The Ultimate List of Things Civ 7 doesn't tell you

[ydejin]

I think this argument only works if the console UI made any sense and was any good, which it doesn't and it isn't. The UI is just bad.

I’m playing on Xbox, and it seems like a perfectly fine Console UI to me. I’ve played a variety of strategy games on Console that just feel super clunky and are clearly PC ports. This isn’t one of them.

To me, the Console interface works great, it’s just missing information and various user interface elements, just like its PC sibling. We need better tool tips on city tiles letting us know what’s there. We need a list of units that we can click on. We need more information.

But the actually moment-to-moment control of the game, such as how to move units, how to select tiles a city should expand to. This all works just fine. The only really-clunker part of the interface I can think of off hand is the resource management screen — that thing is a disaster. Oh, also the Merchant interface, that’s pretty bad too. The rest of the UI just needs more information presented.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I’m playing on Xbox, and it seems like a perfectly fine Console UI to me. I’ve played a variety of strategy games on Console that just feel super clunky and are clearly PC ports. This isn’t one of them.

To me, the Console interface works great, it’s just missing information and various user interface elements, just like its PC sibling. We need better tool tips on city tiles letting us know what’s there. We need a list of units that we can click on. We need more information.

But the actually moment-to-moment control of the game, such as how to move units, how to select tiles a city should expand to. This all works just fine. The only really-clunker part of the interface I can think of off hand is the resource management screen — that thing is a disaster. Oh, also the Merchant interface, that’s pretty bad too. The rest of the UI just needs more information presented.

Right, but that's what I mean: all of the things that are wrong with the UI are nothing to do with consoles. So suggesting that the PC UI is poor because of consoles doesn't make sense to me. The UI is poor because it doesn't give you the information that you need, and the information it does give you is hidden behind way too many clicks / button presses. That's nothing to do with being on consoles, that's just a poorly designed UI. Think of the tech tree example again, because that makes the point - it's just poorly designed.

 

[ydejin]

Right, but that's what I mean: all of the things that are wrong with the UI are nothing to do with consoles. So suggesting that the PC UI is poor because of consoles doesn't make sense to me. The UI is poor because it doesn't give you the information that you need, and the information it does give you is hidden behind way too many clicks / button presses. That's nothing to do with being on consoles, that's just a poorly designed UI. Think of the tech tree example again, because that makes the point - it's just poorly designed.

Potentially the UI is poor because they had to spread their limited UI experts across a wider range of tasks than if it had been a PC only release. If it had been a PC only release, they would have been able to task the UI experts working on Console to instead focus on developing enhancements to their PC interface. That could include UI programmers or it could include UI/UX designers — it’s literally been decades since I worked in industry (now in Academia), but when I worked in industry we had a number of UI/UX designers who would spend all day thinking about what the interface should look like, come up with mockups, then hand them to us programmers. Those UI/UX experts and the programmers working on the UI would have had more things they had to work on to support the different platforms.

Now obviously this is purely conjecture, but I think it makes a lot of sense. The developers themselves in one of their streams admitted that supporting a simultaneous release on all platforms was a big lift for a company the size of Firaxis.

 

[Menocchio]

I only learned today that while unique buildings are ageless, for some reason unique quarters are not, and their abilities are lost on age transition. Shakespeare could not write a tragedy as sorrowful.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Potentially the UI is poor because they had to spread their limited UI experts across a wider range of tasks than if it had been a PC only release. If it had been a PC only release, they would have been able to task the UI experts working on Console to instead focus on developing enhancements to their PC interface. That could include UI programmers or it could include UI/UX designers — it’s literally been decades since I worked in industry (now in Academia), but when I worked in industry we had a number of UI/UX designers who would spend all day thinking about what the interface should look like, come up with mockups, then hand them to us programmers. Those UI/UX experts and the programmers working on the UI would have had more things they had to work on to support the different platforms.

Now obviously this is purely conjecture, but I think it makes a lot of sense. The developers themselves in one of their streams admitted that supporting a simultaneous release on all platforms was a big lift for a company the size of Firaxis.

Yeh, I've no doubt that going multiplatform is one of the main reasons the game was not ready - resources spread too thin for the time, etc. Definitely do not dispute that!

But the original comment that triggered me (and there's a theme here, I get triggered by what J perceive to be console snobbery ) was "we all know why the game had to be this simplified. Consoles." They may have bitten off more than they can chew, but the game hasn't been simplified because of consoles, they just didn't have enough time or people to do it properly.

Edit: don't mean to imply the other person was being a console snob, just that I get easily triggered by it.

 

[Cymsdale]

I only learned today that while unique buildings are ageless, for some reason unique quarters are not, and their abilities are lost on age transition. Shakespeare could not write a tragedy as sorrowful.

Oh gross, I already thought the Roman one was underwhelming to begin with. I figured it would pay off in later eras.

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Hold on, I’ve seen the Mayan quarter still work in future Ages. What’s going on?

 

[Disgustipated]

speaking of unique quarters, has anyone had the bug where can't repair unique buildings and quarters that are damaged in alter eras? It's annoying having a building that I can't repair.

 

[Redfuryau]

It's worth noting that the information on settlement limit in the original reddit post was incorrect and has since been updated. It now reads:

• The base settlement limit starts at 3 in the Antiquity age, 8 in the Exploration age, and 16 in the Modern age. Xerxes as a leader also uniquely gain an additional +1 settlement limit per age (for a total base limit of 4/10/19). The only ways to permanently increase this limit throughout the ages are with the leader attributes and the El Escorial wonder.

