Small Observations General Thread (things not worth separate threads)

[Bonyduck Campersang]

Even in previous games with leaders tied to civilizations, they referred to their historical role, not the civilization in game. For example, in Civ6 Philip II says "Nos somos Felipe, rey de España y Portugal", while he clearly doesn't lead Portugal in the game.

I know, and I disliked that too

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

In the Abbasid civ thread the Firaxian guy whose name I've forgotten justified the name 'Ulema' for the Abbasid Unique Quarter because 'it was difficult to come up with a proper name for an Abbasid Quarter' which for me implied that the Unique Quarter is a necessary component for a civ. Yet Persia has a single Unique Building and no Unique Quarter (despite having several good candidates for more Unique Infrastructure like the Satrap's Court or the Zourkhaneh or the Fire Temple), which further enflames my iration with the Abbasid civ design

 

[thecrazyscot]

In the Abbasid civ thread the Firaxian guy whose name I've forgotten justified the name 'Ulema' for the Abbasid Unique Quarter because 'it was difficult to come up with a proper name for an Abbasid Quarter' which for me implied that the Unique Quarter is a necessary component for a civ. Yet Persia has a single Unique Building and no Unique Quarter (despite having several good candidates for more Unique Infrastructure like the Satrap's Court or the Zourkhaneh or the Fire Temple), which further enflames my iration with the Abbasid civ design

The Persians don't have a unique building - they have a unique improvement.

If you have unique buildings, you get a quarter. If you have a unique improvement, you don't get a quarter.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

The Persians don't have a unique building - they have a unique improvement.

If you have unique buildings, you get a quarter. If you have a unique improvement, you don't get a quarter.

I didn't realise that. Is it because Unique Improvements are much more powerful than one Quarter and two Buildings?

I didn't much like Unique Improvements in Civ5 and Civ6. The default Improvements were usually more useful than the unique ones, and I would much rather want my Citizens to work Mine or Farm tiles than Pairidaeza ones

 

[pokiehl]

I didn't much like Unique Improvements in Civ5 and Civ6. The default Improvements were usually more useful than the unique ones, and I would much rather want my Citizens to work Mine or Farm tiles than Pairidaeza ones

In Civ 6, unique improvements don't "replace" anything, so it indeed often felt like you had to sacrifice an otherwise useful tile.

However, in Civ 7, unique buildings don't replace anything either, so I think this choice will be consistent with buildings vs improvements at least.

 

[gdr_willter]

I didn't realise that. Is it because Unique Improvements are much more powerful than one Quarter and two Buildings?

I didn't much like Unique Improvements in Civ5 and Civ6. The default Improvements were usually more useful than the unique ones, and I would much rather want my Citizens to work Mine or Farm tiles than Pairidaeza ones

It's kinda balanced, because we can improve tiles in all settlements but can't build all kind of buildings in towns.

So the civs which have the Unique Improvements with culture/science/influence bonuses can get those from all settlements including towns, while the civs which have the Unique Buildings with the same bonus categories can only get those from the cities.

I guess we can build the Unique Buildings with the happiness or gold bonuses in towns, but it's not confirmed.

 

[Krikkit1]

It's kinda balanced, because we can improve tiles in all settlements but can't build all kind of buildings in towns.

So the civs which have the Unique Improvements with culture/science/influence bonuses can get those from all settlements including towns, while the civs which have the Unique Buildings with the same bonus categories can only get those from the cities.

I guess we can build the Unique Buildings with the happiness or gold bonuses in towns, but it's not confirmed.

Also Unique Improvements (at least some of them other than the Baray) can be built multiple times in a Settlement (City or Town)

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I didn't realise that. Is it because Unique Improvements are much more powerful than one Quarter and two Buildings?

I didn't much like Unique Improvements in Civ5 and Civ6. The default Improvements were usually more useful than the unique ones, and I would much rather want my Citizens to work Mine or Farm tiles than Pairidaeza ones

Not sure. Otherwise at least in Civ 7 all unique infrastructure, whether an improvement or quarter, will be able to take up a whole tile to itself.
As for the Pairideza I liked to build them on otherwise useless tiles like possible flat desert or tundra tiles when I had the chance. I always felt the civs that made use of those similar tiles where nothing else could be built other than their unique improvements, such as Canada, Australia, Indonesia, and the Dutch, superior to others.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I set off quite the discussion didn't I with the "heavy cavalry" comment To be clear I have no idea if there will be a light/heavy cavalry distinction in Civ7.

I have no argument with you in terms of historicity. I greatly appreciate your extensive knowledge on the subject and contextual contributions - I find them quite educational. What I am saying though is that the popular conception of tanks is "hit fast hit hard", pop blitzkrieg if you will.

Since Civ has abstracted military units into distinct "lines" it doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective to have tanks start in the siege line then move to the cavalry line. It would be confusing to most players and mess with upgrade directions. I could be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if we get an accurate depiction of early tanks as they don't fit nicely in the abstracted lines already defined.

