What needs to be done?

[rocksinmypath]

I’m starting to feel more and more like this project is toast. I see so many fundamental problems with Civ 7 that I don’t think there’s any realistic suggestion I can make in the hopes that it will be set on the right path. I’m not approaching from the angle that a lot of people who have been critical about the game have. I appreciate the courageous leap Firaxis took to try to tackle some of the biggest problems the previous games had. Most people have been critical about how Civ 7 is too different from previous games, but my criticism is almost the exact opposite. I think Firaxis didn’t commit hard enough to the new paradigm it introduced, and Civ 7 includes so many features that are at odds with what the new ages system should be about.

I see the ages as an opportunity to provide three distinct gameplay experiences, but Civ 7 feels more like one game played three times. As the game currently is, I have no desire to ever play beyond Antiquity. Not because I can’t tolerate the supposed historical inaccuracies inherent to civ-switching or because I feel like I’m being denied an opportunity to lead my beloved Antiquity civ to eternal glory. I’m just not interested in engaging with features of the game that were clearly designed for Antiquity in an environment in which they obviously don’t fit. For instance, why would I feel excited about re-allying my vassal city states from the previous age? Many of the elements that make the Antiquity IP mini-game fun don’t exist in Exploration. I don’t need to scout out the map quickly to find out where all the tribes live. I don’t need to think too hard about how to best spend my precious influence or how to get more of it. In fact, I can just hoard a bunch at the end of Antiquity and dump it on IPs at the start of Exploration. This is one of those things that make me think Civ 7 is doomed. It shows that the team doesn’t have a consistent vision. Yield carryovers make decisions you made in the previous age overshadow the ones you will make in the new one. This plays a significant role in making latter ages feel boring, yet, some people claim the game needs to do more of that to ensure continuity. The game doesn’t lack continuity. It lacks the ability to adapt to the ever-changing in-game environment in order to provide the most appropriate gameplay experience given the environment. The ages system was supposed to be that brilliant master stroke that allowed the game to undergo radical transformation when it needs to. That vision has been ruined by several competing goals, including the goal of inter-age continuity. I’ll maybe do a more detailed write-up on this later.

 

[UWHabs]

I know it's subjective, but I really like making informed important strategic decisions. Civ6 with its shady mechanics (religion spread, loyalty, tourism) and micromanagement (chopping, policy swapping, etc.) doesn't really ring the bell to me. Civ7 is much more clear in that way (well, except for settlement connection mechanics, they are awful) and even though it could be oversimplified in some areas, that's something it will clearly lose with expansions (hope to not overcomplication like 3 previous games in the franchise).

The good in civ 6 for culture was that there were many paths you could take. You got passive tourism from wonders, you could play the great person game, you could play the rock band game, you could play the appeal/national park/seaside resort game. Sure, the actual math was tricky, but generally speaking, there were a lot of varied inputs to it, it did something people don't understand, and the number went up. That's still better for me than running around the map to collect things. Although I would say the running around the map to collect things would make more sense if it actually was like a little Indiana Jones mini-game. I'd almost rather send my explorer to a university, have him tell me where a find is, and then my explorer has like a quest to chase it and bring it back. And then you research the next quest. Rather than now when it's just scrolling around the map to see where a goody hut essentially has popped up.

I’m starting to feel more and more like this project is toast. I see so many fundamental problems with Civ 7 that I don’t think there’s any realistic suggestion I can make in the hopes that it will be set on the right path. I’m not approaching from the angle that a lot of people who have been critical about the game have. I appreciate the courageous leap Firaxis took to try to tackle some of the biggest problems the previous games had. Most people have been critical about how Civ 7 is too different from previous games, but my criticism is almost the exact opposite. I think Firaxis didn’t commit hard enough to the new paradigm it introduced, and Civ 7 includes so many features that are at odds with what the new ages system should be about.

