Update 1.2.5 is loading...

[queenpea]

"much more" is in the post itself

Ah ok I only was looking at the visual.

 

[Lord Lakely]

It's typical PR babble, don't read too much into it.

"Here's three new things without details". Even if it's just those three things, the scope of the changes is something we won't know until the patch notes.

 

[Leucarum]

This patch preview has prompted me to switch my steam review. While previously I could recommend the game on the basis that Firaxis usually get things right in the end, my confidence in that being the case has evaporated from what we're seeing thus far.

 

[marius_kaparius]

This patch preview has prompted me to switch my steam review. While previously I could recommend the game on the basis that Firaxis usually get things right in the end, my confidence in that being the case has evaporated from what we're seeing thus far.

All this from a short preview for a patch that's coming next week?

 

[Leucarum]

All this from a short preview for a patch that's coming next week?

Kinda. There's problems that have been building up or been there since the start. The patch preview makes it difficult for me to believe Firaxis are focussing on the right areas. It's surprised me too, just how down I am on the game since the announcement.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Kinda. There's problems that have been building up or been there since the start. The patch preview makes it difficult for me to believe Firaxis are focussing on the right areas. It's surprised me too, just how down I am on the game since the announcement.

I'm curious, what are the right areas from your point of view?

 

[marius_kaparius]

Kinda. There's problems that have been building up or been there since the start. The patch preview makes it difficult for me to believe Firaxis are focussing on the right areas. It's surprised me too, just how down I am on the game since the announcement.

In the Discord channel they state that there is an element of the team that is working on much larger changes - it just didn't happen to be this specific patch. This patch is to get out the door what they can while delivering on the second half of Right to Rule by September as promised.

 

[Leucarum]

I'm curious, what are the right areas from your point of view?

Firaxis need to decide on how they approach snowballing. If they can't show some plan there, the age system is a flop, taking civ switching with it. Everything else depends on that one, and Firaxis look like they're going down the opposite path from the new game modes. For me this is the big one.

Legacy paths probably need to go or be made generic between ages. They're the source of railroading. Humankind did this better with era stars.

And then the modern era is a mess. I honestly think at present charging players for modern civs is egregious. Flashing an Ottoman tease when they look like they're in a borderline unplayable era is definitely a choice.

The one positive is that they have said they are doing something to improve civ identity. Some ability to "transcend" your civ would be the most positive change I'm hoping for, but without the mechanical changes I don't know if it really matters.

New map types and new-poleon really feels like rearranging deckchairs on the titanic.

In the Discord channel they state that there is an element of the team that is working on much larger changes - it just didn't happen to be this specific patch. This patch is to get out the door what they can while delivering on the second half of Right to Rule by September as promised.

Yeah. I'm in there... I think the relentless positivity might be contributing to how negatively I'm feeling about the game.

The other external prompt was that a couple of friends asked my thoughts on whether to buy as their resident Civ addict... I figured if I had to tell them no, I couldn't leave a positive review on steam..

 

[Gedemon]

1. The funny thing about Civ6 maps is that map generation there works in rectangle as well, before rolling it into cylinder. You could see a clear vertical line on this image and it had the ugly cut on one of the continents. Actually more ugly than the new Civ7 map.
2. We don't know how large overflow behind the rectangle could potentially be. The second map, if it's "Continents and Islands" too, has pretty large chunk of the left continent overflowing into the territory of the right one.
3. There are restrictions based on strict separation of homelands and distant lands. While I'm not a fan of this separation, that's how the game works and with those restrictions, new map generation looks great.

EDIT: And speaking about predictability, as I wrote it looks like continents could be aligned both horizontally and vertically, plus islands could kick in into various places, so this doesn't look predictable.

Why can't they do that ? I mean restrictions are respected there.

M

Random Continents

Mar 25, 2025

Randomizes generation and spacing between continents

• Marvin Ott
• continent map random
• Civ7 - Maps and Map Scripts

They are placing too much focus on "Balanced starts" IMO, that what gives us only symmetrical, rectangular, inorganic maps.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Firaxis need to decide on how they approach snowballing. If they can't show some plan there, the age system is a flop, taking civ switching with it. Everything else depends on that one, and Firaxis look like they're going down the opposite path from the new game modes. For me this is the big one.

I don't see what would you want to see in the patch notes which would help here. From previous video we know what Firaxis are experimenting with various things on age transition, including harder mode. Those videos are the right place to discuss those things. Dev diaries are the right place to discuss the goals. But patch notes are for immediate features, aren't they?

Legacy paths probably need to go or be made generic l between ages. They're the source of railroading. Humankind did this better with era stars.

Maybe, maybe not. In any case it's not the kind of things you could change within 1 month patch timeframe.

And then the modern era is a mess. I honestly think at present charging players for modern civs is egregious.

Same here.

The one positive is that they have said they are doing something to improve civ identity. Some ability to "transcend" your civ would be the most positive change I'm hoping for, but without the mechanical changes I don't know if it really matters.

I think that's the area where I'm much more cautious. Earlier civs already have strong identity, which spans till the end of the game, the problem is with later civ identity, so "transcend" in my opinion would deepen the problem. And in any case, the previous point need to be worked on first.

