What do you like about Civilization VII?

[greenOak]

The changes to armies are a huge QoL improvement. I rarely did domination/conquest in civ 5/6 because of my hatred of moving so many units around the map but I could see myself waging more wars in civ 7.

The separation of cities and towns looks like it will add a layer of complexity to empire management as well as possibly reign in the power of rapid early expansion.

The resource system looks very interesting and will hopefully be difficult but rewarding for players who master it.

The complexity and micromanagement of civ 6 (and quite frankly in terms of micro civs 2-4 have much more) mentioned by OP was a plus not a negative in my opinion. While there are features that I'm skeptical of, the only change I really don't like is the no workers/builders thing. I'm optimistic though that managing the resource system will replace the strategic depth lost by the elimination of builders/workers.

 

[kryat]

They had me with boats in rivers. They could get a lot wrong otherwise in the game, but with that alone I’m buying.

 

[Leefizzy]

-City Sprawl Graphics
-Graphics in General
-The potential for meaningful conflict vs AI due to less micro that only a Human can meaningfully exploit/utilize

The feeding city system is a particular one that I'm excited for, since I always liked it and the only games that directly did it I can remember were Stellaris, Endless Space2 and from what I hear, the MegaCity strat/exploit from early Imperator.
The alternatives were importing raw goods from subject nations like Victoria or a built up city helping others build up like Civ6, or Millennia for maybe both of them, but I like the one that 7 is going for in particular.

 

[civPeter]

So far I really like the new graphic style. A bit more realistic than VI. I did not really care for the graphic style of VI. I actually like the Collectors Edition (but not the price of course). I do wish you could have more than 1UPT.. but otherwise I am pretty excited so far.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I do wish you could have more than 1UPT.. but otherwise I am pretty excited so far.

At least you can for the purposes of movement, hopefully less shuffling around will be required.

 

[Olle Wernersson]

So far I really like the new graphic style. A bit more realistic than VI. I did not really care for the graphic style of VI. I actually like the Collectors Edition (but not the price of course). I do wish you could have more than 1UPT.. but otherwise I am pretty excited so far.

The graphics do indeed look great!

Regarding the 1UPT, I am concerned about potential unit blocking. I never found it amusing or realistic when other scouts blocked workers or similar situations like that.

 

[bite]

I have been trying to get my head around it for the last couple of days, I'll need to know what the full Civ Spread and what an Era change looks like before landing on it but I am impressed so far.

 

[Dotsworthy]

Apart from the civ switching which I'm unsure about and the presentation of the leaders which doesn't look nearly as compelling as V and VI, I have liked all the changes made so far.

I was surprised to see builders/workers removed entirely but I think it will remove a lot of busywork from turns. It sounds like they have tried to reduce pointless clicking for the sake of it, which I like.

Visually it looks nice, they've clearly tried to recapture V's more realistic look. City spread looked interesting, hopefully the map doesn't become too cluttered by the late game. And I really like that units are fighting each other in-between turns, it's a little change but it will make the map look much more dynamic.

 

[Krajzen]

Literally everything except civ switching

 

[acluewithout]

Lots of good stuff.

On balance, it seems very much like Civ 6 but with some changes directed at sorting some real pain points in Civ 6.

* Cities. Having differentiation between Cities & Towns is a good idea - better than the Civ 6 solution just endless running projects in non core cities. Reworking district, improvements and builders could be very good, but depends how it’s done (see below).

* Combat. Lots of good QOL changes. I’m a bit sad about not leveling up units, but I think moving that to a general, and re-tuning the 1UPT v unit stacking could be amazing (and Civ 6 had already done a good job mixing 1UPT and stacking).

* Diplomacy. The diplo influence looks like the best bits of Civ 6’s diplomacy system. The changes to city states look good too. Interested to see if we have anything like envoys or something new and see how spies and those things work.

