So anyway, place your bets: when will civ7 arrive?

Ezerin

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 3, 2019
Messages
29
You know, if I were put in charge of Civ 7 development, I would not know where to begin. It seems an almost impossible task. Where do you take the game so that the result is genuinely Civ 7 and not Civ 6.5? All the things people have aired on this forum have mostly been fixes to Civ 6, not a road map to Civ 7. What will it look like? Will it be bright like Civ 6 or more subdued like Civ 5? What will the leaders look like? More animations or static art? These issues may not affect gameplay but they are vastly important to how the game is received. What you do NOT want is a game such that reviewers say, "This is just Civ 6 with a haircut."

I don't know, I have a lot of ideas and think many other people do as well. Starting with something minor like actually sphere-shaped maps (would have to have some pentagons in it though), ending with some ground shaking changes like full transition from yield base economy to resource based (with big focus on logistics) and making pops their own entity rether than just property of city ( cities would become more of a formal thing that just represent dense clusters of pops and urban environment and pops would become key entities of gameplay each act independently and have different properties). To come up with something new isn't the problem, the problem is how much of a change audience is ready to accept.
 
Last edited:

Krajzen

Deity
Joined
Oct 23, 2013
Messages
3,292
Location
Poland
Should Civ 7 have that board game style or should they try something new? Being a board game has been Civs style pretty much and I wonder how their fans would react if Firaxis made things more complex. Also making things more complex would probably remove how repetitive things end up being in mid game and beyond. I think diplomacy should be more of a thing in the mid game.

Being "board game like" is not the same as being less complex, it's more of a... Feel. Or the way mechanics work. Or the vibe of "I am playing a game to win" vs the simulationist-immersive vibe of "I am building a civilization in a living, breathing world". But however we define it, for some reason I strongly suspect that a lot lof forum folks would enjoy civ7 being less board gamey just as much as me.
 
Last edited:

reddishrecue

Deity
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
5,832
Being an imaginative realistic board game makes the game seem interesting to me. What really got my attention when I first saw this game is the improvement and progress that the game had such as technology and the better units with the advent of newer techs. As time passes, other things in the game improve to your advantage such as economy. Videos and images also enhance this experience. Sort of like when you used to build a shrine in civilization 4 [edit add] or that song when your sages get a new technology in civilization 1.
 

UWHabs

Deity
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
4,981
Location
Toronto
Hmmm... I like it because it is board-gamey. And if it ceased to be turn-based, it would be the end of it for me (after non-stop use since civ 1).

They could never go away from being turn-based, that's pretty much the defining feature of the game.

But as for board-gamey vs not, I do think 5 and 6 definitely went very far down that road. I'm very mixed on that - there's a part of me that really likes the simplicity, that everything is easy to understand, I can pretty much map out my campus spots and figure out the exact yields of tiles over time, etc... But then I also feel that that gets a little too static. Like we're playing on these super powerful computers, would it be terribly awful to have more than like 5 base tile types that the game pops features and improvements on top of? Would it make for a better game if tile elevation was used for more than just flooding purposes? I mean, yeah, I don't want the game to require a masters degree in geography to be able to plan your empire out, but a little more depth to some part of the game that make it feel like a computer game, and not just a computer version of a board game might be a nice direction to take things.
 

