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

[UnknownHuman]

Pro:

• The simplified but still complex gameplay, I disliked how Civilization 6 had too much micro-management, most of it barely impactful.
• The campaign map and units are beautiful and a good middle ground between Civ 5 and Civ 6.
• The civilization design is great, and being able to change civilization while retaining some bonuses from the previous ones will allow for interesting theorycraft.
• The soft reset of ages looks like it will bring some fresh air, and hopefully will stop the boredom of the mid/end game when you realize you already won but you still have several hours left before you see the victory screen.
• The diplomacy looks great, and having more interactions with "barbarian" through independent people is also great.
• Commanders are amazing, and fighting seems to be actually fun and more strategical at the same time.
• The game seems to have a good balance between wide and tall, though it'll require time to really tell.
• I like towns and how they offer new ways to build your civilization, and I like how urban district are developed around the city center to make a city layout that makes more sense.
• The new resource system also looks great, and I love the economic victory path.

Con:

• The UI has some work to do (and might improve upon release) but the overall style is so bland, and I feel that won't be changed.
• I dislike the diplomacy screen with both leader looking at each other, the map behind them.
• No tile swapping between cities, it's going to make things needlessly frustrating (subject to change).
• Continent shapes looks to be lazy, a lot of squares from what I've seen.
• The amount of civilizations increasing with ages, it's really impactful for multiplayer, and the antiquity age only having five civilizations on the map is just lame.
• Only 10 civilizations per age on launch, while it offers enough gameplay variety, it really limits natural historical progression which is something I'd assume a lot of people are interested in.
• I'm not convinced by the leader choices, surely we did not need both Lafayette and Napoleon as leaders, similarly did we need two US leaders at launch with Benjamin Franklin and Harriet Tubman, and Lafayette is also more relevant for US history than French one, meanwhile sub-saharan africa has only one leader and Mesopotamia has no representation in civ or leader. Himiko is really an odd choice too, particularly since she'll get a persona too.
• I'll miss great writers, artists, and musicians, they added a lot of flavor in the game. And I generally dislike great works being unique and restricted by ages, it doesn't really fit the whole civilization is built in layers because culture is also build in layers.
• The age system might be a bit restrictive in how it depicts certain historical period, for instance the exploration age seems to glaze over the early medieval period in favor of the renaissance.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Pro:

• The simplified but still complex gameplay, I disliked how Civilization 6 had too much micro-management, most of it barely impactful.
• The campaign map and units are beautiful and a good middle ground between Civ 5 and Civ 6.
• The civilization design is great, and being able to change civilization while retaining some bonuses from the previous ones will allow for interesting theorycraft.
• The soft reset of ages looks like it will bring some fresh air, and hopefully will stop the boredom of the mid/end game when you realize you already won but you still have several hours left before you see the victory screen.
• The diplomacy looks great, and having more interactions with "barbarian" through independent people is also great.
• Commanders are amazing, and fighting seems to be actually fun and more strategical at the same time.
• The game seems to have a good balance between wide and tall, though it'll require time to really tell.
• I like towns and how they offer new ways to build your civilization, and I like how urban district are developed around the city center to make a city layout that makes more sense.
• The new resource system also looks great, and I love the economic victory path.

Con:

• The UI has some work to do (and might improve upon release) but the overall style is so bland, and I feel that won't be changed.
• I dislike the diplomacy screen with both leader looking at each other, the map behind them.
• No tile swapping between cities, it's going to make things needlessly frustrating (subject to change).
• Continent shapes looks to be lazy, a lot of squares from what I've seen.
• The amount of civilizations increasing with ages, it's really impactful for multiplayer, and the antiquity age only having five civilizations on the map is just lame.
• Only 10 civilizations per age on launch, while it offers enough gameplay variety, it really limits natural historical progression which is something I'd assume a lot of people are interested in.
• I'm not convinced by the leader choices, surely we did not need both Lafayette and Napoleon as leaders, similarly did we need two US leaders at launch with Benjamin Franklin and Harriet Tubman, and Lafayette is also more relevant for US history than French one, meanwhile sub-saharan africa has only one leader and Mesopotamia has no representation in civ or leader. Himiko is really an odd choice too, particularly since she'll get a persona too.
• I'll miss great writers, artists, and musicians, they added a lot of flavor in the game. And I generally dislike great works being unique and restricted by ages, it doesn't really fit the whole civilization is built in layers because culture is also build in layers.
• The age system might be a bit restrictive in how it depicts certain historical period, for instance the exploration age seems to glaze over the early medieval period in favor of the renaissance.

