The Civ VII team is aware of Vox Populi to the point they are just calling it "Vox Pop" now

Slyceth

Warlord
Joined
Jul 5, 2021
Messages
172
I was visiting the Civ 7 booth at Gamescom and got to talk with one of the designers of the game after the presentation, and asked how similar the game is to Civ 5, 6 and whether he was aware of the Vox Populi mod.

He said he is familiar with Vox Populi as an all-around rebalancement mod but that the new game is completely different due to its new seperated ages system.
 
The ages system is what makes it different? From what has been shown so far I think C7 looks more like a mod for C6. I'm not really having high hopes for C7, it will be one of those games I wait a year or two to even buy when it's super cheap and all the DLC content is included. I kind of think some of the things look interesting, but I don't like that workers were removed, I don't like most of the C6 features that keep getting rolled over. I'm uncertain on the combat system where everything promotion wise is apparently now about the leader/general. So it's not like they have copied C5VP for their design ideas into C7. Or?
 
Huh C7 looked more like a civ-style remake of Humankind, not a C6 mod.
Could be that to. After all it seems to have been influenced a lot by say Humankind, Millennia and Old World. All congealing into a blob of civish games that more or less are all the same. Some kind of civ-light games where all the "boring" aspects are removed or automated, no need for workers or much planning or anything. Just click and move forward. Those boring aspects previously being more or less a large portion of the point of the game. I'll test it when it comes out, I could be wrong after all -- but I seriously doubt it. The trend of civ-like games have been in serious decline over years now.

That said looked like a civ6 mod to me. All the bad features and just some graphical side grades. At least they removed builder charges, that was the stupidest thing ever. But they removed it by just removing workers all together, no need for that pesky planning or thinking ahead, which as I noted previously was imo a large aspect of the game. The science/culture split tech tree remains, which was annoying in C6 and is probably not less annoying now. The war/promotion of the game remains to be seen if interesting or not. I don't know about that swapping leaders thing, it seemed a bit unclear how that was going to work. But it seemed at least on the surface that this was basically just the cards and government thing from C6 that they mucked about a bit with.

But it's not like we have seen to much yet. Some trailers and a few tubers that got to play for a few hours and all share the same video clips of it. Not super inspiring. But I guess more is yet to come. But not very impressive so far. At least not impressive enough that I would plonk down €70 for a pre-order, the last "deluxe" edition I got was C3 (you got a bag and something in it). That is as much as I recall of that. Those are all now beyond ridiculous, but to each their own and their money.
 
Millennia and Old World.
What's the influence from Millennia and Old World? Haven't played them.

I'll probably wait a year or 2 until it's on sale if reviews are good. There are plenty of games to play, including VP with 4UC, so no need to rush.

I don't mind removing workers, though. To me it's more micromanagy than strategic anyways. If it'll make focus on other more strategic areas then why not?

Bad features, do you mean districts? Yeah, I'm not a fan of those.
 
In my opinion, once you get into a civ game it's hard to get into future ones. Civ 5 was my first civ game, and I could never get into civ 6. But I've met older people who's first civ game was civ 4, and they could never get into civ 5. My guess is civ 7 won't appeal to most of us.
 
My first Civ game was 4, and I switched to 5 quit easily. The problem with Civ 6 is balance. Some civs are blatantly exploitable and broken, and it's too easy to snowball out of control too
My problem with civ6, which was maybe a me problem, was that other civs would frequently have tiny standing armies, or not build units AT ALL.

By mid game (my favorite era to fight wars) I would literally be unstoppable, sometimes rolling enemy civs with 0 resistance
 
In my opinion, once you get into a civ game it's hard to get into future ones. Civ 5 was my first civ game, and I could never get into civ 6. But I've met older people who's first civ game was civ 4, and they could never get into civ 5. My guess is civ 7 won't appeal to most of us.
I played a ton of civ 4 before civ 5, I miss a lot from civ 4 but because of the outdated graphics and UI I can't go back. So I'm stuck playing a game I think is inferior in most ways but unable to go back.
 
I'm optimistic about Civ 7 - they are removing all the tedious, annoying, bloated busywork and letting us concentrate on the meaningful stuff. I don't want to spend all my time moving missionaries, great people and workers around. Maybe after 700 or so hours of playing Civ 4 & 5 I will finally complete a Civ game to the end when I get my hands on Civ 7...
 
I played a ton of civ 4 before civ 5, I miss a lot from civ 4 but because of the outdated graphics and UI I can't go back. So I'm stuck playing a game I think is inferior in most ways but unable to go back.
Really? Graphics and UI is more important than gameplay itself in a civ game? That's odd. There are mods that improve UI, have you tried them?
 
Civ 7 ages and civ swapping have potential, but the execution is to be seen. It will be interesting if you could start in one age as, say, either Austria or Prussia, then play as Germany in the next age. It would let Civ capture an interesting aspect of Europa Universalis, in which you can form a modern nation out of one of its potential or historical predecessors, and make it less of a Humankind adaptation. The presentation has Abbasid as an age unlock for Egypt, which is roughly in line with it, but far from perfect. I'm overall skeptical, though.
 
Top Bottom