I see the ages as an opportunity to provide three distinct gameplay experiences, but Civ 7 feels more like one game played three times. As the game currently is, I have no desire to ever play beyond Antiquity. Not because I can’t tolerate the supposed historical inaccuracies inherent to civ-switching or because I feel like I’m being denied an opportunity to lead my beloved Antiquity civ to eternal glory. I’m just not interested in engaging with features of the game that were clearly designed for Antiquity in an environment in which they obviously don’t fit. For instance, why would I feel excited about re-allying my vassal city states from the previous age? Many of the elements that make the Antiquity IP mini-game fun don’t exist in Exploration. I don’t need to scout out the map quickly to find out where all the tribes live. I don’t need to think too hard about how to best spend my precious influence or how to get more of it. In fact, I can just hoard a bunch at the end of Antiquity and dump it on IPs at the start of Exploration. This is one of those things that make me think Civ 7 is doomed. It shows that the team doesn’t have a consistent vision. Yield carryovers make decisions you made in the previous age overshadow the ones you will make in the new one. This plays a significant role in making latter ages feel boring, yet, some people claim the game needs to do more of that to ensure continuity. The game doesn’t lack continuity. It lacks the ability to adapt to the ever-changing in-game environment in order to provide the most appropriate gameplay experience given the environment. The ages system was supposed to be that brilliant master stroke that allowed the game to undergo radical transformation when it needs to. That vision has been ruined by several competing goals, including the goal of inter-age continuity. I’ll maybe do a more detailed write-up on this later.

When they announced things, they announced that they could have changing mechanisms for the ages. I kind of wish they leaned into that.
Like, for example, what if antiquity CS was the same as it was now, but in exploration you didn't have to start from scratch and just race to them, but instead you kept the alliance from before, but maybe we bring back something of the system of dumping influence into them like we had back in civ 6 (not exactly the same, sure), some way to flip control of a CS from someone else. So then antiquity becomes a race to secure them, but exploration now you have a battle to keep control. And then maybe in the modern age, you find some completely different way to handle them. Give me a system where my influence degrades over time, where I have to run quests to increase, and where I can pressure someone else's CS.
Similarly while maybe the whole "bring a copy of the resource back" in trade routes is ok in antiquity, in exploration maybe that's another piece that should have changed up. I don't know how how exactly, but if you at least change up how things work, then it doesn't feel like you have to remake things from scratch each time. Even something like individually slotting resources IMO gets like a boring micro game by the middle of the exploration era, it's only when I create a new city that I basically worry about shifting resources around.

 

[GIO888]

As a veteran player of all previous Civ iterations, reading this thread convinces me even more not to get Civ VII, and its dawning on me maybe even not after "several" patches - or ever.

Which is really, really saddening.

 

[Leucarum]

The good in civ 6 for culture was that there were many paths you could take. You got passive tourism from wonders, you could play the great person game, you could play the rock band game, you could play the appeal/national park/seaside resort game. Sure, the actual math was tricky, but generally speaking, there were a lot of varied inputs to it, it did something people don't understand, and the number went up. That's still better for me than running around the map to collect things. Although I would say the running around the map to collect things would make more sense if it actually was like a little Indiana Jones mini-game. I'd almost rather send my explorer to a university, have him tell me where a find is, and then my explorer has like a quest to chase it and bring it back. And then you research the next quest. Rather than now when it's just scrolling around the map to see where a goody hut essentially has popped up.

It's a general issue with Civ7 that with the goal of making ages distinct mechanically, we've ended up having our options narrowed. That railroading feeling people are talking about... I suspect Civ7 needs to broadly move towards greater player agency. Both the changes I want most (optional civ switching and a choice of legacy paths each age) are related to that. Culture is just the most obvious example IMO....

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's a general issue with Civ7 that with the goal of making ages distinct mechanically, we've ended up having our options narrowed. That railroading feeling people are talking about... I suspect Civ7 needs to broadly move towards greater player agency. Both the changes I want most (optional civ switching and a choice of legacy paths each age) are related to that. Culture is just the most obvious example IMO....

I don't see any luck of player agency in Civ7, actually I see more of it than in previous games. I think we've discussed this already. If you feel obligated to complete all the legacy paths, you probably limit your game variety (although I still think it's higher than in Civ6), but if you perceive legacy paths as optional, player agency in Civ7 is really strong.

I look at legacy paths as side quests. For example in my current game as play as Isabella and my primary goal for Exploration age was to settle near natural wonders, while gaining as many settlements as possible at the same time. I did all the things necessary for legacy paths - placed specialists to good tiles, worked treasure resources, spread my religion to my distant land settlements and city-states (the belief I managed to get), but I didn't delay any of the legacy paths or somehow else focused on them. It was more a background empire development work than a primary goal.

As I said before, to me it's mostly a matter of how the game communicates legacy paths. That's why I think they shouldn't shorten the age (so no pressure to delay them), they shouldn't be used for era score or score victory. Just put them in the place of side quests they are.

