Press build preview

[queenpea]

Watching Ursa's second video now.

He started the game as Augustus of Rome and has switched to Spain. Machiavelli was Greece and is now Normans. Isabella was Aksum and is now Shawnee. It's interesting that she wouldn't have chosen Songhai having started as Aksum. Understandably, she could not have chosen Spain or Normans if these were chosen already (though we have seen some games with doubled civilizations).

I will have to go back to look at the Aksum design + Isabella to understand what might be appealing about the Shawnee choice.

As an aside, it looks like diplomatic relations reset for every Age transition? I understand the logic of that, but I find it annoying.

 

[playshogi]

As an aside, it looks like diplomatic relations reset for every Age transition? I understand the logic of that, but I find it annoying.

The whole idea of the Great Reset is annoying. I'll be surprised if I am still playing this game by the middle of March. (when another game I like is getting a new release).

 

[thecrazyscot]

As an aside, it looks like diplomatic relations reset for every Age transition? I understand the logic of that, but I find it annoying.

Although we have seen that there is a modifier for "Previous Age", so whatever your ending stance was does seem to carry forward in some fashion.

EDIT: screenshot

 

[queenpea]

Although we have seen that there is a modifier for "Previous Age", so whatever your ending stance was does seem to carry forward in some fashion.

EDIT: screenshot

Ok, well that is something.

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

Late to the party, but has anyone had a Switch version preview? Or has it all been PC?

 

[Ebon-Hawke-]

Watching Ursa's second video now.

He started the game as Augustus of Rome and has switched to Spain. Machiavelli was Greece and is now Normans. Isabella was Aksum and is now Shawnee. It's interesting that she wouldn't have chosen Songhai having started as Aksum. Understandably, she could not have chosen Spain or Normans if these were chosen already (though we have seen some games with doubled civilizations).

I will have to go back to look at the Aksum design + Isabella to understand what might be appealing about the Shawnee choice.

As an aside, it looks like diplomatic relations reset for every Age transition? I understand the logic of that, but I find it annoying.

Honestly most of these weird transitions just seem to happen when there is too many overlapping leaders, which sadly will be often on launch due to the number of European leaders. I've always been pro random AI leaders but I might have to curate a little more to start out.

 

[Graethyenne]

Quarbit’s video actually goes into his thoughts at the very end of his video, which surprised me.

In short, he is not a fan of this iteration of Civ; though an important caveat is that he’s not a huge Civ player to begin with.

Criticisms include the age system, which he said broke up the game too much for his liking. “One more turn” has become — ok, let me start this chapter tomorrow.

Based on your summary I opened his and skipped to the discussion portion. Anything he said earlier on, I therefore missed.

That said, and this could just be me hearing what I want to hear, he couched virtually all* of his criticisms as minor or nitpicks. And for the most part I think adjustments like the ones he describes seem perfectly reasonable and might be warranted. Some of them may also be resolved with more game time, I obviously haven't a clue at this point. But I didn't get a strongly negative vibe (maybe he was just being polite, this was my first exposure to his content) and he mentioned planning to play "a lot more Civ 7" (which seems positive) "to perhaps change his opinions" (I can see some negativity here, but again it seems like 'optimistic negativity' if that makes sense).

*The age transition does appear to bother him quite a bit, but I am willing to bet that how much it affects motivation and even in which direction it does so will vary a bit by player. I can imagine that the spending of legacy points and leader attributes (and apparently changing mementos, which was new information for me from his video) could be a fun mini-game that spurs on a "let's see how this set of start of age upgrades plays out".

I will also so, as someone who has seen the wrong side of dawn because I was too wrapped up in a game (often but not always Civ) if in fact this age system operates as a "check the clock and decide whether to press on" that will actually be a feature for me, whether I want to admit it or not.

Anyhow, Cheers!

Graydon

 

[queenpea]

Honestly most of these weird transitions just seem to happen when there is too many overlapping leaders, which sadly will be often on launch due to the number of European leaders. I've always been pro random AI leaders but I might have to curate a little more to start out.

I just wish that, if a player takes the time at the start of the game to pair leaders and civs that make sense, then the game would take it from there and pursue the “historical path” which has been discussed at length here.

I’m confused why AI Isabella would pursue Aksum to Shawnee.

 

[SemiLazyGamer]

I just wish that, if a player takes the time at the start of the game to pair leaders and civs that make sense, then the game would take it from there and pursue the “historical path” which has been discussed at length here.

I’m confused why AI Isabella would pursue Aksum to Shawnee.

The main reason to ask is what land Isabella was given and how that would have gone into how her AI chooses her next Civ.

 

[Krikkit1]

I just wish that, if a player takes the time at the start of the game to pair leaders and civs that make sense, then the game would take it from there and pursue the “historical path” which has been discussed at length here.

I’m confused why AI Isabella would pursue Aksum to Shawnee.

I think the only priorities the AI has are one’s based in it’s leaders.

Basically it seems to be
Priority
1 Nonduplicated, Unlocked* Leader priority
2 Nonduplicated, Unlocked* Random civ
3 Unlocked* Random civ

*Unlocked by any means

 

[queenpea]

The main reason to ask is what land Isabella was given and how that would have gone into how her AI chooses her next Civ.

