Update 1.2.5 is loading...

[Nikolai II]

It's a really depressing announcrment after waiting a while... These aren't changes which look remotely likely to move the needle. Unless Firaxis has really buried the lead, we're still gonna be on the struggle bus.

I guess it's a good chance any real changes need some time to cook.

 

[Leucarum]

I guess it's a good chance any real changes need some time to cook.

In which case I hope the devs let us know what they're cooking in case of food intolerances...

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

I consider multiple new maps and improved map generation as big changes.

 

[Patine]

Can't imagine the recent layoffs helped. This is probably everything that the team could put together before end of September for their Right to Rule promise, and I'd expect a longer period of quiet afterwards. If there's a fix for people obviously disappointed - like yourself - I imagine that will come at the same time as the first proper expansion.

I guess, the thing in Civ's favour is that most of their rivals with the exception of Ara - as well as the much benighted Humanity (at least as generally discussed and viewed here, I haven't played the game, myself) - cover very specific time periods, geographic boundaries, and perspectives, or are outright fictional.

 

[Leucarum]

I consider multiple new maps and improved map generation as big changes.

If this were Civ6, yeah it would be a big change. But relative to the changes Civ7 needs, this is a drop in the ocean. 1/3 of it is barely a functioning game at present.

 

[m_mus]

This is disappointing news. If the actual patch - that appears to contain welcome, though rather incremental changes - is not accompanied with a new roadmap, I can't see myself regaining confidence into this game's future.

 

[Goodenuf]

Could these be strong hints that we’ll eventually see expansionist and diplomatic legacy paths in the future?

Ya this is where I went first when I saw this. More legacy paths should lead to more interesting gameplay.

 

[Kurtbob]

Conspiracy time now: we already have expansionist and diplomatic attribute points, and soon we’ll also be getting expansionist and diplomatic city-states. Could these be strong hints that we’ll eventually see expansionist and diplomatic legacy paths in the future?

I don't think its a conspiracy at all...since the game came out, it always seemed odd to me that the game includes 6 attributes which are shared amongst the attribute trees, leader attributes and civ attributes, but not the legacy paths and, until now, the IPs/city-states. I definitely see this as a strong indication that we will eventually see expansionist and diplomatic legacy paths in the future Good call.

 

[Dale]

Denuvo not removed?
Ages and civ-swapping not removed?

Okay, not buying the game yet, back to my hole.

 

[DefinitelyNotSidMeier]

If this were Civ6, yeah it would be a big change. But relative to the changes Civ7 needs, this is a drop in the ocean. 1/3 of it is barely a functioning game at present.

The game functions fine. It appears your negative opinion on the gameplay is clouding your judgement on the functionality of the game

 

[King Flevance]

Hey hey Civfanatics! A quick heads-up that the next Civ VII update - 1.2.5 - is on the way, targeting next week. Some things to look forward to:

• New maps and improved map generation

Any chance we can get "Random Map Type" as an option in game setup?

 

[Kurtbob]

Presuming the two new city-state types don't diverge dramatically from current city-states, I wonder what the six new unique improvements will be? I am also curious if there will be any changes to the current city-state bonuses.

 

[uppi]

Presuming the two new city-state types don't diverge dramatically from current city-states, I wonder what the six new unique improvements will be? I am also curious if there will be any changes to the current city-state bonuses.

It says "each with unique Suzerain bonus and improvements for every Age" - I would indeed understand this as six new unique improvements

 

[Leucarum]

The game functions fine. It appears your negative opinion on the gameplay is clouding your judgement on the functionality of the game

Antiquity is amazing. Modern is unplayable. I'd say your optimism isn't borne out by this game's reception. Let's hope the "more to come" is a lot.

 

[cbum]

Has anyone ever looked into the (in my case ongoing) problem of random freezing requiring a force-quit?

It has been occasionally discussed in a few separate threads, but never any comment from the devs...?

 

[Krikkit1]

I don't think its a conspiracy at all...since the game came out, it always seemed odd to me that the game includes 6 attributes which are shared amongst the attribute trees, leader attributes and civ attributes, but not the legacy paths and, until now, the IPs/city-states. I definitely see this as a strong indication that we will eventually see expansionist and diplomatic legacy paths in the future Good call.