New map types and new-poleon really feels like rearranging deckchairs on the titanic.

New map types are the thing which needed to be done in any case, same for new city states. I agree that Napoleon balance round wasn't necessary, but I guess it's done by different people than those who work on more impactful features. Most likely without any developers at all.

 

[Leucarum]

I don't see what would you want to see in the patch notes which would help here. From previous video we know what Firaxis are experimenting with various things on age transition, including harder mode. Those videos are the right place to discuss those things. Dev diaries are the right place to discuss the goals. But patch notes are for immediate features, aren't they?


Maybe, maybe not. In any case it's not the kind of things you could change within 1 month patch timeframe.


Same here.


I think that's the area where I'm much more cautious. Earlier civs already have strong identity, which spans till the end of the game, the problem is with later civ identity, so "transcend" in my opinion would deepen the problem. And in any case, the previous point need to be worked on first.


New map types are the thing which needed to be done in any case, same for new city states. I agree that Napoleon balance round wasn't necessary, but I guess it's done by different people than those who work on more impactful features. Most likely without any developers at all.

I guess new map types were the bottom of my priority list. If that's Firaxis putting their best foot forward, that's really bad. Almost anything else headlining the patch notes would probably have been better. I've been really invested in Civ7, but outside of Civ fanatics I'm mostly engaging with EU5 content... I'd rather Civ 7 be the game I end up addicted to, but I jumped ship for V and it's looking likelier I'll do it again...

With Stellaris looking good and a Surviving Mars relaunch... Paradox have a good shot at swiping me even without lackluster updates to Civ7, honestly...

 

[stealth_nsk]

Why can't they do that ? I mean restrictions are respected there.

They are placing too much focus on "Balanced starts" IMO, that what gives us only symmetrical, rectangular, inorganic maps.

It's much harder to test more chaotic map generations, they could create really unplayable maps unless polished. And you're right in the second sentence, Firaxis initially focused on maps which should work well in multiplayer. Which is not bad idea itself, but without some other promised features for multiplayer it looks strange.

 

[Nikolai II]

From the discord:

From the Devs: Improved Map Generation @News Notifications

It's a busy news day!

Ken Pruiksma, Senior Graphics Engineer at Firaxis, shares some behind-the-scenes updates on two new map types coming with Update 1.2.5, and an improved map generation technique in Civ VII.

Read it here: https://2kgam.es/4gCen9P

 

[Porry]

Very interesting, especially for potential developments. In the future, I hope the settings will allow for more than two continents and that the number of civilizations on the continents will be varied and not fixed.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I wonder why they didn't put those more interesting maps on the promo.

Voronoi is an algorithm with a very good reputation, so it's good to see it.

 

[McSpank01]

This is interesting about the new maps. What I don’t get though, is this different to how maps were generated in previous games? How can there be issues creating maps that are fundamental to their method of generating them when this is a series that has been running for decades. How does Civ 7 have these problems if Civ 6 didn’t.

This is one of the things that gets me about Civ 7, it’s that it can’t do many of the basic things that seemed to have been sorted in previous games.

 

[Krikkit1]

Very interesting, especially for potential developments. In the future, I hope the settings will allow for more than two continents and that the number of civilizations on the continents will be varied and not fixed.

I'd say have settings for
-Major Landmasses per "Land"(ie homeland Distant land) 1,2,3, Archipelago..Random
-Major islands in each "Land" Y/N/Random
-Balance of Terrain for "Lands": ~Equal, ~2:1, Random
-Balance of civs for "Land": ~Equal, ~2:1, ~1:0, Random
-Biome Variation: minimal(stripes), some, maximum (clumps of Tundra and Tropics all over the place), Random
-Feature clumpiness: none(individual patches of rough/veg/wet/flat), some, high(massive badlands, forests, megabogs, great plains)
etc.

 

[Evolena]

Legacy paths probably need to go or be made generic between ages. They're the source of railroading. Humankind did this better with era stars.

I hated Humankind's era stars. So generic. That plus the snowballing made me stop playing it.

 

[Leucarum]

I hated Humankind's era stars. So generic. That plus the snowballing made me stop playing it.

I stopped playing humankind for the combat system, snowballing and visual indistinctiveness.

It's one of the few franchises where we can compare civ switching/eras though. I'd agree the stars were generic, but at least they weren't forced minigames, virtually automatic, or heavily RNG. I think legacy paths can be fixed, and could become better than Humankind's version but there need to be more routes for the player to choose between in each era, and ultimately I think the generic-ness of Antiquity's paths contributes heavily to that having the most interesting ones.

 

[Gorbles]

This is interesting about the new maps. What I don’t get though, is this different to how maps were generated in previous games? How can there be issues creating maps that are fundamental to their method of generating them when this is a series that has been running for decades. How does Civ 7 have these problems if Civ 6 didn’t.

This is one of the things that gets me about Civ 7, it’s that it can’t do many of the basic things that seemed to have been sorted in previous games.

Previous games didn't have a gameplay need for distant lands.