Number of civilizations doesn't increase, they all are on the map from the start, they play and could beat you in wonders.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Overall I feel like the game is as revolutionary as Civ5 was. Age switching, new building improvements approach, new resource system and army commanders are a lot. On one hand it's great, on the other hand I have a feeling Firaxis didn't have enough time to look at all potential issues with all this system. I don't expect a disastrous launch of Civ5 - Firaxis clearly have more development power now, but I have a feeling we'll need some significant time before all tough edges will be polished.

 

[Lord Lakely]

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...

Yeah, I like Machiavelli's ability a lot despite it being weak. It's loads of fun. Just by comparison, Emperor Napoleon can just give an unfriendly greeting to every AI he meets in Antiquity and make 32 gold per turn. 3 turns and he's made more money than Machavelli has from a failed endeavour (which Napoleon can force without paying Influence).

Tecumseh feels a bit underpowered in Antiquity. Food + Production bonuses are good but +1/+1 per Suzerain bonus isn't that meaningful. Neither is a small buff to combat strength. You still need to become Suze of multiple City States, to which Tecumseh gets no bonus at all. Exploration and Modern are fine, because even as small as a +3 bonus to Production can be noticeable. Tecumseh can definitely be an endgame danger, especially as America or Siam.

 

[Riconatic]

Pros:
New concepts feel very very refreshing almost all. Hyped to play this game.

Cons:
It would feel extremely dumb that game features do not get used in standard average game.
I am refering to age length and techs. All tech needs to be researched and get used during average game in middle difficulty and standard speed settings.

There are already setting in place to migitate my fear/problem however.

Religion spreading feels as boring as ever and will get ignored by me.

Waiting: Bigger maps/map scripts/ more players even so that exploration age slows down. Tech race to get past oceans at all, 8 civ starting on islands of their own etc.

 

[moysturfurmer]

Pro: looks sick, I want it.

Con: I’m not sure how I feel about the Exploration colonization mechanics happening so soon after the Age starts. And the 1-tile-per-rough-seas thing seems like it forces weird looking landmasses to allow for balanced distances between the Homelands, Secondary Islands, and Distant Lands. I wonder if delaying ocean traversal and making rough seas less slow to move across would make less blocky/square continents a little more balanced. Also, I don’t love how Tercios are unlocked from turn one/400CE. If they were a tier 2 unlock, like Legions are, I could wrap my head around them being unlocked earlier than they were in history, since it’s a gameplay quirk. But starting the age with them just feels a bit weird.

Questions: what happens if you get all your cities conquered but not your towns?

 

[Taefin]

I’m not sure how I feel about the Exploration colonization mechanics happening so soon after the Age starts.

I agree, I had gotten the impression that science advancement/civ bonuses would add more variance to when settlers would start crossing oceans, and that some HL medieval gameplay would occur before that.

PROS:
- Juggling the four legacy paths under pressure from the AI looks dynamic and fun. It’s clear in the deity run that you can’t do everything and this encourages taking risks (e.g., what is just enough military to survive).
- It appears FXS found a simple way to limit all-out-conquest in a way that feels like Civ: with the balance of soft settlement limit, room to expand, and IP to suz and then absorb at age’s end. I haven’t seen a video that makes war weariness clear to me (except going from 11 to 22 happiness at wars end), but I’m guessing it contributes as well. VI almost always pushed me passed a tipping point where once I had enough units to defend myself, I might as well fight until the enemy was broken, and the only option was to conquer their entire empire.

