What are your pros/cons/questions after watching the previews?

[Xyael]

-Cons:

• Starting with 3 settlement spots seems really limiting given how much territory there is and how little civs there are, I wish towns counted as like have a settlement becasue otherwise you're going to be spreading out cities like crazy

The settlement limit is a soft limit. You can have more settlement, but you will have penalties in hapiness.

 

[Tuvok694]

I have two questions:
Is it correct that there is no concept in Civ7 like "loyalty" from Civ6 and the AI can just forward settle you like crazy? (I saw that in JumboPixel's video for example.)
And did they really not implement something like "map tacks" to make planning settlements and infrastructure easier?

 

[queenpea]

I have two questions:
Is it correct that there is no concept in Civ7 like "loyalty" from Civ6 and the AI can just forward settle you like crazy? (I saw that in JumboPixel's video for example.)
And did they really not implement something like "map tacks" to make planning settlements and infrastructure easier?

I don’t know about tacks but your understanding of forward settling/no loyalty is correct.

 

[Eramas]

And did they really not implement something like "map tacks" to make planning settlements and infrastructure easier?

Yep, have to wait for a patch or mod, unfortunate.

 

[queenpea]

Yep, have to wait for a patch or mod, unfortunate.

That’s a bummer. I love to plan cities with tacks.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Is it correct that there is no concept in Civ7 like "loyalty" from Civ6 and the AI can just forward settle you like crazy? (I saw that in JumboPixel's video for example.)

i got the impression from the FL that you would get influence from being forward settled but i didn't see that in the previews.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

The last turns of an age might not really matter, if you cannot really do anything that will have an impact on the next age

If you are close to earning legacy points they could matter.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The ahistorical pairings of leaders and civs is a bit jarring imo. I watched JumboPixel's video where he was playing as Catherine of Rome. He was waging war against Augustus of Egypt. Initially, I saw Jumbo's cities had roman names so I thought he was Augustus of Rome. It will take some getting used to.

 

[queenpea]

The ahistorical pairings of leaders and civs is a bit jarring imo. I watched JumboPixel's video where he was playing as Catherine of Rome. He was waging war against Augustus of Egypt. Initially, I saw Jumbo's cities had roman names so I thought he was Augustus of Rome. It will take some getting used to.

I think we will get used to it, but I’m with you. It feels like that mod to me. The Civ colors get me too. Greece should never be brown, but it is now. I’ll get used to it I’m sure.

 

[King Flevance]

The UI is certainly concerning on many different levels. I also saw someone point out that the Civilopedia is not available from the Main Menu, which is very disappointing. I am really liking what I am seeing from gameplay though. Scouts feel more valuable after the map is discovered. There is still much to be determined by a self-playthrough though. Diplomacy is being glossed over by most people in these playthroughs, and they are not allowed to showcase long term diplomacy. Yields still have a mysterious nature about them but I am really liking the tech tree generously unlocking more yields on tiles and stacking with buildings adding yields to tiles. I like this much better than buildings giving the city a +% modifier to total yield collection.

 

[sTAPler27]

The settlement limit is a soft limit. You can have more settlement, but you will have penalties in hapiness.

That should;ve gone in Unsure because I don't mind Humankind's soft city limit because I know what the penalties are. I'm still not sure how easy happiness is to get, especially in a town.

 

[canadamufc]

What I Like:

• Navigable rivers. This should have been a thing for a very long time.
• The "soft reset" part about ages. I think if the execution is right, this can be VERY effective at stopping games being decided in the first 100 turns of the game.
• Uniqueness of each civ. Every civ feels different, unique civilian units are very cool.
• Map terrain design. I'd say its better than both Civ VI and Civ V.
• Modern Age Civ themes are very good thus far.
• Commanders look really good to me. I hope it doesnt turn into a micromanage minigame in of itself but it looks good.
• I was initially disappointed by the removal of Workers and Builders but I think the new way of city improvement is very good as well.
• Diplomacy looks much more enhanced than VI, I think it's a great step-up.
• Independent Peoples look to be a great edition and much more varied than just basic City States.

What I don't Like:

• The maps look awful. The continents are extremely blocky and uninspired.
• A maximum of 5(!) civs when starting in the Antiquity Age. I'm sorry but it's simply not enough.
• Further, 10 civs per age is really not enough either.
• Leader/Civ Choices are very unbalanced. Why so many American/French leaders, and why so little European Civs?
• Putting Britain in DLC is stupid and is only done for $.
• The entire monetization scheme is predatory. I don't think this game is polished enough to be sold for 90CAD.
• A lot of the text in the UI is way too small. Also the UI is very dark, why? Civ VI did this much better.
• I've spoken to my disdain of Mixing and matching Civ/Leaders, Augustus Caesar fighting against Roman Legions is just silly.
• Agendas. Who asked for this back?
• Mementos are metaprogression in a game that I thought would stay away from it. Part of the beauty in Civ communities is replicating strategies.
• Antiquity/Exploration Civ themes are uninspired and boring.

 

[sTAPler27]

Putting Britain in DLC is stupid and is only done for $.

I really dont think that's what was intended. With this 3 age system they want to prioritize the civs they did pick to have at least one somewhat fitting route. They made France's path basically as broad as possible to give other civs the avaliability to use their tree later but they can only put so many in the core game. I mean an Anglo path could realistically use the Romans, Normans and Americans in the meantime.

 

[canadamufc]

I understand what you mean by the civs needing valid and sensical unlock paths.

The devs said themselves, the Modern age is spearheaded by the Industrial Revolution. Britain was the at the forefront of the Industrial Revolution. It is completely nonsensical to not include them. Heck, you can take out France and replace them with Britain, and it would still make more sense. Normans --> Britain works perfectly fine.