* Evolution . Civs ‘evolving’ over time looks potentially really good - whether it is good or not will be how well FXS can tune it, so it feels like your Civ has continuity and evolves and not like you’re making some Frankenstein’s monster civilization.

I’m keen for more information on how Ages work and how you interact with the map esp tweaks to districts and improvements. And there’s some other stuff that I’m not sure about.

* Ages. At the moment, it seems like Ages may feel very disconnected and you might lose the feeling of playing all of history. eg it seems like you access different tech trees for different ages, meaning there’s not huge tech tree running from ancient history to modern / future. That would kinda suck - I love scrolling / seeing one huge tree - it has a lot of grander and ‘wow’ factor.

* Map. My other concern is just there is much less emphasis on ‘playing the map’ like Civ 6, and much less hard situational ‘spikes’ choices.

* Currency, Resource. I liked Civ 6’s approach to currencies, two similar but different ‘science’ currencies (science and culture), and three similar but different ‘but units and stuff’ currencies (hammers, gold, faith). I also liked amenities and strategic resources generally and the interaction with housing. I hope Civ 7 keeps the best of these systems and creates more interesting tradeoffs but it’s really unclear how the game’s economy will work.

Overall, I think Civ games are much less interesting when choices boil down to ‘oh, I’m doing science, so I’ll pick the scientific government; oops, someone declared war on me, I’ll just switch to the combat government’. It’s a better game when the choices are more complex or have messy or situational trade-offs, eg ‘eh, I’m at war - the military government will give me a combat boost, but the industry government will help me build units and I can use a policy card to still boost combat, but the military government doesn’t need the combat policy card which would give me space to slot an economic policy so I can keep my science going’.

I’m mostly leaning positive or if not at least curious. I’m pretty sure FXS realised ages / changing civs would be controversial, and could potentially mess up the game given past / other experiences, and so have thought this stuff through. It makes me think of Civ 6 when they brought back disasters or implemented loyalty or the World Congress
/ Diplo Victory - the acknowledged this stuff hadn’t worked in previous games, and so worked really hard to make them work in C6 (and, IMO, they did work pretty well in C6).

So, yeah. Mostly looking forward to Civ 7. Much more than I thought I would, frankly

 

[thecrazyscot]

I like that they are trying something different. I think I got burnt out on the formula for the past few games after a lot of time with Civ 6, so I'm excited that they are shaking up the fundamental structure of a game via Ages, map expansion, and civilization switching. If they are tackling the fundamental problems plaguing late game that's a huge deal. But we need to see more about what happens during an Age Transition and just how much of your hard work is removed when starting the next Age. Definite feelsbadman potential.
The updated terrain looks amazing, with a height system and navigable rivers.
I like what they seem to be doing with city-states/independent peoples - seems much more dynamic and player-influenced.

I'm unsure about the RPG-lite Leader system, with all those Attribute trees to upgrade throughout the game. Is it just going to be a min-max mechanic or will it actually feel meaningful in pursuing dynamic strategies?
There's a bunch of important, but ancillary systems which appear to be in the game, but I don't know if I'm going to care for (Religion, Espionage, etc). I don't think Civ 6 got them right, but if they are in the "33% keep" category since a lot of other stuff is changing I'd be a bit bummed.
Combat logistics problems and tediousness could be nicely addressed by the Commander system, or not. I want to see more.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

I like that Ages are basically bottlenecks, and that is historically accurate, and a thing that I've been asking for for AGES.
This is a great decision they made.
This will pave the way for prolonging the game starting year to pre-diluvian times, if they wanted to.
Because now, complete different tech trees are a thing.
Yo might find a lost city, like Atlantis, and find some forgotten technologies of the past, that will allow your civ, to advance to Industrial Age.
Or a set of techs, that allows you to build ships that do not sink in the Ocean.
Or a clock....

How many civs got busted in the Great deluge that we never heard of and never will probably?
We basically know of Atlantis, and maybe Lanka? Athens? Sea people?
None of these survived. All perished. Except for the lucky twelve guys and a girl? (two womens?) that managed to survive
in order to pass the test of time and start a new civilization in the old land of what is now Egypt....

