One possibility is that at least some of the things that have been highlighted were highlighted because that mechanic is going to receive a significant overhaul in Civ 7; i.e. they're reviewing not just the history and evolution of the series, generally, but also setting up some topics that will be part of the marketing pitch for Civ 7. For example, the high council revolutionizing diplomacy in Civ 2 was an odd choice unless the council and/or diplomacy are going to feature prominently in "what's new for Civ 7".
Another possibility is that the mechanics that are mentioned will appear in Civ 7, either in a similar form as in Civ 6 or slightly modified, and that it's the things that weren't mentioned that may be the subject of the most significant changes. For example, happiness / amenities were never mentioned, possibly because something new is coming to replace them.
A third possibility is that the series is simply to remind the buying public of Civ's long history and drum up interest in Civ 7, and that the specific mechanics mentioned were chosen randomly or at least without any consideration of what's new in Civ 7.
Mostly it's just fun to look back at past games in the series, review what was new and revolutionary about them, and then compare that to what got highlighted in the series. The more recent offerings more-or-less align to what I suspect most people would have picked, but some of the earlier game retrospectives had some headscratchers.
Yeah, it seems fair to assume that the pieces highlighted are either not returning in VII, are core items returning to VII, or will be changed in some way for VII. I think there's a strong chance that one of those 3 will be correct for each of the features listed.
If I remember correctly, he was talking about stuff like England's Workshop of the World ability from Gathering Storm. There was way too much text with way too much going on. You can still have separate leader and civ abilities while still keeping them simple. I think the leader/civ ability split is probably going to stick around because it gives them a lot of flexibility and feel like multiple leaders per civ was actually popular, but that's just a guess on my part.
That was my take on that when the discussion came about. Having separate abilities is good, but having abilities that take 5 minutes to parse and describe just needlessly complicates things. Like Workshop of the World literally is 6 different bonuses applied together. I bet even the best civ players will tend to forget one of those bonuses even if you just finished a game as England.
If I remember correctly, he was talking about stuff like England's Workshop of the World ability from Gathering Storm. There was way too much text with way too much going on. You can still have separate leader and civ abilities while still keeping them simple. I think the leader/civ ability split is probably going to stick around because it gives them a lot of flexibility and feel like multiple leaders per civ was actually popular, but that's just a guess on my part.
This is what I gathered from that remark, we'll be seeing less of what Spain had and more of what the new Saladin did, where it's a tiny little bonus, which honestly, is more stomachable.
In my eyes it is highly questionable, if the creation of "minor technology trees" is really an improvment in the civ series. Sid Meier worked very hard to streamline the gaming in Civilization and to take out those additional tech trees, but since Civ 4 more and more of these "additional technology trees" are added to the game and rise the micromanagement and confusion in the interface.
If one has no better idea, it seems to be a proper methode in the development of the newer versions of the civ series, to split up working concepts in Civilization and to create more and more of those "additional technology trees" and to sell them as an improvement of the series, that Sid Meier tried to cut out.
Eh, I think you're over stating these. Each had one tiny "new" tree, with 6 being the biggest. If anything, there's always been one additional tree. Civ 4 added Promotion Trees, 5 had Policy Trees, and 6 Civic Trees. Those were the only actual gameplay mechanics that relied on a "tree" like behaviour. I mean sure, You still had Promotions Trees in both 5 and 6, with 6 actually having a UI for it. But I feel it's weird to say "confusion to the interface". That's not the fault of the trees, just the UX/UI, which I honestly don't think either of the 3 games experienced (in that regard).
I don't want streamlined mechanics, I enjoy the depth, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's the onboarding process that's crucial in making these work. If a newbie cannot figure out how a mechanic works, or how they should approach it, then the dev team failed in implementing it.
Yeah, it seems fair to assume that the pieces highlighted are either not returning in VII, are core items returning to VII, or will be changed in some way for VII. I think there's a strong chance that one of those 3 will be correct for each of the features listed.
