What did you all get wrong from watching the previews?

[Leucarum]

I'm curious what you all feel you got wrong from the previews now that the game has been out for a while?

I found that a lot of my opinions reversed when I played the game and I do think this game is too deep to really get a feel for a lot of the systems until you've played it. With a lot of discussions floating around about people not buying the game based on previews/reviews, I thought it would be an interesting question to ask.

Broadly for me there were quite a few pleasant surprises in antiquity and exploration, while modern is a way bigger let down than I expected.

Things which turned out better:
1) I thought Exploration would be the most repetitive era with quite rigid victory conditions, but the 2nd round of settling is fun, and while there are pacing issues, it's genuinely not bad.
2) War support is one of the most interesting mechanics I've seen. It really shakes up how you have to prepare for war and opens up diplomatic counterplay.
3) Most civs have something going for them. The kits are deep enough that even for weaker civs you can usually find a hook to hang an interesting game off. It is definitely tougher to do a ranking of civs like you could in previous ones with the exception of some unbalanced civs.
4) Civ switching doesn't feel as bad as I thought it would. It still isn't something I want in the game but I can live with it. I still don't class it as a positive but it's survivable.
5) Leader mixing and matching though is another amazing addition which changes the tactics of how you approach the game dramatically. If you really like historicity I get you might not like it, but... It really is good for gameplay!

Things which turned out worse:
1) The modern era has the worst pacing issues in the game. Most modern civs may as well be blank as you win before using much of their uniques.
2) Micromanagement is definitely not as reduced as I'd hoped. Especially if war breaks out in modern things can really drag.
3) The number of civs is way too low. I thought it would feel too low from previews, but I class this as something I got wrong since it's worse than I expected. The game needed at least twice its number to feel fresh between games I think - and that is a while off happening.

 

[Pfeffersack]

1) I thought Exploration would be the most repetitive era with quite rigid victory conditions, but the 2nd round of settling is fun, and while there are pacing issues, it's genuinely not bad.

As someone who hasn't played yet, my biggest fear is the missionary minigame...which sounds like a worse version of what was already in Civ6 a chore. Sure, you might just not need to care in certain games respectively when not pursuing certain victory conditions, but how does it feel if you are in playthrough where it matters? Treasure fleets come close behind, but here if have come to the conclusion that you probably just set a target destination and forget until arrival (unless you are in war)

3) The number of civs is way too low. I thought it would feel too low from previews, but I class this as something I got wrong since it's worse than I expected. The game needed at least twice its number to feel fresh between games I think - and that is a while off happening.

Is that statement for the basic version...or is the variance even too low when playing the founder edition?

 

[Leucarum]

As someone who hasn't played yet, my biggest fear is the missionary minigame...which sounds like a worse version of what was already in Civ6 a chore. Sure, you might just not need to care in certain games respectively when not pursuing certain victory conditions, but how does it feel if you are in playthrough where it matters? Treasure fleets come close behind, but here if have come to the conclusion that you probably just set a target destination and forget until arrival (unless you are in war)

I also hated the missionary system but it isn't as bad as Civ6 - mostly because you can ignore it.

For culture you can can pick some reliquary beliefs which just let you get it "over and done with" very quickly. The 2 relics for a city state is my go to since you can usually get 3ish city states and pick up the rest of your relics from masteries/events and can easily be done with 1 or 2 missionaries.

The millitary path is the opposite. The AI will convert cities back so there is no point converting your distant lands cities until near the end of the age. So just put some missionaries at the ready when you want to trigger that legacy path and you're done

There are some policies which boost yeilds when you have cities following your religion, so likely optimal play involves playing missionary whack-a-mole, but as someone who dislikes that aspect of the game, I appreciate that I can only engage with the systems a couple of times during a playthrough.

If someone said missionaries in exploration was worse than they expected, I wouldn't be surprised. But honestly I find it better because it just doesn't matter. You could certainly improve exploration if you tweaked it though!

Is that statement for the basic version...or is the variance even too low when playing the founder edition?