CONS:
-Missionaries seem to add uninteresting and tedious micro. It seems like an intentional choice by FXS not to do anything novel with religious spread, given that HK and Millenium both added ostensibly deeper (but confusing) religion systems, and VII simplified the system from VI. This is consistent with what appears to be a philosophy of making tangible things like units the tool for advancing legacy and outplaying the AI, and hopefully I can just click AI cities and forget about my missionaries until they arrive.
- Some of my worst 4X experiences were plague aged in milleninia, and VII looks like it will require even more doctors and clicking. At least it’s only at the end of the era.
- Repairing tiles after disasters looks tedious and so simple as to feel unrewarding.

Question:
- Are there any consequences for not finishing the generic tech/civic tree in the NEXT age? I see that you need the Civ civic tree completed to get traditions, but do the others matter going forward?

 

[pokiehl]

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.

The Civilopedia hasn’t been main menu accessible since Civ 4.

 

[Brutus2]

Not sure how I feel about commanders being able to scoop up injured units to keep them safely tucked away "inside" the commander. Has anyone seen any examples of exactly what happens when the commander is attacked with units inside?

1. Do the packed units take any damage?
2. Does it just use the commander's defense and health?
3. If the commander dies with units inside do all those units die?
4. Does the packed unit strength boost the commander's defense or health in any way, sort of like how army or corps were stronger in c6?
5. I wonder if you were to encounter a commander, perhaps in MP, with packed units, could you theoretically kill him (and all packed units) before they get to unpack on their turn?

 

[King Flevance]

The Civilopedia hasn’t been main menu accessible since Civ 4.

That's funny because I am most familiar with 4. I only picked up 5 a few times, and have given 6 a few extended visits. (I have recently been revisiting 6) This is a nice feature to have though.

Sometimes I will still load up civ 4 just to check the civilopedia. Especially, if I am bouncing back and forth between FfH2 and the base game. Sometimes I don't have time to play but I will be thinking of strategies like what religion to run in FfH2 or which mana to run. Or in the base game I will look up the details of my opponents' UUs and UBs (or my own) plus the units/wonders in the next ages to determine which way I should pivot. It is also handy if you are modding assets in the game to load up and make sure they are applied correctly.

This feature is more handy if you have your game of Civ on the mind, but not time to play.

 

[Disgustipated]

Haven't had time to watch any except Quill's.

Pros: beautiful, better diplomacy
Cons: He rolled over the AI like nothing. I believe he was on the default difficulty. Which isn't a high difficulty, but on default it should be more difficult to get ahead of the AI like he did. And correct me if I'm wrong, he was just putting his slinger out there against the barbarian (hostile ind. people) warrior type unit. unfortunately he skipped a lot of things. But it strikes me as ranged units being too powerful again. And in Civ 6 at least a slinger was very vulnerable, but his unit didn't appear to be vulnerable. Why didn't the AI take it out?

Anyways, I'll have more thoughts on this later. Just not enough time...

 

[Brutus2]

My impression is that in C7, cities and towns can be placed almost anywhere and still be good. I mean obviously you want resources, rivers and natural wonders as much as possible but it doesn't seem like you have to stress as much about precise city placement or what yields are in each surrounding ring. In c6, you really needed to think about where you could potentially place farms or mines and you constantly needed to find new resources for amenities.

This time, towns get a boost to growth and cities can get food and production from towns and multiple copies of the same resource is still good. Any city can be mostly urban districts which don't care about the yield of the tile you place them on.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I really don't like micromanaging units like Missionaries, so it's a bummer that seems to have been returned.

I really like the new way of managing citizens and tile improvements. Such a headache in the older games.

The resource menu seems a little fiddly for my tastes; reminds me of optimizing Great Works, which I never liked. So that's a con.

