Stomper66]

Might be fine for a scenario, but changing civs 8 times in the base game is just going back to the Humankind model where you're switching civs before you've even gotten comfortable with your current civ.

I never played humankind but from what I've heard I don't want the randomness that that games brings. I don't know how many civ players want to play as close to history as possible like I do and how many players want that 'what if' playability the devs have talked about. Maybe if they bring a few scenarios and introduce some era specific civs to the three era base game that will be okay.

I think Tudor England is an inevitability. In my model America stole the Rome -> Norman -> Britain path and Norway stole the Norse -> Norman -> Britain path. Nothing else makes sense for an English leader, which I don't think we will see at launch. So there will be necessary redemption at some point with England and probably some sort of Gael or Anglo civ to give the British their own pathway. Which is actually the best thing for them, since I think a full British path is what the English leader should lead, not something that starts in Rome (similarly I think we won't see a Spanish leader until we get a proper Andalus/Cordoba, or even Goths, to proceed from).

I agree feels very strange starting a England game with Rome. Will just have to see once all the Civs are released. I do think they are making a political point by deliberately not releasing a lot of European civs in the base game. Think it has a lot to do with coming away from a Eurocentric view of history. If we have Greece and Rome for antiquity civs, Normans and Spain for exploration civs and France and Russia or Germany for modern civs then that's okay for the base base. Still feels strange though trying to play history without the classic England, Spain, France, Germany and Russia throughout the game.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

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.

You have plenty of time to check the other side, except the other side are germans or french, and you are the Italian, in that case you are pretty dead before even trying to climb,
because both the germans AND the french, had sentinels already set up, and long range artillery. The moment the Italians tried to set up a camp.... kaboom... Allez les italiens XD

 

[Lazy sweeper]

3) Why do I need a 2k account for online play? git stuffed.

I have the suspect, that the Publishers are rioting against Steam altogether...
And I hope this has nothing to do with Steam, but in a way or the other, Steam is 100% my digital store * (*since Civ V DVD-Steam key...)

Sony just announced that now every Playstation game on Steam has to be linked to a Playstation account in order to play.
I had bought Horizon Zero Dawn before and It didnt have to connect. The new Remaster version however, it needs to.
It would xxx if this was retroactive, and I should install a PlayX account in order to play it...

Jedi survivor, EA account, same story. When I bought it it had no EA launcher link, but for new Star wars Outlaw, it has...

I have no clues... personally I will not buy the new versions... Steam also translates the engines for Proton, and some of these launchers wont work...
Steam Deck bypass Sony launcher, see God of War...

I mean it looks like an avoidable mess... thousands of PC players will be driven off by these launchers, if Steam do not get the ultimate word...
Can Steam protect the consumer rights of a bought product, if there is a Man in the middle, which has other plans about functionality of our Steam library???

If it has to do with Piracy protection... Gabe said, piracy is service problem... If pirated copies offer a better experience than legit... people will mass converge
to piracy... give the people a stable environment, and they will have a better experience feeling everything is under their control, and easy to access...

It's a tip toe

 

[ColtSeavers]

I voted 5. Originally I was super excited, since Civ is basically the only game I play for single player and I'm huge fan of the series since the first part. I'm pretty sceptical about how well the Civ Switching mechanism will work in practice. Not a big fan of the graphics, especially the leaders screens, too. Not going to pre order for sure, and will wait for the first reviews, before I buy this game.

 

[Bibor]

Probably my state of mind, but not very excited. It's hard for me to get excited about anything these days I have nothing against incremental changes, which Civ7 promises to deliver, but to be honest... don't expect of me to get excited about incremental changes.

 

[King Flevance]

I am pretty excited, personally. (8/10) Not because I think this is going to be the best iteration or anything. I highly suspect 4 will remain on the top for me personally after this release. Don't mistake my excitement for faith in the final product's delivery. I was excited for 6's release and life did not let me enjoy it for quite some time and when I finally was able to, it slightly disappointed me. My excitement for 7 is due to my love of what Humankind did, I am in the minority for actually enjoying that feature and I am excited to see Firaxis's take on it for good or bad. I am excited to see how they pivot the development or how they expand upon it. There are things I see that excite me with 7 outside of that too though. The map looks like it will be interesting. Diplomacy looks like it may hold some new weight. Districts have a new design philosophy as well. Every one of these may end up being a let down - or they may showcase a new great implementation for these mechanics. My excitement is for the ability to get to see the latest development of the next installment of Civ and how it develops.

 

[Civciv5]

Zero.

I've never been this disapppointed and less excited in a game ever.

The forced civilization changing mechanic is almost entirely responsible.

Instead of being able to play Egypt or Rome for the entire game and play an alternate history where their civilization never fell, you'll be forced to arbitrarily change to some random civilization even if you're the most powerful country and in a golden age.

Not to mention nonsensical choices like putting Khmer in the ancient era.
No amount of mental gymnastics will convince me this makes sense.

I'm certain I will not buy the game unless they somehow revamp the entire system.

So basically my only hope is the game is so badly received at release that the devs are forced to salvage it.

I'll stick with Civ5 and 6.

 

[GIO888]

Not being able to play Washington, Caesar, Victoria et al, from the start does smack a bit of woke-creep, doesn't it?

 

[Siptah]

Not being able to play Washington, Caesar, Victoria et al, from the start does smack a bit of woke-creep, doesn't it?

Why? With Ashoka, Napoléon, and Augustus, three imperialists par excellence are playable from the start.

 

[ezzlar]

Not being able to play Washington, Caesar, Victoria et al, from the start does smack a bit of woke-creep, doesn't it?

More like "Those are excellent DLCs and we are tired of always having the same leaders from the start. This is the seventh iteration after all"

 

[GIO888]

Fair enough.

All I'll say is I lamented no WWII scenario on these forums a while back - and my post was deleted for the first time ever!

Moderator Action: *SNIP* Please take your politics elsewhere like Off-Topic. forum. It is not acceptable in the gaming forums and is tantamount to trolling. Thank you - lymond

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

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.

 

[ManoftheHour333]

I said 3. I agree that while I can’t put my finger on it, my enthusiasm has been majorly sapped.

I think it’s bc the leaders and civs feel like they have so little weight to them. Like the leaders are more long lasting but…what do you say about them? They only have one ability and then the stupid agenda returns…big woop. But then each civ is so complicated despite being around for only 1/3 of the game so it feels exhausting to understand for little gain.

But yeah I’ll probably get it since Civ is always a good time…I’ll probably just wait until like 2027-2030 or after some expansions/dlc comes in. Not like they’re going to be moving away from VII for a decade lol

 

[kaspergm]

I think it’s bc the leaders and civs feel like they have so little weight to them. Like the leaders are more long lasting but…what do you say about them? They only have one ability and then the stupid agenda returns…big woop. But then each civ is so complicated despite being around for only 1/3 of the game so it feels exhausting to understand for little gain.

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.