HorseshoeHermit

20% accurate as usual, Morty
Joined
Apr 5, 2013
Messages
1,455
Location
Canada
You know, if I were put in charge of Civ 7 development, I would not know where to begin. It seems an almost impossible task. Where do you take the game so that the result is genuinely Civ 7 and not Civ 6.5? All the things people have aired on this forum have mostly been fixes to Civ 6, not a road map to Civ 7. What will it look like? Will it be bright like Civ 6 or more subdued like Civ 5? What will the leaders look like? More animations or static art? These issues may not affect gameplay but they are vastly important to how the game is received. What you do NOT want is a game such that reviewers say, "This is just Civ 6 with a haircut."
Find Ryika and put them on the design team. (Actually, Ryika, get a business loan and have a go, I believe in you.)

~~~
I keep feeling like a board game of Civ is right on the tip of my tongue. And yes, I do know about the Civ6 board game, and TTA. Some kind of action economy, where you might have more actions in a phase than other players, but you take them in turns, and then the phase ends; and you are translating resources into other accounts over and over, maybe some dice rolls and paying to bias random chance. Anyway.

What any board game lacks of course is the map. The computer game needs to use that resource. And several constraints get introduced right away. If you have turns you must have tiles. While you could have a tileless globe representation, and this would finally (and easily) be spherical, you cannot make that tilelessness do any work as tilelessness except in real-time. And now that you have tiles you must assign discrete properties to tiles. Control of tiles gives the value you turn into productivity; war over the tiles / militarization of the tiles is fought in, principally, a location-denying or -fortifying manner.

I would actually like it if Firaxis put their hands in the air, took a safe bet on making all the economic systems mere tweaks, but reconfigured the military part to respect how one-for-one recreation of different "weapons technology" in Human history doesn't really suit the military demands that a people living on a tiled map, as I have described, would experience. This part of things will be gamey, always gamey, unless you really *really* turn it to a strategic layer thing where armies just fight armies. By which I mean, I could see Civ go either way. But in both cases, we're no longer "making an archer" and then later "making a cannon". The unit type, the 'smallest implement of military power', the thing you place on the tiles for tile control, should have qualities that fundamentally are structured to relate to tile properties, and the dynamics by which that control will be carried out. Bombardment, fortification, push-and-pull gambits, skirmish, attrition, mobility; all of these are familiar, but I also want to see terrain-type exploitation, like using hilliness, water, plains or grass. Again, in a word, the arms that are used are "designed" (by the simulated people) to suit the terrain attributes of concern to them, and bring about the war dynamics that their grand strategy holds for their (terrain-exploiting) plan for flourishing and thriving / empire.

Tripling the basic terrain types at minimum, also. Savannah, Dunes, Rocky, Taiga, all that good stuff from the CIV mods.
 

blackbutterfly

Emperor
Joined
May 9, 2016
Messages
1,398
Location
Leeds, UK
Sell the IP. :hammer:
That's a bit extreme.

Anton Strenger, the lead developer/designer of Civ VI has moved on to greener pastures.
So they could bring in someone from outside to lead Civ VII.

There are so many 4X games now I think Firaxis should look outwards, especially as it's evolving with Marvel's Midnight Suns poised to be its new tentpole.

FYI I'm super impressed with the development speed and general quality of product/QA of Amplitude's HUMANKIND.
(I've participated in several of their betas including the most recent Together We Rule expansion closed beta).

Firaxis should think of hiring one of those guys to lead Civ VII.
 

LMT

Warlord
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
237
If Civ wasn't turn-based, it would almost cease to be Civ (at least for me).

What might be interesting is a game mode where at the start of each turn, the order in which each civ went was randomized. Or possibly a snake order for from one turn to the next (like a snake draft for fantasy football).
 

bbbt

Deity
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
2,548
That's a bit extreme.

Anton Strenger, the lead developer/designer of Civ VI has moved on to greener pastures.
So they could bring in someone from outside to lead Civ VII.

There are so many 4X games now I think Firaxis should look outwards, especially as it's evolving with Marvel's Midnight Suns poised to be its new tentpole.

FYI I'm super impressed with the development speed and general quality of product/QA of Amplitude's HUMANKIND.
(I've participated in several of their betas including the most recent Together We Rule expansion closed beta).