I will also say that I hope the modern age doesn't present us with just 20-30 turns to use units before they become obsolete - I suspect further abstraction or blobbing of the rapid technological innovations in the 20th century to avoid the frustration of not getting to use your units before needing to upgrade them. At least, I hope they address this issue, as it was just another issue plaguing the late game. I honestly wouldn't mind the modern age ending in the 1950s as we would avoid having handle an absurd amount of military innovation in a really compressed time.

Siege line is Civ VI terminology anyway, and may be completely inappropriate for Civ VII: for all the graphic shows of units and discussion of Army Commanders, there has been very little released about the progressions of units and how they (might) operate, other than the statement that all promotions are now to Army Commanders, which in itself implies some major changes to the concept of 'lines' of units sharing anything - we know for sure they don;t share any 'promotion tree'.

Concerning the WWI heavy tank, the actual best historical solution would be to make it a Modern British Unique Unit. After all, they developed, designed and built virtually all of them - the US, as posted, built about 100 after the war, and other countries (like the Soviet Union and Germany) used captured British tanks in tiny numbers. It's as close to a perfect example of a Unique Unit as you could hope for.

- Which of course, doesn't mean that's how it will be used in the game.

Agree, 20 turns is about the bare minimum to make a unit useable, even with Army Commanders to speed them to the front. That, however, emphasizes the problem of the WWI heavy tank: no matter how you slice it, the beast was only fielded in 1917 and the medium tanks that have been shown all appear by 1940 - 43: 23 - 26 years later. Unless they are stepping out of the box and going for Less Than One Year Turns that doesn't leave a lot of time to use the Heavy before it is obsolete.

As usual too often in Civ VII so far, speculating in absence of data.

 

[BuchiTaton]

Funny thing that CIV7s Army Commander system and changes to the regular lines are similar to what I wanted in my suggestions.
There are a lot of things that are close to what I suggested, sadly the are also many disappointing deal breaker things.

 

[chaosprophet]

I didn't realise that. Is it because Unique Improvements are much more powerful than one Quarter and two Buildings?

I didn't much like Unique Improvements in Civ5 and Civ6. The default Improvements were usually more useful than the unique ones, and I would much rather want my Citizens to work Mine or Farm tiles than Pairidaeza ones

Unique improvements are build on top of the rural district/improvement it is built on as an addition. So the tile has all effects and wields it had before you built the unique improvement on top of it plus whatever the unique improvement gives.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Siege line is Civ VI terminology anyway, and may be completely inappropriate for Civ VII: for all the graphic shows of units and discussion of Army Commanders, there has been very little released about the progressions of units and how they (might) operate, other than the statement that all promotions are now to Army Commanders, which in itself implies some major changes to the concept of 'lines' of units sharing anything - we know for sure they don;t share any 'promotion tree'.

Concerning the WWI heavy tank, the actual best historical solution would be to make it a Modern British Unique Unit. After all, they developed, designed and built virtually all of them - the US, as posted, built about 100 after the war, and other countries (like the Soviet Union and Germany) used captured British tanks in tiny numbers. It's as close to a perfect example of a Unique Unit as you could hope for.

- Which of course, doesn't mean that's how it will be used in the game.

Agree, 20 turns is about the bare minimum to make a unit useable, even with Army Commanders to speed them to the front. That, however, emphasizes the problem of the WWI heavy tank: no matter how you slice it, the beast was only fielded in 1917 and the medium tanks that have been shown all appear by 1940 - 43: 23 - 26 years later. Unless they are stepping out of the box and going for Less Than One Year Turns that doesn't leave a lot of time to use the Heavy before it is obsolete.

As usual too often in Civ VII so far, speculating in absence of data.

Personally it's best be Infantry Line for Mastery upgrades. Those first tanks were Helepolises of the 20th Century. and there were lighter equivalents invented and bought elsewhere and did similiar jobs.
personally 'Tankette' with WW1 infantry flanked them is better choice. enabled as Mastered Infantry tech.

 

[AriochIV]

In case this hasn't been mentioned before: in the Navigable Rivers short, there is a brief tooltip that appears to reveal the Independent unit being fought by Egypt here is Scythian.

 

[Zaarin]

the Independent unit being fought by Egypt here is Scythian.

Here's hoping we continue to see Independent Peoples promoted to civs as we did in the last two games...

 

[SeelingCat]

I might hazard that it's Scythian Neapolis in particular

 

[AriochIV]

I might hazard that it's Scythian Neapolis in particular

Interesting. I was at a loss for what the "Nea-" might indicate.

 

[moysturfurmer]

MONGOLIA INCOMING

 

[AriochIV]

Speaking of Independent Powers, there's a short up on that subject:

 

[moysturfurmer]

The IP unit graphics are so much better than from that initial reveal. Encouraging to see that.

The bonuses from the video are pretty cool too. Foederati unique units and Megalith & Hillfort improvements. Seems like that’s more or less confirmation that the Stone Heads from earlier were a IP UI.

Oh and looks like you can Annex your Suzerained IPs for 185 diplo. Very sick.

 

[SeelingCat]

Speaking of Independent Powers, there's a short up on that subject:

Shengle - Xianbei people
Si T[??p] > probably Si Thep
Moche - Moche people