What I think would be better is to have Expansionist and Diplomatic "Victories" for each Age... but not Legacies.. where the Vivtories require at least 2 Legacies to complete
Expansionist= Exceed the map (2 legacies depending on Age)
Diplomatic=Unite the map (Military + Cultural/Economic/Scientific depending on Era)

 

[JungleIII]

So, the new Right to Rule additions with first Lakshmibai aka Rani Lakshimibai was a queen consort from Jhansi and a leading figure in the Rebellion of 1857.

Silla brings us Korea, founded 57BC by King Park Hyeokgeose and grew into a powerful state.

Qajar could be Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar a Turk whose family dynasty ruled from 1789-1925, or could be Nasar al-Din Shah Qajar, but not clear which member or family or even if this represents the Turks in Iran or Turkey… need more info.

Personally, always happy to see improvements and tweaks, and the game is already easily variable and easily adjusted to your play style with all the modifications made to what YOU want to do when setting up a game. I can’t say the same for almost any other Civ type game…

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Qajar could be Agha Mohammad Khan Qajar a Turk whose family dynasty ruled from 1789-1925, or could be Nasar al-Din Shah Qajar, but not clear which member or family or even if this represents the Turks in Iran or Turkey… need more info.

It has previously been listed as a Civilization, so it almost certainly refers to Iran under the Qajar dynasty.

 

[Kenshiro70]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The new city-state types provide a fascinating opportunity to apply some of the things I've learned from writing the post-mortem. In the past, I would have judged the new city-state types solely on their own merits. Now, however, I judge them just as much through the lens of Interesting decisions - will they create a trade-off that makes me want to make a different choice on my next play through? In other words, do these help with replayability?

​

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, there's the basic question, "Are the potential city-state bonuses enough to 'move the needle' and be something that would make me regret not pursuing that city-state type?" Many of the bonuses that city-states provide are nice, but not unique enough that I'd go out of my way to pursue them - even the free tech and civ bonuses usually end up saving me only a few of turns of research.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But for the sake of this analysis, I am going to assume there is something that would benefit me enough that it would be a trade-off versus pursuing another city-state type. So my next question is "how often would I be in a position where there's a trade-off available?"

Let's start with Antiquity. My choices in Antiquity are usually dictated much more by the location of the city-state rather than the type, namely:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Is it nearby, friendly, and within five tiles of somewhere I want to settle? If so, winning them over before settling is a high priority
• Is it unfriendly and not near another civ (e.g., down in the tundra). Then it is medium-high priority, as subduing them diplomatically will be far cheaper than a military approach
• Is it a type likely to be targeted by another civ? For example, Militaristic civs usually go for the same type of city state. If so, more than likely I won't pursue it, as I'll get into a costly competition. I'd rather spend my influence on another city-state or keeping the other civ above hostile.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So at least in Antiquity these new city-state types are less likely to provide the desired trade-offs. It's possible of course, but that's likely to be the exception not the rule, just because of how that age plays.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
-

Things get a little more interesting in the Exploration Age, as you have visibility to multiple city-states from the beginning. Type does play a bigger part. But even then it's not the single dominating factor. If you're going for multiple city-states, you'll pick your preferred type for the first, but the next ones are prioritized on whether they are friendly states (eight turns faster to convert) particularly if those states are near by certain leaders that enjoy snuffing them out, as you need to convert before they wipe out the city-state. So while there's a better chance of experiencing a trade-off, it's still in the uncommon range. RNG plays an outsized role.

The Modern Age is so messed up with the yields that city-states are almost an afterthought.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall though, while in a vacuum the new city-state types could engender the needed interesting decisions (=replayability), many of the other systems end up interfering and muting their impact (RNG most of all). That's the biggest challenge the designers are facing as they labor to increase replayability.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But I'm having trouble finding much sympathy for the designers; minimizing that type of intereference is why the Rule of Thirds exists. The designers have to live with the consequences of their decision to ignore Sid's advice. That's a trade-off that they didn't properly understand when they made it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A very interesting question would be "Did the designers consider the points I just made before deciding to add these city-state types? And if they understood that the impact would be less than it first appears, why would they have chosen to do it anyways versus doing something more effective?"

 

[Lord Lakely]

Antiquity is amazing. Modern is unplayable. I'd say your optimism isn't borne out by this game's reception. Let's hope the "more to come" is a lot.

Quick side note: Modern is mostly unplayable because it runs slowly, ai turns take an eternity and thus you want to finish it asap (and can't because victory conditions take a while to set up).

mechanically, it works in isolation. but after the previous two acts you really just want to end the game and get the achievement.