P.S. Also, speaking about variety and legacy paths, at least religious path has two modes and I often switch between them in different games. If I manage to get good basic belief (i.e. +2 Influence from foreign settlements, +1 from yours), I sometimes set religious spread as my exploration goal to keep the belief effect in modern. That way it becomes on of the main quests to me.

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

I think we can all agree Civ7 did not meet the mark for many in here, and even those who like the game, like me, see room for improvement.

The last few months we've got a big patch once a month, changing balance, changing era change mechanics, maps etc.

Now, if this continues, what do you think is the major part(s) of the game that needs improvement, or changes?

• More and better maps? Or are you content with the recent additions?
• More civs? Which in that case?
• Addition of scenarios? Which in that case?
• Better modding tools? Better modding documentation?
• Removal of Denuvo? I know some see this as a must, looking at you @Dale , any other takers?
• Changes to the age system (I think removal is probably not in the cards, but changes definitely could be?), if so, which would you like?
• Balance? It's getting better, is it satisfactory for you now, or close to it?
• Pricing? Not a part of the game per se, but the game is costly, too costly for some.

Let's give Firaxis something to chew on.

Its pretty obvious that the main gripes (based on the most common core issues mentioned), is that the era system is trash.
Civ switching should not be in the game either, unless you only get to switch to historical successors (like Holy Roman Empire > Germany).
Then finally the gimmicky mechanics, like the trash victory conditions and gimmicky legacy path conditions, who at their very coor feel extremely game'y and like an MMO quest ("collect 8 boar arses").

Only when those are fixed will I touch the game.
I can live with all the other things you mention here, but the core game is too trash for me as it stands to even be worth picking up.

 

[UWHabs]

I don't see any luck of player agency in Civ7, actually I see more of it than in previous games. I think we've discussed this already. If you feel obligated to complete all the legacy paths, you probably limit your game variety (although I still think it's higher than in Civ6), but if you perceive legacy paths as optional, player agency in Civ7 is really strong.

I look at legacy paths as side quests. For example in my current game as play as Isabella and my primary goal for Exploration age was to settle near natural wonders, while gaining as many settlements as possible at the same time. I did all the things necessary for legacy paths - placed specialists to good tiles, worked treasure resources, spread my religion to my distant land settlements and city-states (the belief I managed to get), but I didn't delay any of the legacy paths or somehow else focused on them. It was more a background empire development work than a primary goal.

As I said before, to me it's mostly a matter of how the game communicates legacy paths. That's why I think they shouldn't shorten the age (so no pressure to delay them), they shouldn't be used for era score or score victory. Just put them in the place of side quests they are.

P.S. Also, speaking about variety and legacy paths, at least religious path has two modes and I often switch between them in different games. If I manage to get good basic belief (i.e. +2 Influence from foreign settlements, +1 from yours), I sometimes set religious spread as my exploration goal to keep the belief effect in modern. That way it becomes on of the main quests to me.

I think having the ages shorten a little due to them can make some sense, as I think you do want something to sort of control how the age lasts so you don't have everyone spamming future tech 20 times at the end. But yeah, I think it would be better to smooth it out. The problem you run into now is if you pile them up, you can go from the age being at like 55% to already being at the second level of the crisis within a few turns. I'd rather see a system where maybe every time you hit a path along one of the milestones, maybe it just makes the turn counter run like 10% faster. So once all 4 paths are complete, your age is going like 1 or 1.5% age progress per turn. But at least you don't have the jumps, and you don't have to micromanage when you cash in fleets to stay at 29 points until the 10 turn left counter.

 

[Leucarum]

I don't see any luck of player agency in Civ7, actually I see more of it than in previous games. I think we've discussed this already. If you feel obligated to complete all the legacy paths, you probably limit your game variety (although I still think it's higher than in Civ6), but if you perceive legacy paths as optional, player agency in Civ7 is really strong

I mean, we've been over this before as you said so I think we'll have to agree to disagree. As things stand turning them off makes the game an aimless drag, but leaving them in makes it railroaded. If we have the same goals every time we play I can't see the game surviving. Look at Civ6, with many many ways to approach each victory condition as the A+ student they should be copying.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I mean, we've been over this before as you said so I think we'll have to agree to disagree. As things stand turning them off makes the game an aimless drag, but leaving them in makes it railroaded. If we have the same goals every time we play I can't see the game surviving. Look at Civ6, with many many ways to approach each victory condition as the A+ student they should be copying.