Which seems much more in line with my experience.

You don't gain the benefit of any +1 settlement limit from techs or civics in the following age (or everybody does - including those who didn't research them - if you want to interpret it that way.)

 

[Leyrann]

It's worth noting that the information on settlement limit in the original reddit post was incorrect and has since been updated. It now reads:

• The base settlement limit starts at 3 in the Antiquity age, 8 in the Exploration age, and 16 in the Modern age. Xerxes as a leader also uniquely gain an additional +1 settlement limit per age (for a total base limit of 4/10/19). The only ways to permanently increase this limit throughout the ages are with the leader attributes and the El Escorial wonder.

Which seems much more in line with my experience.

You don't gain the benefit of any +1 settlement limit from techs or civics in the following age (or everybody does - including those who didn't research them - if you want to interpret it that way.)

That cannot be right.

In my first full game, I was playing Xerxes as Rome, Spain and America. On turn 1 of the Modern Era, I had a settlement limit of 30:

Spoiler :

On top of the 19 you claim Xerxes should have, I'm counting El Escorial to get to 20, then attributes gets me to 22. For the remaining 8, I can only think of 2 from Rome, 2 from the Fealty legacy option (taken in Exploration), 1 from Spain... and that leaves another 3 still. I suspect, but do not know for certain, that the last 3 come from Xerxes's bonus stacking throughout a game, meaning it's 1+2+3=6 bonus for the Modern Era.

(note: no mementos used)

 

[Vincent_lacruz]

Hold on, I’ve seen the Mayan quarter still work in future Ages. What’s going on?

I definitevly had the mayan unique quarter function in later age (and it's wonderfull^^).

As for the roman one, since it is limited to "roman traditions" it indeed does not shine in later ages (since you can have at max 4 of them, with only two really worthwhile...)... Most of the unique quarters have limited impact in the later ages, especially those that really don't have much use beside allowing you to recruit unique personnas... In antiquity, only the mayan UQ would make me create 3 cities (including capital) to get them...

 

[Menocchio]

Hold on, I’ve seen the Mayan quarter still work in future Ages. What’s going on?

I haven't played them (maya culpa) but I've seen others say it works—it might be a quirk with Greece's, or generally it's harder to tell when most of the UQs are working because not many of them are as impactful as Maya's. @Leyrann brings up a good point though, I was also wondering just how much of the unique civic trees get transferred over. Good excuse to boot up a new game!

 

[Hellenism Salesman]

Is this how I learn that all those little + icons in the Tech and Civic trees don't last across Ages?

 

[pietro1990]

I frankly find it very embarrassing that the game doesn't seem to give you the information it should be giving you.

Not prioritizing the UI is one thing. But this straight-up is neglect.

Fortunately, it doesn't change my mind about purchasing the game, because I know these issues will be fixed eventually, either via patches or mods. But it is concerning you can publish a game this expensive, and still have it come across as half-baked and amateur after ten years of development.

Indeed I don't mind that the Ai isn't bad or other smaller things but this UI bassicly makes you not be able to play the game because you have to figure it out you'rself !

 

[Menocchio]

Is this how I learn that all those little + icons in the Tech and Civic trees don't last across Ages?

Having fiddled a bit with it and done some testing, it seems like they don't, sadly. UQs do keep their benefits, although for some reason I found the Roman UQ giving appropriate culture per tradition in Modern, but not gold. On the bright side of that, though, it turns out it counts all traditions for its bonus—not just Roman traditions, as its description says. The UQ situation is a bit confusing though since while the constituent unique buildings are still listed in the breakdown, the quarters themselves are not. This is kind of interesting, because while some UQs are handy in later ages, some—like the Normans or Majapahit—don't have any effect in the next age, because they're purely one-time bonuses.

The mainline civ bonus (like the Greek +3 influence on the palace) also doesn't seem to carry over across ages, either. I kind of feel like it ought to, given that some of them, like Khmer keeping river yield bonuses on districts, can shape your settling and building strategy in a permanent way.

 

[Redfuryau]

That cannot be right.

In my first full game, I was playing Xerxes as Rome, Spain and America. On turn 1 of the Modern Era, I had a settlement limit of 30:

Spoiler :

View attachment 720528

On top of the 19 you claim Xerxes should have, I'm counting El Escorial to get to 20, then attributes gets me to 22. For the remaining 8, I can only think of 2 from Rome, 2 from the Fealty legacy option (taken in Exploration), 1 from Spain... and that leaves another 3 still. I suspect, but do not know for certain, that the last 3 come from Xerxes's bonus stacking throughout a game, meaning it's 1+2+3=6 bonus for the Modern Era.

(note: no mementos used)

Yeah, it does perhaps seem inconsistent.

In my most recent game, all players started the exploration age with 8 limit (the base level for that age.) I had researched every +1 settlement tech/civic in the previous age whilst I'm fairly certain the (easy-mode) AI players had not.

My main point was that with regards to settlement limit, there were previous versions of that reddit post (including some info posted at the top of this thread) that did not necessarily match the experience that most players were having.

As a result of that, the text on the original reddit post seems to have been adjusted. Obviously it may still not be 100% correct - there are probably other ways to permanently increase the settlement limit that are not listed, or it may just be bugged.

 

[Leyrann]

I kind of feel like it ought to, given that some of them, like Khmer keeping river yield bonuses on districts, can shape your settling and building strategy in a permanent way.

Also, you know, their immunity to flood damage.