I’m worried that logic may not play a role.

 

[Ebon-Hawke-]

I just wish that, if a player takes the time at the start of the game to pair leaders and civs that make sense, then the game would take it from there and pursue the “historical path” which has been discussed at length here.

I’m confused why AI Isabella would pursue Aksum to Shawnee.

I've definitely seen one or 2 videos where all the leaders were with their best pairings for both ages, except I want to say one of the Native American leaders went the other Native option.

 

[queenpea]

I've definitely seen one or 2 videos where all the leaders were with their best pairings for both ages, except I want to say one of the Native American leaders went the other Native option.

Yeah I think it’s possible for everything to go right. But I think when one civ goes “wrong” there may be a snowball effect.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Okay, so Polish tvgry/gry-online.pl outlet published a "preview" (it really feels like a review honestly, even though they have a disclaimer that "it isn't", and to their credit they avoided talking about modern age). It is a very big Polish outlet, but with the best journalists leaving a couple of years ago they aren't associated with that much of journalistic quality and maybe integrity nowadays - I honestly would much rather prefer if guys from arhn.eu got a preview copy. Either way, the things that they noted in the YT video and web article are:
- according to them, the age changes are demotivating ingame progress
- there's more linearity, instead of "sandboxiveness", and they think that the quests are too specific and one can't play their own way, which limits replayability
- the legacy paths, units and quests are reportedly very buggy
- they say the game crashes quite a bit
- once again they are really insistent that the game is very buggy and "unreadable" at that
- their b-roll shows city banners to bug out even more than we've seen (curse you city banners!)
- you can't decide how to unpack a commander's unit, or something doesn't work with it?
- they say the AI is very bad, and think that there are remnants from Civ VI code
- they were confused by how relationships with city states work - suzerains can't change
- they think the game is not finished
- they didn't like how the diplomacy options related to war work
- they claim that "the game doesn't want to share information with the player, it doesn't want them to know anything"
- the borders aren't easy to understand, they still don't show on the minimap
- the game doesn't show when your units are attacked by the AI
- at last, 20 minutes into the video, they complimented how cities look on the map and how the music sounds; these are the only things they liked about the game
- they had a problem with the "identity" of the leaders (?); your leader appears on the screen too rarely, if you ask them
- the leaders make the "hmmmm" sound very often
- they suspect that "the devs seem to have lost faith in their ideas at some point" and they abandoned too many core concepts of the series
- they think that the one more turn syndrome won't occur
- they likened the state of the series with VII to the Fall of Rome, their conclusion was that it's a dark age for Civ.

Safe to say they didn't like the game. I can't help but note that they were VERY annoying to listen to, but their complaints are still valid. So far this was the most negative review of the game I've seen. I'm in a weird state where I'm still very hyped, but a little worried at the same time.

I always read between the lines for negative reviews and never read positive reviews (cuz it's easy for them to be paid off, not giving a genuine opinion, but no one is paid to give a negative review, but if the review feels like it's just whining, then it's not a worthwhile review, so those that actually have genuine complaints are worth listening to form an opinion).

Defeniately some points that seem to make sense in their list.

I'm sure Civ 7 will be able to become great with expansion packs *again*, as did its two predecssors.

I am bit worried about the linearity, and hope the different combos make up for it. Everyone who picked Augustus got the legend rather quickly on. Guess we'll see how this all turns out.

 

[Seek]

I’m confused why AI Isabella would pursue Aksum to Shawnee.

Well both Aksum and Shawnee have bonuses for Resources, and are both Economic, so it’s not like she went with Mongols or something totally unrelated. I could see pursuing this line, and trying to get to distant lands asap to find natural wonders, get more resources, meet IPs to hopefully suzerain, and get Treasure Fleets out.

 

[queenpea]

Well both Aksum and Shawnee have bonuses for Resources, and are both Economic, so it’s not like she went with Mongols or something totally unrelated. I could see pursuing this line, and trying to get to distant lands asap to find natural wonders, get more resources, meet IPs to hopefully suzerain, and get Treasure Fleets out.

I appreciate the effort, and I’m not saying the Shawnee don’t have advantages, but I don’t really buy it.

 

[Evolena]

Well, as Tecumseh unlocks Mexico (amongst others) as well as Isabella, why not?

 

[queenpea]

Well, as Tecumseh unlocks Mexico (amongst others) as well as Isabella, why not?

Sorry, I don’t understand your question?

 

[Evolena]

Tecumseh, who is strongly associated to the Shawnee, unlocks Mexico. Isabella unlocks Mexico too. So it doesn't seem so much of a stretch fr Isabella to go Shawnee, is it?

 

[queenpea]

Tecumseh, who is strongly associated to the Shawnee, unlocks Mexico. Isabella unlocks Mexico too. So it doesn't seem so much of a stretch fr Isabella to go Shawnee, is it?

Yes, it is a stretch to go from Aksum to Shawnee. Isabella already unlocks Mexico and doesn’t need Shawnee to unlock it twice.

There is no geographical or historical relation between Aksum and Shawnee.