I actually thing Civ6 is much worse here, because you have to choose a victory condition early on and focus all your game towards it, that's railroading to me.

In the example above, in Civ7 I set my exploration goal to settle as many natural wonders as I can. This goal is totally independent from victory conditions or legacy paths, but successful completion of this goal will contribute to any victory I'll chose in Modern. That's the freedom I don't have in Civ6.

 

[Leucarum]

I actually thing Civ6 is much worse here, because you have to choose a victory condition early on and focus all your game towards it, that's railroading to me.

In the example above, in Civ7 I set my exploration goal to settle as many natural wonders as I can. This goal is totally independent from victory conditions or legacy paths, but successful completion of this goal will contribute to any victory I'll chose in Modern. That's the freedom I don't have in Civ6.

I'd rather not take over a separate thread here. I hear what you are saying, but Civ6 gives many ways to try to do each victory condition which aren't age-locked and which you can mix and match. For me that is far more of a contribution to replayability. If you don't like a particular part of a path you can also ignore it in 6. For me 7 needs that flexibility. I understand that it isn't an issue for you, but I doubt I will stick with 7 in the long term without it. I already haven't played in the last week. This month I probably spent more time arguing over how to fix it than playing it at this point which is quite depressing... And probably a sign I should back off for a while.

 

[Evolena]

What are the several ways to achieve each of the Civ 6 victories, beside the ones for cultural? (I may not have played enough to be able to identify them)

 

[Leucarum]

What are the several ways to achieve each of the Civ 6 victories, beside the ones for cultural? (I may not have played enough to be able to identify them)

Culture is the most varied as you say. Plenty of different ways to accumulate science to push towards a science victory. Millitary varies dramatically over the course of the game. Religion is the least varied. It's as broken in 6 as it is in 7. And if I'm being fair to the counter argument, I'd forgotten diplomatic existed lol.

 

[0urBall]

Military is quite 1-dimensional tbf, as it's always capture (and keep) the capitals of the AIs. Every time.
Diplomatic in 6 is also 1-dimensional, but that's due to how easy it is to see the patterns of how the AI votes, and manipulate that.
Agree with you on Science, and Religion

 

[queenpea]

Civ VI also has a true score victory, which isn't something we can really honestly say for VII.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'd rather not take over a separate thread here. I hear what you are saying, but Civ6 gives many ways to try to do each victory condition which aren't age-locked and which you can mix and match. For me that is far more of a contribution to replayability. If you don't like a particular part of a path you can also ignore it in 6. For me 7 needs that flexibility. I understand that it isn't an issue for you, but I doubt I will stick with 7 in the long term without it. I already haven't played in the last week. This month I probably spent more time arguing over how to fix it than playing it at this point which is quite depressing... And probably a sign I should back off for a while.

Yes, I understand your point of view. As I said, it's totally subjective.

 

[Leucarum]

Civ VI also has a true score victory, which isn't something we can really honestly say for VII.

Ironically I think that would maybe be the best possible for Civ7 since it would at least give modern space to breathe!

 

[vorlon_mi]

I agree with the sentiment in the last dozen posts, about more than one way to achieve victory.

I'll agree a bit with @stealth_nsk that legacy paths in Antiquity and Exploration are not "essential"; I will point out that those paths represent the actual victory conditions in Modern.

In Civ6, several victory conditions (VC) had more than one way to reach them. Cultural is the clearest, as @UWHabs wrote in post 42. Diplomatic has lots of ways to accumulate diplo points, including crisis assistance, scored competitions, building wonders, and yes, the actual votes in WC. For Science, some folks spam campuses while others focus on military and pillage those campuses. Some of the outrageous early science victories documented on these forums involve SO. MUCH. PILLAGING. Religious VC has only a little variation, whether one emphasizes theological combat or not. Yes, the Military victory in Civ6 (like Civ5) is just "take and hold these X cities".

In Civ7, all of the VCs has one key element to achieve: Build the World's Fair; Build Project Ivy, Launch the Crewed Space Mission, plant the World Bank in all X cities. For two of these (Science, Military), one has to research nearly the whole Modern Tech Tree to unlock the victory wonder, similar to Civ6. For three of these (all except Science), the player needs to accumulate N of a specific game item: artifacts, factory resources, conquered cities.