Firaxis should think of hiring one of those guys to lead Civ VII.

Ed Beach was the lead designer of Civ VI and is still at Firaxis. Anton Strenger was the lead on several of the expansions, indicating that he was likely going to be lead on the VII, but maybe Ed will keep the role again?

Honestly, I found Humankind pretty boring. I played it twice and never touched it again. And objectively speaking - their player numbers have tanked. Looking at Steam Charts - a year after launch Humankind only had 4% of their launch players retained. Civ 6 the number was about 18%. I don't know that they'd want to hire a team that's worse at engaging their player base.

I enjoy Old World, but I highly doubt Soren Johnson wants his old job back.
 

Leucarum

Emperor
Joined
Dec 21, 2018
Messages
1,407
Well, I do think they could learn from Amplitude's community engagement and outreach! That said I agree Humankind was a lot of missed opportunity and potential. Good ideas which didn't come together to form a great game.

Firaxis and Civ in particular are such big names I doubt they'd struggle to find a good team/lead.
 

blackbutterfly

Emperor
Joined
May 9, 2016
Messages
1,398
Location
Leeds, UK
Honestly, I found Humankind pretty boring. I played it twice and never touched it again. And objectively speaking - their player numbers have tanked. Looking at Steam Charts - a year after launch Humankind only had 4% of their launch players retained. Civ 6 the number was about 18%. I don't know that they'd want to hire a team that's worse at engaging their player base.

Perhaps a Lead Toolset developer?
Also Lead DevOps. (For things like continuous integration, development of test suits, etc.)

I think you're right, perhaps Civ VII design lead should come from within Firaxis, while it still have some of Sid Meir's magic pixie dust 😂
Perhaps David McDonough who co-led Beyond Earth? I know he did some development on Civ VI. (Maybe Barbarian Clans mode? IDK).

But definitely Firaxis needs some new blood in its dev team for Civ VII.

Clearly if they want to improve on Civ VI it's gotta be in quality, addressing bugs and exploits first and foremost.
O/w I suspect many of us long time Civ fans may skip Civ VII until there have been stable patches.

Oh, and BTW Ed Beach I doubt very much will helm Civ VII.
That would be a backwards step in what otherwise is an upward moving career. 😄
 
Last edited:

Gorbles

Load Balanced
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
9,010
Location
UK
Perhaps a Lead Toolset developer?
Also Lead DevOps. (For things like continuous integration, development of test suits, etc.)
Games doesn't work like software; job roles are often more multipurpose than the description. This also relates to the publisher (purse strings) more than it does the developer choices in who they're able to recruit. Speaking from a software perspective, it's hard to get good devops over here, where we actually pay (mostly) competitive rates :D
 

bbbt

Deity
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
2,548
Clearly if they want to improve on Civ VI it's gotta be in quality, addressing bugs and exploits first and foremost.
O/w I suspect many of us long time Civ fans may skip Civ VII until there have been stable patches.

I do agree that a game company is ideally either releasing stable releases with big gaps between or more buggy/quick patches but quickly patching/hotfixing issues. I suspect Firaxis is constrained by both 2K release processes and the need to keep versions in sync via an outside vendor (i.e. Aspyr) that there is always going to be a big gap between patches. In that case a model an Amplitude model of open patch betas and the like would be ideal imho.

Firaxis actually did that once for the final big patch of BNW. I don't know why they didn't repeat it - my guess is they don't actually have a good method for their testers to report actual issues/bugs that doesn't result in them getting overwhelmed with noise.

Oh, and BTW Ed Beach I doubt very much will helm Civ VII.
That would be a backwards step in what otherwise is an upward moving career. 😄

Yeah I'd be inclined to agree that if he's staying at Firaxis, he's probably moving to a more supervisory role, and will just pop for occasional feature/civ design (ala the Maori).
 

blackbutterfly

Emperor
Joined
May 9, 2016
Messages
1,398
Location
Leeds, UK
Games doesn't work like software; job roles are often more multipurpose than the description.
😆

But it is software!

If 2K+Firaxis want to improve the quality of the product they have to turn to software engineering.
That's the pretty glaringly obvious management decision that needs to be imposed on the Civ team.
That means talent requisitions.

And B/S 2K+Firaxis can't afford it. Are you kidding me?! 🤣

As Civ players we can go elsewhere for our 4X fix. (Or back in time as I have started playing Civ V again - but that produces no revenue for 2K+Firaxis).
