Things missing

[itix]

I liked being able to trade resources but I almost never traded strategic resources to the AI as it didn’t want to give them a strategic advantage.

I tried that approach (not trading strategic resources) but found it meaningless. Without resources, they can't heal units and sustain long wars against me. And at the same time, by selling resources I can pump all their amenities and arts.

 

[stealth_nsk]

To me, good strategic game has meaningful choices. Bad micromanagement is when you have to do a lot of tasks per important decision, or if there's no important decision at all.

So, I'd say Civ6 resource trading, policy card swapping, chopping, etc. are examples of bad micromanagement. Civ7 resources are about the right spot - some operations are tedious (like redistributing resources to balance happiness during happiness crisis), but in most cases redistributing resources comes with some strategic decision.

 

[Siptah]

I think the redistribution of resources would gain even more importance if cities were more specialized. There are some resources which shake things up a bit (e.g., the ones that are better in distant lands or outside of the capital). But generally, your best production cities are often also good in gold/culture/science. So, it‘s often production resources there to get some building gs up and then change to other yield resources (except if you want to build wonders). If cities were more specialized, it would be more difficult to make optimal use of the resources.

For example, you only have this one city that is really good at culture, so all Silk goes there. But you also want to build a wonder there, so you want the whales or furs there now more. In the meantime, the silk will be rather useless in your other cities, and you have to decide whether that‘s worth it or rather have some extra turns on that wonder.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think the redistribution of resources would gain even more importance if cities were more specialized. There are some resources which shake things up a bit (e.g., the ones that are better in distant lands or outside of the capital). But generally, your best production cities are often also good in gold/culture/science. So, it‘s often production resources there to get some building gs up and then change to other yield resources (except if you want to build wonders). If cities were more specialized, it would be more difficult to make optimal use of the resources.

For example, you only have this one city that is really good at culture, so all Silk goes there. But you also want to build a wonder there, so you want the whales or furs there now more. In the meantime, the silk will be rather useless in your other cities, and you have to decide whether that‘s worth it or rather have some extra turns on that wonder.

There are 2 interesting things:

1. City specialization is a thing, although it's much less forced than in Civ6. You get adjacency bonuses, which affect buildings a lot. I haven't mastered it yet, but we have some discussions here on the forum and some players use quite deep specialization.

2. Too deep specialization would make optimal resource distribution quite easy to get and there would be no important decisions and no reshuffling resources after they find their place.

It's something, which is really hard to balance, and, honestly, Civ7 looks about right with what it does here.

 

[aelf]

No worries the OP already deleted the game so they don't have to understand it.

In all seriousness, it's fine if you don't like the style compared to previous games. You don't have to play hundreds of hours to figure out you won't like it.

But yeah like @MutilationWave and @Siptah said, many resources are very useful at different points of the game. Shuffling production resources (with camels preferably) to your new cities is the main way to speed up their early development, a bit like chopping did in previous versions. Stacking iron/horses to boost your infantry or cavalry is very important for effective combat against deity AI, or just to speed up things generally.

As for diplomacy, the main issue in the later ages for me is that city-state bonuses scale too well compared to those from endaevors, so in the Antiquity it's sometimes an interesting decision to prioritize one or the other, but in the next two ages it's all about city-states giving free techs, etc.

Yeah, it's ironic to say that the game is dumbed down and yet be completely unable to grasp the new resource mechanics. Certainly not the case with all, but some complaints about the game are very much skill issues.

 

[CliffCo]

I tried that approach (not trading strategic resources) but found it meaningless. Without resources, they can't heal units and sustain long wars against me. And at the same time, by selling resources I can pump all their amenities and arts.

So why do you regard it as meaningless, when it helps your war efforts?

 

[sixty4half]

5 and 6 trade system was too easy. Settle on a lux, meet an AI and immediatly have a huge gold advantage. How cheesy.

Get a few horses (iron), trade some to everyone, and now the AI cant maintain his army without you. Pretty cheesy.

Every 15 or 30 turns, you must redo every trade. Too much micromanagement.

 

[CliffCo]

5 and 6 trade system was too easy. Settle on a lux, meet an AI and immediatly have a huge gold advantage. How cheesy.

Get a few horses (iron), trade some to everyone, and now the AI cant maintain his army without you. Pretty cheesy.

Every 15 or 30 turns, you must redo every trade. Too much micromanagement.

i wouldn't call it cheesy. I like micromanagement, and i guess many others do too as i've seen many complaints from people saying Civ7 is too streamlined,.

 

[sixty4half]

i wouldn't call it cheesy. I like micromanagement, and i guess many others do too as i've seen many complaints from people saying Civ7 is too streamlined,.

Couldn't you trade a Lux for 300 gold? Can't you buy a settler for about the same price? Being able to do so, and always have the best spot for early expansion, just because you settled the Cap on a certain type of tile seems pretty cheesy.

 

[CliffCo]

Couldn't you trade a Lux for 300 gold? Can't you buy a settler for about the same price? Being able to do so, and always have the best spot for early expansion, just because you settled the Cap on a certain type of tile seems pretty cheesy.

I can't remember trading a single luxury for 300 gold, the first settler you purchased was around 300 gold but the cost increased for each settler purchased after that.

 

[Gori the Grey]

In Civ V, if you had a Declaration of Friendship, you could sell a lux for 240g. A settler cost 500g. But also in Civ V, since happiness skews you to an empire of about four cities, how many settlers you get isn't terribly decisive with respect to overall game success. Settler cost to lux value is not a meaningful dimension of the game, in other words.

 

[sixty4half]

See; sometimes people's opinions are in the minority. Even mine

 

[itix]

In Civ 6, the use of strategic resources is very simple. Too simple. Just grab the resource and build units, trade excess resources. Get gold or other strategic resources from trading, which you can trade further and earn more gold. I wish the AI were not so easily exploitable. There could also be production chains and more use of strategic resources to add depth.

Trading coal is also quite funny in mid/late game. Build flood barriers, then start trading coal and watch how the AI civs submerge like Atlantis.

 

[lymond]

Assuming normal speed on V, a lux would get you 240g (I usually did gpt plus gold). Settlers were 500g flat.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Sorry. Yes, 240. I've corrected the number, but the basic point stands. Converting a lux into a settler was not some game-winning move: 1) because you couldn't do that and 2) because the number of settlers you generated in a game wasn't a major mechanism of game success.

 

[aelf]

Nah, early settlements make a huge difference on higher difficulties, especially if there's a risk of being boxed in. I also find defensive wars born of the AI coveting your early cities ideal for exhausting the AI and taking good cities from it early game, which is basically the game-winning move. You can't get settlements faster than with selling luxuries, and it's usually a difference of a dozen or two turns.

 

[MutilationWave]

I liked being able to trade resources but I almost never traded strategic resources to the AI as it didn’t want to give them a strategic advantage.
I’m hoping they make changes to the trading system, I’d like to trade resources both ways, but I also feel like we shouldn’t have to improve trade relations every time we want to send another trade route. If the devs want to keep it as is maybe they could make it time limited where we could send x amount of trade routes to their settlements during x amount of turns.

I think it's balanced as is because it's an influence drain. If you want to have a bunch of trade routes you have to pay. Hub towns make everything possible right now though.

 

[sixty4half]

Yeah, I am afraid they're gonna nerf Hub Towns soon.

 

[Buckets]

This genuinly feels like it's all automated for children.

Some of us old people are genuinely children who haven't died yet.