How to improve? What needs to be done? IMHO, both the Science and Military victories are similar to the spirit of previous Civ games. Science requires doing a LOT of research and buidling specific projects. In the early games, these were spaceship parts; in CIv6, they were specific missions. Military involes doing a lot of conquering, across all of the Civ games. I like the idea of an Economic victory, so I would like a more direct link to trade income or gold-per-turn. Currently, the player uses imported resources to fill their factories, but it's not mandatory. The Cultural victory is a race to artifacts, which feels "less than" past cultural VCs. In contrast to cultural VCs in Civ3, Civ4, Civ5, and Civ6, which involved investment of effort and resources ALL through the ages. A race in Modern is weaker. I would favor something that involved culture accumulated in the earlier ages, perhaps wonders built, as well as the yields and achievements in Modern.

And a better victory screen sequence! Maybe a mini-map replay, or summary of your achievements (wonders built, enemies slain, settlements founded and conquered).

 

[Xandinho]

I'd rather not take over a separate thread here. I hear what you are saying, but Civ6 gives many ways to try to do each victory condition which aren't age-locked and which you can mix and match. For me that is far more of a contribution to replayability. If you don't like a particular part of a path you can also ignore it in 6. For me 7 needs that flexibility. I understand that it isn't an issue for you, but I doubt I will stick with 7 in the long term without it. I already haven't played in the last week. This month I probably spent more time arguing over how to fix it than playing it at this point which is quite depressing... And probably a sign I should back off for a while.

Even the scientific victory, which I used to think was the most linear one in Civ6, could still be achieved in several different ways: by focusing on recruiting Great Scientists, becoming the suzerain of Scientific city-states, or obtaining Eurekas—either by completing their small missions or through espionage. The cultural victory, which was my favorite, was even more flexible.

So yes, Civ6 allowed players to follow various strategies to achieve victory, and that greatly contributed to its overall replayability. Civ7 needs serious work in this area. I believe its forced scripting is the main factor hurting replayability, and that’s probably why the player count doesn’t stay high for long after an update is released.

 

[bladex1200]

Ironically I think that would maybe be the best possible for Civ7 since it would at least give modern space to breathe!

I was also thinking, a score victory would give the different gameplay mechanics space to breathe in each age as well. If instead of next-age bonuses/penalties (which creates snowballing that the team specifically was trying to rubber-band with the ages system in the first place, and basically makes pursuing every single legacy path mandatory), legacy paths had fixed scores per objective that diminish depending on objective difficulty with narrower focus, we might be able to balance the system around a kind of "wide" (generalized empires) vs "tall" (specialized empires) play style.

For example, let's say Pax Imperatoria provided a moderate number of points around basic things you'll likely to already do as part of general expansion (killing units, leveling up commanders, conquering hostile independent powers near you, conquering or settling cities below city cap) up to a certain cap, but then provided unlimited but smaller per-action number of points around focused military objectives (e.g. conquering cities above your city cap, conquering neutral independent powers or conquering ones you turned hostile from forward-settling). This would allow a player to engage with military gameplay as part of their normal imperial expansion BUT wouldn't force them to hard-commit to a military playstyle to maximize score (if anything, returns diminish so a player would only go hard in the paint for military if that was already their plan and they structured their decision-making around making getting those points easier).

Then, in Non Sufficit Orbis, you would get a moderate number of points again for basic things related to mechanics in that era (maybe instead of treasure fleets, which I find eurocentric and a bit ahistorical given the scope of the era, we could have ships being plundered/protected simulating trade route control; points for again conquering cities below city cap, regardless of location) and an unlimited but smaller per-action number of points focused around specific colonial objectives (combat and conquering cities in far-off lands, conquering cities that allows for resource monopolization, etc).

Score systems are easier for the AI to understand and easier to tweak for balance than systems which require meeting specific gameplay criteria. By having legacy paths and gameplay directly contribute 1-1 to scoring with a logarithmic curve, you could naturally program objectives for the AI that encourage engaging with the systems but don't always reward narrow focus (and the AI could even have particular leader flavor around pursuing narrow focuses based on their historical background; e.g. Charlemagne tends to go for military points even if he's already hit the moderate points cap and is just specializing now).

 

[GeneralZift]

As a veteran player of all previous Civ iterations, reading this thread convinces me even more not to get Civ VII, and its dawning on me maybe even not after "several" patches - or ever.

Which is really, really saddening.

Well, I think despite what people say, some patches are never going to fix the game. You really do have to wait a couple years and check after several expansions. Once their executives **** themselves in fear of losing the playerbase, and therefore put in real effort to fix it, then you might be able to play a new game for real.