Other vendors have started to flood the market with 4Xs - HUMANKIND, Old World, Victoria 3, Manor Lords and Ara: History Untold and that's if you exclude the space ones like Dune: Spice Wars and Terra Invicta.
(FYI I now have 3 of the above games).

They are going to be competing for our wallets.

IMO this is why 2K+Firaxis are hoping to make Marvel's Midnight Suns its new tentpole, rather than Civ, because Civ VII maybe a while yet if it needs a new foundation.
 

HorseshoeHermit

20% accurate as usual, Morty
Joined
Apr 5, 2013
Messages
1,455
Location
Canada
A second attempt at Beyond Earth might fit well inside that forecast of plentiful 4X fish in the water. At least, someone might think that way strategically for them. I really actually want Beyond Earth done with the full budget treatment, though. Something about those affinities has potential, the same as the ideologies are the single most praised thing about BNW.

So, anyway, forecast for Civ7: Tuesday. :p
 

blackbutterfly

Emperor
Joined
May 9, 2016
Messages
1,398
Location
Leeds, UK
A second attempt at Beyond Earth might fit well inside that forecast of plentiful 4X fish in the water. At least, someone might think that way strategically for them. I really actually want Beyond Earth done with the full budget treatment, though. Something about those affinities has potential, the same as the ideologies are the single most praised thing about BNW.
You know, I hope so too! 😄

As long as they don't get too crazy with districts (because there are aquatic cities which can move) I think BE2 could be a win for Firaxis.
Especially if they can convince Disney to do a Aliens Xenomorph mode (like Zombies mode in Civ VI).
Or a Predators mode? Predator factions? Or maybe like heroes mode?

Then you can play Aliens vs. Predators 🤣
 
Last edited:

Gorbles

Load Balanced
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
9,010
Location
UK
But it is software!

If 2K+Firaxis want to improve the quality of the product they have to turn to software engineering.
That's the pretty glaringly obvious management decision that needs to be imposed on the Civ team.
That means talent requisitions.

And B/S 2K+Firaxis can't afford it. Are you kidding me?! 🤣
I'm commenting on the industry. Cutthroat budgets are the norm. It's not a simple matter of "can afford" or "can't afford". I'm avoiding getting political, but do you really think Firaxis, a dev studio of many, many years, that is known for employing people for some length of time (which isn't always the norm in games development), isn't aware of basic software engineering principles and team roles?

You can call this a problem, and at the pub after work I'd probably agree. But this is the reality we live in. Do you think Amplitude has a well-rounded team founded on engineering principles? Every games development studio runs on an incredibly tight budget (even the Big Ones; it's the parent company that pockets the profit) and the wages on average are lower (often significantly) than comparable work in software. It's frequently described and advertised as something you need passion for.

And of course, you're right, they're absolutely competing for your wallet. I'm not saying anyone here has to owe Firaxis anything. I just saw you talking about devops (which is something I know a fair bit about) as well as tools development (which is also something I know even more about), so I figured I'd offer my £0.02 :)
 

bbbt

Deity
Joined
Oct 21, 2013
Messages
2,548
Every games development studio runs on an incredibly tight budget (even the Big Ones; it's the parent company that pockets the profit) and the wages on average are lower (often significantly) than comparable work in software. It's frequently described and advertised as something you need passion for.

I agree game dev roles are lower paid than equivalent software developer. But I think it's largely because so many people have a passion for it and want to work in the industry that companies have taken advantage of that and paid less.

I don't anyone leaves university really excited to work in the Fintech industry on a B2B loan website:) That's why they have to pay $50k more and stock options and "come work with the latest tech" etc
 

HorseshoeHermit

20% accurate as usual, Morty
Joined
Apr 5, 2013
Messages
1,455
Location
Canada
yeahh..... capital is really doing a thing with tech people. It's exploiting them. It gives them peanuts - more peanuts than everyone else - while b2b tech owners make off with quantities of money and network effects and power and surveillance that are qualitatively changing the structure of the financial system of the globe.
no biggie.

So people playing around making games at least are in traditional profit-splitting exploitation and nothing worse.

(still holding strong on that Tuesday forecast)
 

Sherlock

Just one more turn...
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
1,321
Location
Eagle, Idaho
Funny there's no news yet on that 'Ara History' game. I thought it was supposed to be out next year?

I think that's the closest we'll get to CIVII in a long time.
 
Top Bottom