That was my take on that when the discussion came about. Having separate abilities is good, but having abilities that take 5 minutes to parse and describe just needlessly complicates things. Like Workshop of the World literally is 6 different bonuses applied together. I bet even the best civ players will tend to forget one of those bonuses even if you just finished a game as England.
In my eyes it is highly questionable, if the creation of "minor technology trees" is really an improvment in the civ series. Sid Meier worked very hard to streamline the gaming in Civilization and to take out those additional tech trees, but since Civ 4 more and more of these "additional technology trees" are added to the game and rise the micromanagement and confusion in the interface.
If one has no better idea, it seems to be a proper methode in the development of the newer versions of the civ series, to split up working concepts in Civilization and to create more and more of those "additional technology trees" and to sell them as an improvement of the series, that Sid Meier tried to cut out.
Here is a part of the troy goodfellow interview with Sid Meier in Civ Chronicles:
I always took that blurb about "minor technology trees" to mean it was taken out because none of the techs had any gameplay effect whatsoever, only being there for flavouring
Yeah, it seems fair to assume that the pieces highlighted are either not returning in VII, are core items returning to VII, or will be changed in some way for VII. I think there's a strong chance that one of those 3 will be correct for each of the features listed.
In my eyes it is highly questionable, if the creation of "minor technology trees" is really an improvment in the civ series. Sid Meier worked very hard to streamline the gaming in Civilization and to take out those additional tech trees, but since Civ 4 more and more of these "additional technology trees" are added to the game and rise the micromanagement and confusion in the interface.
IMO, it's at the very least a good direction to move in - it's so hard in the Civ series to avoid Science just being a god-stat that is incredibly effective, more so than alternatives you could be getting in place of it. Putting meaningful advancements, that make sense narratively, behind Culture instead of Science helps avoid that.
I think the leader/civ ability split is probably going to stick around because it gives them a lot of flexibility and feel like multiple leaders per civ was actually popular, but that's just a guess on my part.
This is what I think as well, especially when you consider that the first Civ where the split really mattered was Greece, all of the bonuses of which are very simple!
Personas aren’t returning, though. I think they ruined any potential that system may have had.
One thing, for me at least, is that some of the base-game Civ VI abilities were simple, but pretty underwhelming and that some of the ones that came in later were too complex or added in a bunch of word salad as mentioned earlier. I get that everything cannot be OP and simple, but Civ V had it right in terms of understanding the abilities.
Yeah, it seems fair to assume that the pieces highlighted are either not returning in VII, are core items returning to VII, or will be changed in some way for VII. I think there's a strong chance that one of those 3 will be correct for each of the features listed.
I'd be surprised if any of the highlighted mechanics have been dropped (or in the case of the high council, stay dropped). I suspect that'd only happen if the topics selected in each video were random noise. Which they might be, we're unlikely to know until we see the Aug 20th gameplay showcase.
Civ 4 added Promotion Trees, 5 had Policy Trees, and 6 Civic Trees. Those were the only actual gameplay mechanics that relied on a "tree" like behaviour. I mean sure, You still had Promotions Trees in both 5 and 6, with 6 actually having a UI for it. But I feel it's weird to say "confusion to the interface".
Per example take the promotion trees starting with Civ 4. In Civ 1-3 each unit had its defined values, meaning when you see a unit on the map, you are informed about the stats of the unit by the graphics of the unit itself. Starting with Civ 4, the same unit can have very different values in the game, provided by the promotion trees. The graphics of the unit on the map now are no longer sufficient for the information of the player and an additional system of information must be added to the interface (and the same for all the other added "minor technology trees, too).
Here you have a screenshot about the civilopedia entry of the battleship Bismarck in Civ 3. The information about the unit stats is clear and the stats cannot be completely different to the definition of that unit.
Here you have a screenshot about the battleship Bismarck in Civ 4 (so more looking like a masked Iowa):
Do you really think, that this is the same proper information about the starting values of that ship (let alone to the later additional promotions in the game) as it is in the screenshot of the Civ 3 unit ? I name that confusion compared to the situation before that minor technology tree of promotions was introduced to the civ series.