The government system seems a little bare bones and I hope they expand on it; policy card changes were too frequent and there were too many of them in VI and the policy trees in V were maybe too linear, maybe a hybrid system? Question for an expansion I guess.

 

[Rajendran_P]

I have played Civilization series since Civilization 1 (since Year 1992). Enjoyed more from Civilization 4 onwards.

For Civilization VII
Pros

1. Leader mix matching with different Civilization is definitely a good new gameplay. Player get to play different variety of combinations. Of course, if player choose to play one Civilization, they also have that opportunity. Maybe not for all Leaders now, but believe eventually with add on DLC, more civilization will be added.

2. Map looks super

3. Inclusion of Commander (land/ sea / air) is very interesting, though we are yet to see the air which will be in the modern Age

4. Memtos is also a welcome bonus. This will enable players to achieve memtos for each Leader.

5. Attributes are another good move by developers.

6. Treasure fleet will be another good and new gameplay in the exploration Age. Keeps the excitement going.

7. Navigable rivers are wonderful addition to the map.

Cons
1. Dislike the civilization reset at the start of each Age system. Player have to redo all the steps again in the new Age. Feels like repetitive moves or gameplay.

Conclusion
The Civ 7 gameplay is fantastic and can’t wait to see more new gameplay in the Modern Age.

Sure there will be another ERA / AGE System as the modern Age did not reveal advanced fighter/bomber, battleship/destroyer, thermonuclear, space, etc.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I think over the years I have grown weirdly opposed to the mismatch of scaling on the "put everything on the map" design direction. I think I'd rather manage "special people" (missionaries, spies, traders, etc) via something off map and only have cities/armies/tiles be something I manage on the map.

Not sure quite why but watching previews involving Exploration Age religion and I just...I just don't want to be marching missionaries around to click twice on cities. I will probably mostly ignore religion as a result, which is a bummer. It's just...irritating. Anyone remember Civilization IV's espionage menu? That was nice. I think I'd rather spend "Talent Points" or something to cast "Send Missionaries" on a city from a menu like that, or Recruit Spy, etc.

 

[Disgustipated]

I've only watched Quill and Potato so far. What I will say is I want to play the game myself. 1 hour is just so limiting. Both of them went far too fast. I want time to learn the interface and systems. To be honest, I just want to play the game for myself and not watch other people rush through it. It doesn't do the game justice to rush through it so fast.

 

[Xandinho]

I've only watched Quill and Potato so far. What I will say is I want to play the game myself. 1 hour is just so limiting. Both of them went far too fast. I want time to learn the interface and systems. To be honest, I just want to play the game for myself and not watch other people rush through it. It doesn't do the game justice to rush through it so fast.

I support the idea of them releasing an immersive mode where the eras last longer but without affecting the production of units and buildings.

As a highly immersive player, I had to use mods in Civ6 to make matches last longer. I believe I'll have to do the same in Civ7.

 

[lo24681]

Thats why I am fascinated in the longer eras option, I don't believe anyone used it? obviously it depends how balanced it is, but will have to give that a try at some point.

 

[AriochIV]

Thats why I am fascinated in the longer eras option, I don't believe anyone used it? obviously it depends how balanced it is, but will have to give that a try at some point.

I'm hoping that will help solve the problem, but it has been a long time since Civilization had a speed setting that made the game better rather than worse.

 

[Big J Money]

Overall, good. I was disappointed by Civ 6, so this time around I have lower expectations and may find myself pleasantly surprised. At worst I probably won't like it less than 6, but at best I might really enjoy it. I definitely plan to buy it.

Specific observation: Crises seem lackluster. I don't think I'll particularly dislike them, but they aren't as fascinating as I was expecting. I thought they were supposed to tell a story of the decline of your civilization at the end of an era. They look more like one of the optional add-on rules from the Civ 6 DLCs, and don't seem like something integral to the game that would make much difference if they were disabled or removed.