Founders edition. I appreciate that they went deep with each civ, but what we have is nowhere near enough sadly.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

As someone who hasn't played yet, my biggest fear is the missionary minigame...which sounds like a worse version of what was already in Civ6 a chore. Sure, you might just not need to care in certain games respectively when not pursuing certain victory conditions, but how does it feel if you are in playthrough where it matters? Treasure fleets come close behind, but here if have come to the conclusion that you probably just set a target destination and forget until arrival (unless you are in war)

Honestly missionaries arne't as bad, though they do get repetitive at the end of the age:

I usually just pursue whatever Reliquarly belief i have to get that path completed, once finished, I usually station 2 missionares per each city for the Military Path (where you get more points from cities following your religion), and it's more tedious to keep pressing skip on these since the AI has a habit of converting your cities (though I guess I could just put them to sleep and wake them when I get the notification that a city has been converted)

 

[ThichN]

To me: Combat. Something about combat in the previews worried me. The commanders felt nice, but it looked like a lot of micromanagement.

After having played several games, combat is one of my favorite parts of the game. It is so fun, in fact, that despite an inner pledge to be peaceful, once I get surprise war declaration from an AI I have great fun steamrolling them. It's actually kind of a problem, ha. I go over my settlement cap because capturing cities is so satisfying.

I am especially fond of modern warfare, but all eras are extremely satisfying in this regard.

 

[Leucarum]

To me: Combat. Something about combat in the previews worried me. The commanders felt nice, but it looked like a lot of micromanagement.

After having played several games, combat is one of my favorite parts of the game. It is so fun, in fact, that despite an inner pledge to be peaceful, once I get surprise war declaration from an AI I have great fun steamrolling them. It's actually kind of a problem, ha. I go over my settlement cap because capturing cities is so satisfying.

I am especially fond of modern warfare, but all eras are extremely satisfying in this regard.

Agreed. It feels the most dynamic that combat ever has, the deity bonuses make the AI a valid threat at times if you don't prepare... Though I will say that stacking CS can make things a little less interesting.

 

[queenpea]

Things which turned out worse:
1) The modern era has the worst pacing issues in the game. Most modern civs may as well be blank as you win before using much of their uniques.
2) Micromanagement is definitely not as reduced as I'd hoped. Especially if war breaks out in modern things can really drag.

Modern Age needs a serious fix, and I'm worried that it's in the state that it's in because of a planned future age.

Some Modern Age buildings are labeled Ageless, while others are not. If none of these buildings are designed to be overbuilt, they should all be labeled Ageless. All of the points and UI in the Modern Age also reference "the next age," which I thought was a mistake at first or constrained by how the UI is coded in previous ages. In any case, it should be fixed. The Modern Age should communicate clearly that this is the last age, and the player is close to the game's end.

Culture Victory is way too easy and can be achieved way too quickly. From the player's standpoint, this creates a conflict: should I rush the culture victory or play the age out? Risk losing to pursue another victory path?

Ideology is annoying, and while I'm glad it's there, the choice should feel more impactful than it does. There is zero flavor to it, and it only leads to major wars (major wars, which are a lot of clicking and micro).

The Modern Age is my least favorite so far, which is too bad. I definitely have had the feeling "when can't this just end" a number of times now, which is a main problem with the series that I know the devs were hoping to fix in VII.

 

[Fluffball]

As someone who hasn't played yet, my biggest fear is the missionary minigame...which sounds like a worse version of what was already in Civ6 a chore. Sure, you might just not need to care in certain games respectively when not pursuing certain victory conditions, but how does it feel if you are in playthrough where it matters?

After hating the religion micro mini game form civ 6 I find religion in general pretty simple and not really worth thinking about too hard. Unless you want to focus on the religion path in the exploration age it is not even worth getting a religion at all and even then considering you can get relics from a variety of sources you can get away just making 1 temple and 3 or 4 missionaries then forgetting it.

 

[Leucarum]

Modern Age needs a serious fix, and I'm worried that it's in the state that it's in because of a planned future age.

Some Modern Age buildings are labeled Ageless, while others are not. If none of these buildings are designed to be overbuilt, they should all be labeled Ageless. All of the points and UI in the Modern Age also reference "the next age," which I thought was a mistake at first or constrained by how the UI is coded in previous ages. In any case, it should be fixed. The Modern Age should communicate clearly that this is the last age, and the player is close to the game's end.

Culture Victory is way too easy and can be achieved way too quickly. From the player's standpoint, this creates a conflict: should I rush the culture victory or play the age out? Risk losing to pursue another victory path?