I just think to not include a nation like Britain is a blatant way of pushing their DLC, especially with the UK being a strong market.

 

[Eyswein]

Pro - Game looks awesome. Can't wait to play it.
Con - Watching a Deity preview and thinking it looks way too easy for a few hours of learning.

 

[Leucarum]

Ohhh i hard disagree there. I think Charlemagne is among the best leaders in the game (of those revealed so far) and one of the most fun for builders actually.

- Free happiness from building adjacency, which helps mitigating penalties from overexpansion AND helps deal with the crises, which often force you to slot in minus happiness policy cards
- Free expensive units that you don't have to build, which help you defend against the AI, which are also stronger than normal if you can chain up Celebrations.
- Also since you're getting 2 Cav for free, you won't need to build or buy as many units, which means you can save your gold, or spend it on getting more buildings
- Automatically unlocks the hyper defensive and expansionistic Norman Civ
- Scientific attibute point which guarantees a small trickle of science, allow you to be beeline to unlock Cav before your first Celebration trigger.

One of the biggest threats to being a peaceful builder is being invaded. He completely mitigates that problem with only upsides. I would currently put him near the top of the leaderboard in terms of strength, alongside Ben Franklin (who I think is the actual strongest leader in the game of those revealed), both Ashoka's and Lafayette.

No disagreement. In terms of power level I think he's going to be a very solid leader. I just didn't click with him either on finding his abilities exciting, or wanting to play a game as him. No attempt to convince you he's bad from me, I just don't want to play him.

I would rate the leaders as one of the best done parts of Civ7. There are every few who seem useless, and other than beijg a bit eurocentric I don't have many complaints... I have been a bit down on Harriet Tubman's abilities too I guess - I really want her to be good - but espionage has never been my jam in Civ games, and until I see espionage in action it's tough to evaluate how good her abilities are.

 

[HanNorwood]

Indeps in a sense feel like they clutter the map, limiting your free expansion via settlers.

Personally, this is a change I really like. Whether through conquest or more peaceful forms of assimilation, land has rarely been “free,” and calling it such has often been intentionally ignoring people who are already living there. From what I have seen of gameplay, I think Firaxis has found a nice balance between areas that we are able to settle uncontested and areas where we need to reckon with IPs who are already there.

 

[Lord Lakely]

No disagreement. In terms of power level I think he's going to be a very solid leader. I just didn't click with him either on finding his abilities exciting, or wanting to play a game as him. No attempt to convince you he's bad from me, I just don't want to play him.

I would rate the leaders as one of the best done parts of Civ7. There are every few who seem useless, and other than beijg a bit eurocentric I don't have many complaints... I have been a bit down on Harriet Tubman's abilities too I guess - I really want her to be good - but espionage has never been my jam in Civ games, and until I see espionage in action it's tough to evaluate how good her abilities are.

Charlie doesn't even seem like a particularly crazy leader just a consistent one. LAFAYETTE is actually my choice for the potentially craziest, most consistent leader bonus. Free happiness and culture per settlement + combat strength per tradition that very quickly outscales Amina's *pathetic* +4 on desert and plains only. Peaceful builders that are able to defend themselves from warmongers are very, very dangerous longterm and Lafayette is exactly that.

Tubman's bonuses are hard to quantify because you don't know how good espionage or war support are. I see it as a failsafe in case her agents get caught and war is declared on her, she can simply steal techs with wreckless abandon, while her units enjoy bonus CS from the war support bonus. The mobility bonus is nice to have as well, even if it's weaker than Napoleon's generic +1.

I would rate her above Amina, Ibn Battuta and Machiavelli who seem like the three weakest leaders on paper. Gold does NOT appear to be a bottleneck in the slightest so small incremental increases don't feel meaningful, and pure sight bonuses aren't that useful.

 

[Leucarum]

Charlie doesn't even seem like a particularly crazy leader just a consistent one. LAFAYETTE is actually my choice for the potentially craziest, most consistent leader bonus. Free happiness and culture per settlement + combat strength per tradition that very quickly outscales Amina's *pathetic* +4 on desert and plains only. Peaceful builders that are able to defend themselves from warmongers are very, very dangerous longterm and Lafayette is exactly that.

Tubman's bonuses are hard to quantify because you don't know how good espionage or war support are. I see it as a failsafe in case her agents get caught and war is declared on her, she can simply steal techs with wreckless abandon, while her units enjoy bonus CS from the war support bonus. The mobility bonus is nice to have as well, even if it's weaker than Napoleon's generic +1.

I would rate her above Amina, Ibn Battuta and Machiavelli who seem like the three weakest leaders on paper. Gold does NOT appear to be a bottleneck in the slightest so small incremental increases don't feel meaningful, and pure sight bonuses aren't that useful.

i like Lafayette and he looks very solid. Though I think I prefer Tecumseh who has weirdly similar effects of bonus strength and production, just obtained in a different way - probably more civ dependent.

I don't think snowballing has been curtailed from what I'm seeing, so early boosts are going to be critical still... While not consistent, I expect Isabella to get some crazy wonder-fuelled early games.

Ibn Battuta feels tough to quantify, the leader tracks have some potent effects, getting to them deeper and faster (oh my!) could be pretty solid.

Machiavelli is a solid flavour win even if weaker on power. I am looking forward to playing him. Amina I want to like more than I do as she's such an interesting historical figure, but she's kinda bland...

 

[jsurpless]

I'll reserve my final judgment on the age "reset" / "normalization" of the game until I actually play the game... having said that, my initial reaction was "ehhhh, not sure how much I like that"