Per example take the promotion trees starting with Civ 4. In Civ 1-3 each unit had its defined values, meaning when you see a unit on the map, you are informed about the stats of the unit by the graphics of the unit itself. Starting with Civ 4, the same unit can have very different values in the game, provided by the promotion trees. The graphics of the unit on the map now are no longer sufficient for the information of the player and an additional system of information must be added to the interface (and the same for all the other added "minor technology trees, too).
Here you have a screenshot about the civilopedia entry of the battleship Bismarck in Civ 3. The information about the unit stats is clear and the stats cannot be completely different to the definition of that unit.
Here you have a screenshot about the battleship Bismarck in Civ 4 (so more looking like a masked Iowa):
Do you really think, that this is the same proper information about the starting values of that ship (let alone to the later additional promotions in the game) as it is in the screenshot of the Civ 3 unit ? I name that confusion compared to the situation before that minor technology tree of promotions was introduced to the civ series.
You need an additional tool showing the combat odds to have at least a relative comparison about that unit. The interface with all these icons of the promotion tree seems to be not very helpful.
I can understand the desire for a clear reading out of the 'odds' for any attack (or defense).
But any such compilation of factors and odds provided by the game should also have the option of being Turned Off.
That's because, to quote the German Army's Troop Leadership manual of the 1930s:
"War is the Province of Uncertainty."
I played tactical miniatures games for over 30 years, and the most fun games I ever played were those that did NOT provide exact odds to you until you decided the battle or fight with tables, dice and on occasion, pure Random Factors. One of the most popular sets of miniatures rules for the past 30 years is Fire and Fury, in which even the exact distance a unit can move is Not Certain - and I might point out that movement distance uncertainty is one of the things that makes Old World combat exciting - you never know exactly what may come charging out of the Fog of War with enough movement left to reach you. The actual Combat Odds should be equally uncertain.
The Unit Graphics can and should provide Clues, but never all the exact information: you may be able to tell the Battleship in front of you is a Bismarck or Iowa or Yamato class, but you should not be able to tell it has advanced fire control radar or a crew fresh from months of rigorous training or has brand new spotting aircraft carried on board - any or all of which may change the exact rendering of combat factors to your detriment.
I understand the desire to reduce Uncertainty, and by all means provide the means for that in-game, but please, don't make it mandatory for all gamers.
I honestly believe what's in these videos genuinely mean nothing. They are just throwing in what they like from what they introduced in the past games. I don't think there's any correlation to what's in Civ VII.
I honestly believe what's in these videos genuinely mean nothing. They are just throwing in what they like from what they introduced in the past games. I don't think there's any correlation to what's in Civ VII.
Not just Civ, but all Firaxis Games.
Wasn't it confirmed that in XCOM if you reload a turn to retake a shot it will always miss regardless of the percentage chance it shows? (So you can't save scum it)
Not just Civ, but all Firaxis Games.
Wasn't it confirmed that in XCOM if you reload a turn to retake a shot it will always miss regardless of the percentage chance it shows? (So you can't save scum it)
In some Civ games, the seed used to generate the outcome of a dice roll is saved in the save file so the same outcome happens every time even if you reload.
To get around this, you can after reloading make another roll first, or enable (in e.g. Civ IV) the custom game option "New Random Seed On Reload".
Yeah, it seems fair to assume that the pieces highlighted are either not returning in VII, are core items returning to VII, or will be changed in some way for VII. I think there's a strong chance that one of those 3 will be correct for each of the features listed.
@Trav'ling Canuck already answered, but, as much as I laughed with you reply, i think you misreaded intentionally the three options, that actually are:
-will be overhauled for civ IV (or at least, related to major overhauls)
-will be kept nearly untouched for civ IV
-in any case, are identified as relevant features of the game, and will be there in some way, but we cannot say if they will change or not.
Now that I write it down of it, this meets more Sid’s 3rds rule (1/3 unmodified, 1/3 new, 1/3 changed).
And i’m also noticing the rule says nothing about dropping features (altough change may imply “streamlining”)
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
