What do you like about Civilization VII?

[Olle Wernersson]

I appreciate that Civilization VII aims to reduce the overwhelming complexity present in Civilization VI. In the previous version, the constant accumulation of cities and tasks to micromanage became burdensome to the point where macromanagement no longer felt rewarding. This overwhelming sensation often caused me to lose interest before completing the game.

Here are some specific aspects that I enjoy:

• Graphics: The map and units are highly detailed, creating a more immersive 3D experience.
• New Scout Ability: The addition of a scout ability to construct a wooden lookout tower is a great feature, allowing for improved visibility.
• Reduced Randomness: I appreciate the removal of tribal villages providing random rewards, which adds more predictability and control.
• No Automatic Warrior Start: Not starting with a warrior better aligns with my preferred approach to Civilization. Beginning the game with an automatic warrior suggests a readiness for conflict, even when there is no necessity or justification for it.

What do you like about Civilization VII?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

I like a lot of the changes, actually. I like how they are handling resources. I like the graphics of the map. I like the crises that end ages, and the idea of ages in general (although not culture swapping specifically). I like the fact that civs get unique civics. I like that India and (not totally confirmed, but indicated) China are getting chronologically deblobbed. I like that the Normans are (hinted at being) in. On the whole, I'm more positive than negative.

 

[Zaarin]

I like pretty much everything I've seen so far except the leader models and diplo screen. I'm even warming up to changing civs because I like some of the implications and associated mechanics. I think I love the diorama-inspired terrain most of all.

 

[AriochIV]

I also think that everything looks very interesting, except the lackluster leader models.

 

[TheGrayFox]

The Graphics look good (besides some UI and leaders), navigatible rivers are cool..... that's about it

 

[Leucarum]

The serious attempt to contain snowballing really deserves credit. And it looks like there are a lot of incremental changes which are really solid like the commanders, and eliminating builders!

I have my doubts about the civ switching feeling good... But I can completely understand why it's in there if you take an hollistic view of the design...

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I like pretty much everything I've seen so far except the leader models and diplo screen. I'm even warming up to changing civs because I like some of the implications and associated mechanics. I think I love the diorama-inspired terrain most of all.

Very much this. I think if people focused more on the actual mechanics at work with the civ switching and how it fits into the overall gameplay loop , they'd be more open to it. But I think a lot of people are hung up on the optics of Egypt turning into Mongolia.

 

[seasnake]

I like everything except the eternal leader disconnected from their actual civ. The change of civ should involve a new leader emerging to lead you into the future. Unlocked attributes of your past leader should carry over, but they should have a new era-focused ability to complement the new civ. Then at the end, you should have a Mt. Rushmore monument you can build in the Modern Era that depicts your three leaders through the ages.

 

[LastSword]

1. Removing XP from units. It is truely big. It may implicate that human player will actually loose units to AI. In previous editions loosing a highly experienced unit was a disaster (feel bad moment). Now the attachment is gone. Even if that is not the case, unit promotions is a good riddance anyway.

2. Layered eras. I hope they will keep game interesting through all the content. I don't think I have reached modern era in 95% of games in civ6/civ5.

3. No traditional barbarians.

4. Graphics.

5. No workers/builders.

 

[AriochIV]

I like everything except the eternal leader disconnected from their actual civ. The change of civ should involve a new leader emerging to lead you into the future. Unlocked attributes of your past leader should carry over, but they should have a new era-focused ability to complement the new civ. Then at the end, you should have a Mt. Rushmore monument you can build in the Modern Era that depicts your three leaders through the ages.

I can see why they did that, though. If leaders changed as well as civilizations, then at the start of a new Era it would be a completely new game, and you'd have no idea which nation was which, and how your previous interactions applied.

 

[Dark_Jedi06]

I like everything except the eternal leader disconnected from their actual civ. The change of civ should involve a new leader emerging to lead you into the future. Unlocked attributes of your past leader should carry over, but they should have a new era-focused ability to complement the new civ. Then at the end, you should have a Mt. Rushmore monument you can build in the Modern Era that depicts your three leaders through the ages.

Not gonna lie, you didn't have me until the end with the Mt. Rushmore idea. I actually love that.

 

[Unit 371]

I love the city sprawl and commander mechanics aimed at reducing tedious micromanagement of units during war. Campaigns being divided into Ages with specific Crisis sound interesting and I think will provide lots of modding potential.

 

[Olle Wernersson]

The serious attempt to contain snowballing really deserves credit. And it looks like there are a lot of incremental changes which are really solid like the commanders, and eliminating builders!

I have my doubts about the civ switching feeling good... But I can completely understand why it's in there if you take an hollistic view of the design...

I hope that snowballing will be effectively contained, as I believe it will lead to more dynamic and realistic gameplay. The commanders look great; I'll likely use them more like governors and focus on defensive resources, given my playstyle

I can understand how civilization switching might feel odd, especially if you're playing as China, which has largely maintained its identity despite undergoing significant changes throughout history.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I really like the sound of towns, commanders, the new trade/resource system, the new district / city building system, the unique civic trees, independent peoples, lack of builders, and the influence/diplomacy side of things. These are the main things that stood out, aside from the graphics and navigable rivers. So pretty much everything, if we're being honest.

Reservations are mainly centered around the big three pieces of Ages, Civ switching and crises - I think the idea of ages and crises are good in theory, but we haven't seen enough to judge properly, and they're certainly mechanics that could go wrong.

Ultimately though, I'm just pleased that they're trying something different to solve some of the longstanding issues with the series.

 

[CaesarCS]

I love the graphics of the map. I also am looking forward to the army system where you need a commander. The rest, I’m waiting for more information.

 

[Guandao]

I like the visuals of the map and cities. I like Hatshepsut and Ashoka returning as leaders. I like the inclusion of the Shawnee and Tecumseh.

I'm ambivalent on the Civ changing each era, having only three eras, the leaders standing opposite each other, Ben Franklin and Confucius being leaders.

 

[Xandinho]

I really like almost everything I've seen so far. The graphics are beautiful. I love that civs have a lot of unique attributes. Urban expansion is a huge improvement compared to Civ6. Diplomacy, combat and economics seem to be much better than in previous editions.

I'm not a fan of the new civ in each new age, but it's something I can get used to and maybe even end up liking if it's well implemented. Leaders not leading their civs I don't think I'll get used to it.

 

[Leucarum]

I hope that snowballing will be effectively contained, as I believe it will lead to more dynamic and realistic gameplay. The commanders look great; I'll likely use them more like governors and focus on defensive resources, given my playstyle

I can understand how civilization switching might feel odd, especially if you're playing as China, which has largely maintained its identity despite undergoing significant changes throughout history.

I think it will work out fine but it does mean giving up the flimsy pretense of civ as a history sim which will be tough for a lot of people... Myself included

 

[Thormodr]

Many good changes like navigable rivers. Cities starting as towns looks intriguing. Elevation has been added to the game. Also, some of the new Civs sound interesting.

All tempered with the Civ switching, though. Also don't like the leader centric mechanic, either.

 

[Haig]

- Graphics and animation looks amazing
- Removal of some micromanagement
- Commanders
- Diplomacy sounds good
- Independents
- Three fleshed out eras, I feel I will be starting many games from 2nd era
- Small cool details like scout's lookout tower, fortified soldiers making actual fortifications on map etc.