I’m impressed with the design choices in Civ 7, so far at least.
Two things stand out. The first is the emphasis on trying to minimise routine actions so that the player can concentrate on the main decisions a leader would make. If they manage to reduce turn times in the late game without taking away any of the more interesting decisions, that would be a huge plus. I particularly like the commander unit who can transport and rally troops (although unclear yet if the stack will be allowed to attack or be attacked).
They have done a good job in reducing the number of diplomatic currencies that were in Civ 6 to just one (influence) and faith seems to have been removed as a resource. I also like the fact that you can no longer move population around to work different tiles and now must assign them permanently to an urban or rural district. Having generic urban districts with two building slots seems to be a good change over Civ 6 but will need to see how it works in practice.
The other standout is the emphasis on historical immersion. For Rome, for instance, not only are there unique units and buildings but also unique policies/civics and narrative events. This is great and exactly what the series needs in my opinion. This immersion would not be possible, however, without the age system which confines civs to their historic time period, and this is also the most potentially problematic design choice.
You may remember the feature back in Civ 3 where they grouped civs into regional/cultural groups. So, if you played as England, you would always start next to France and Germany. Some of the groupings worked less well though and I am pretty sure they had to group the Zulu with the Persians and Babylonians, just to even out the numbers. This design decision, which was intended to improve player immersion, actually made me less likely to play the game because it became annoying that every game you were seeing exactly the same adjacent civs. I feel similarly about the way civs evolve in Civ 7. Some of the progressions make sense, but others are never going to feel right because of the lack of suitable geographic or cultural successor civs. If AI Hatshepsut is going to lead Songhai and Buganda (well, they are all on the African continent, I guess) every single game, I might end up waiting for the mod that makes civ choice completely random. Also, for continuity reasons they have gone for a fixed leader throughout the three ages, but it might have been interesting to have a civ-specific leader that changes each age.
One feature I was really hoping for in Civ 7 was some kind of internal politics system, perhaps with a cast of characters for each civ. Given they have invested in the leader animations and speech, it seems unlikely that they will ever introduce this, even in an expansion, but you never know. I am not even sure yet if there is a great person system – so far I have only seen civ-specific people.
Assuming it is a competitive, not a sandbox game, another uncertainty is how the victory conditions will work. In the first two ages you seem to get permanent leader bonuses for achievements in four categories, but given there are two midgame resets, does this mean that the third age matters more than the previous two when it comes to victory? They seem to suggest that a player can switch victory conditions during the game, or more easily than in Civ 6 at least, but I don’t think they have clarified how this will work.
Overall, it looks good, and I can’t wait to play!
Two things stand out. The first is the emphasis on trying to minimise routine actions so that the player can concentrate on the main decisions a leader would make. If they manage to reduce turn times in the late game without taking away any of the more interesting decisions, that would be a huge plus. I particularly like the commander unit who can transport and rally troops (although unclear yet if the stack will be allowed to attack or be attacked).
They have done a good job in reducing the number of diplomatic currencies that were in Civ 6 to just one (influence) and faith seems to have been removed as a resource. I also like the fact that you can no longer move population around to work different tiles and now must assign them permanently to an urban or rural district. Having generic urban districts with two building slots seems to be a good change over Civ 6 but will need to see how it works in practice.
The other standout is the emphasis on historical immersion. For Rome, for instance, not only are there unique units and buildings but also unique policies/civics and narrative events. This is great and exactly what the series needs in my opinion. This immersion would not be possible, however, without the age system which confines civs to their historic time period, and this is also the most potentially problematic design choice.
You may remember the feature back in Civ 3 where they grouped civs into regional/cultural groups. So, if you played as England, you would always start next to France and Germany. Some of the groupings worked less well though and I am pretty sure they had to group the Zulu with the Persians and Babylonians, just to even out the numbers. This design decision, which was intended to improve player immersion, actually made me less likely to play the game because it became annoying that every game you were seeing exactly the same adjacent civs. I feel similarly about the way civs evolve in Civ 7. Some of the progressions make sense, but others are never going to feel right because of the lack of suitable geographic or cultural successor civs. If AI Hatshepsut is going to lead Songhai and Buganda (well, they are all on the African continent, I guess) every single game, I might end up waiting for the mod that makes civ choice completely random. Also, for continuity reasons they have gone for a fixed leader throughout the three ages, but it might have been interesting to have a civ-specific leader that changes each age.
One feature I was really hoping for in Civ 7 was some kind of internal politics system, perhaps with a cast of characters for each civ. Given they have invested in the leader animations and speech, it seems unlikely that they will ever introduce this, even in an expansion, but you never know. I am not even sure yet if there is a great person system – so far I have only seen civ-specific people.
Assuming it is a competitive, not a sandbox game, another uncertainty is how the victory conditions will work. In the first two ages you seem to get permanent leader bonuses for achievements in four categories, but given there are two midgame resets, does this mean that the third age matters more than the previous two when it comes to victory? They seem to suggest that a player can switch victory conditions during the game, or more easily than in Civ 6 at least, but I don’t think they have clarified how this will work.
Overall, it looks good, and I can’t wait to play!