Civ swapping is a brutal choice that had to be made in order to make bottlenecks functional.
Of course HK has done it before and it didn't work for them as expected. But they didn't have a core fan base like we
do. to point them in the right direction.

And I think that if they manage to get the Crusaders right... we might have a good game...
What is the Jupiters temple in Rome doing? Does it spawn Early Crusaders swordsman?
What does Persia has as antique temples-complexes?
Religion had generals in Antiquity, so the Baal temple, converted into a Jupiter temple, in Lebanon, should, in my mind,
spawn Great Generals or commanders, with unique abilities.
Religion should be bloody spectacular to work with.
Not just some passive bonuses like in civ VI where the Oracle of Delphi would give a discount to Great persons...

First it was open to everyone, and never was for just a single state. It was indipendent.
It had Greek hero statues but as a Roman citizen, would enter Delphi, and pay a tribute, it could receive an advise.
Should I go to war with....
Should I trade with...
Where should I go to boost my economy, which God should I make an offer to?

Sacrifice 10 virgins to... I dont know... Apollo... will give your ships invulnerability to weather for 20 turns...
bloody religion stuff that makes sense... i.e no sense at all to the normal average human mind...

 

[DukeSammael]

I like the new army system as presented.

It's ridiculous that we didn't get navigable rivers sooner.

I love that workers/builders and chopping are no longer a thing. Hated chopping with a fashion, such a cheap mechanic - and counter-immersive.

I like the new sprawling city style, the growth and town mechanics.

I love the new map. Never liked the muddy style of V, cartoony look of VI was better but a bit too much, I think this is the optimal look.

I love that we are getting some new leaders and civs that we previously unrepresented.

I like that Amenities from VI are no longer a thing, never was a fan. Let's see if Happiness is not equally problematic.

 

[tiamats4esgares]

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?

I literally just posted in another thread the scout ability and less tribal village randomness.

I didn't realize you don't start with a warrior. I like games where you kind of get to pick what you start with (like Beyond Earth I think does this, for example). The map/unit graphics are OK, but the unexplored part looks super ugly like it's a board game or something and completely breaks immersion. The leaders look absolutely terrible, and I don't like that they don't face the player, and the UI is absolutely horrible.

There's a million other negative things about the game. A few positives isn't going to make this a purchase for me with how many downsides it has.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I never want to micromanage workers or citizen placement again, so I'm all for those changes.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I never want to micromanage workers or citizen placement again, so I'm all for those changes.

I don't want to offend with this question but if don't want to micromanage things like workers and citizens/cities, why are you playing the Civilization series?

 

[Professor Phobo]

I don't want to offend with this question but if don't want to micromanage things like workers and citizens/cities, why are you playing the Civilization series?

For the stuff I do like? In general I prefer a smaller number of difficult, meaningful decisions, than a larger number of incremental decisions. There's a balance to be struck on that, and much of it comes down to how the user interface handles it, to be fair. I'd be happy with an "Empire Infrastructure" tab where I had to buy roads between my cities, for example, I just don't want to have to constantly babysit a worker whose pathing keeps breaking because someone parked a missionary on his route.

I'd rather permanently allocate a population to work a particular tile, for example, than be able to constantly move them around. It feels more like a meaningful long-term decision that has an opportunity cost, and I prefer those over the kind of optimization puzzles the prior civilian placement stuff was all about.

Strategy games often have a tension between giving the player control (good) and giving the player busywork (bad) and there's always going to be trade-offs in either direction.

 

[Disgustipated]

Yeah I'll miss builders (though not necessarily workers). I considered it a mini game to try to optimize my cities.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I don't want to offend with this question but if don't want to micromanage things like workers and citizens/cities, why are you playing the Civilization series?

don't worry, you're be microing other things instead.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

It's ridiculous that we didn't get navigable rivers sooner.

Civ II, man.