Ideology is annoying, and while I'm glad it's there, the choice should feel more impactful than it does. There is zero flavor to it, and it only leads to major wars (major wars, which are a lot of clicking and micro).

The Modern Age is my least favorite so far, which is too bad. I definitely have had the feeling "when can't this just end" a number of times now, which is a main problem with the series that I know the devs were hoping to fix in VII.

If it wasn't for the achievements I honestly think I'd stop the game at exploration!

That said, if they didn't have the project instant victories and you could only win score victory I think it would go a long way to making modern a more engaging experience. The single minded race to your victory condition is what hits pacing hardest and creates that "do I really have to take one more turn" feeling.

I really don't want another age, snowballing is still a thing, and it gets worse with each successive age. Plus, if the game has to have another age worth of civs it is going to feel unfinished for a long time to come...

 

[UWHabs]

I agree with the modern age complaints. Initially, with them breaking up the game into 3 ages, I was hopeful that it meant they would give something special for each age, and actually for once have a "good" modern age. And while I do enjoy a part of the factory game, and i don't hate how ideologies function, the rest of the era is off. It goes too quick into industrialization and tanks, and given the end game, just because a beeline. The other ages you have a diversity, sure you might have some pieces you want to get to ASAP, but you can shift around and have a bit of leeway.

The civ switching is also a piece I got wrong. Initially I wasn't as big of a fan, but playing through, I think I really like it. I do think in some cases it feels a little like luck in how you unlock the civs (like I settle a random settlement and then get a popup that I unlocked someone because I settled on a plains tile). I wouldn't hate if each civ's unlock was a little tougher. Even just like on the Inca level - 3 settlements with 3+ mountains each, that kind of feels like an accomplishment. Starting around a bunch of Jade letting you unlock China is just meh. Give me more weird unlocks - kill 20 units with archer units to unlock XXX, Build 3 Dungeons with at least a +3 adjacency, have 3 commanders to level 7+, etc...

 

[Leucarum]

I agree with the modern age complaints. Initially, with them breaking up the game into 3 ages, I was hopeful that it meant they would give something special for each age, and actually for once have a "good" modern age. And while I do enjoy a part of the factory game, and i don't hate how ideologies function, the rest of the era is off. It goes too quick into industrialization and tanks, and given the end game, just because a beeline. The other ages you have a diversity, sure you might have some pieces you want to get to ASAP, but you can shift around and have a bit of leeway.

I had good hopes too for it. I was most worried about exploration, but I find myself enjoing that age. I'll be positive though and say that the ingredients of a good modern era are there. It's just that they served it severely undercooked...

For example combat in modern is genuinely multilayered and interesting. Air and sea power are good to integrate and it feels like you want more of a combined arms approach than just having superior units to your opponents. The only reason Millitary is stymied is that the legacy path is gated behind other civs picking an ideology which happens so late the other paths are already done, and in MP there isn't really an incentive to pick an ideology at all...

If they can fix the legacy paths, and I think they need to get rid of the victory projects TBH, modern will shape up a lot nicer...

The civ switching is also a piece I got wrong. Initially I wasn't as big of a fan, but playing through, I think I really like it. I do think in some cases it feels a little like luck in how you unlock the civs (like I settle a random settlement and then get a popup that I unlocked someone because I settled on a plains tile). I wouldn't hate if each civ's unlock was a little tougher. Even just like on the Inca level - 3 settlements with 3+ mountains each, that kind of feels like an accomplishment. Starting around a bunch of Jade letting you unlock China is just meh. Give me more weird unlocks - kill 20 units with archer units to unlock XXX, Build 3 Dungeons with at least a +3 adjacency, have 3 commanders to level 7+, etc...

The unlocks are definutely quirky. My bugbear are the ones which are clearly flavour with no relation to how the civ plays *cough*Spain*cough* - they have also been very buggy for me. Siam rarely unlocks even though I almost always meet the conditions (when do you not build 4 temples? It's a good candidate for making unlocks harder IMO), and frequently other civs which I unlocked aren't selectable - even ones which should have unlocked based on my leader/civ combinations. So I find it difficult to have an opinion on unlocks since it's been a bit of a crapshoot as to whether the system works at all for me.