What's your opinion on civ switching?

[0urBall]

I genuinely think Antiquity is the best that the Civ series has ever been.

Is it better than Old World though?

 

[Leucarum]

Is it better than Old World though?

I didn't really get too into old world when I tried it. I ended up refunding. Once it's got a steep discount I'll probbly try again. Nothing seemed wrong, it just didn't grab me in a short try...

 

[Leucarum]

Actually Civ7 exploration tries to prolong it, but fails partially due to current map generation. I hope with the map generation improvements we'll potentially have the longest "fun phase" among all civ games.

I actually really like the 50 or so first turns of exploration as well.

Exploration is a weird one. I think it's very random whether the start of exploration is fun or frustrating. If very much feels like there's a 2nd round of RNG which kind of determines whether the age will be worth playing a bit or not. So maybe some of that is down to map scripts, but I suspect some of the time it'll always be there no matter how good Firaxis make map scripts.

And I don't know if I really want a 2nd round of settling most games. The size of empires at the end of antiquity is pretty ideal IMO. Exploration gets significantly worse as your empire grows beyond the point where its fun to manage it any more.

I saw the first 2 phases of Civ6 described as laying the foundation of your strategy and then implementing your strategy, and that implementation step was intricate enough to keep mid-game Civ6 interesting even though the game was usually a foregone conclusion by then. 7 is lacking the implementing your strategy element, it just does a very soft reset and asks you to repeat from a better starting point. Even though the initial settling and mapping out of your empire is fun, doing it a 2nd time isn't as impactful or fun as actually implementing the path to victory that you've chosen...

 

[Bug Repellent]

Civ7 is very fun for the first age! It always bears repeating just how good Antiquity era Civ7 is. I genuinely think Antiquity is the best that the Civ series has ever been.

Basically what us "haters" have been saying all along then: civ-switching and age transitions ruing the game (among a few other things like horrible city sprawl).

 

[Siptah]

Basically what us "haters" have been saying all along then: civ-switching and age transitions ruing the game (among a few other things like horrible city sprawl).

I don't think it's that simple. It's just that era 2 isn't as good as era 1, and era 3 is garbage. That doesn't mean eras per se or switching can't be fun (and especially the latter for me is quite fun, while I know eras and resets as being very fun in board games).

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think it's that simple. It's just that era 2 isn't as good as era 1, and era 3 is garbage. That doesn't mean eras per se or switching can't be fun (and especially the latter for me is quite fun, while I know eras and resets as being very fun in board games).

I think it actually the same as with other civ game - early game is the most fun, late game is boring. I think eras just changed perspective, they didn't add or fix any problems.

 

[Siptah]

I think it actually the same as with other civ game - early game is the most fun, late game is boring. I think eras just changed perspective, they didn't add or fix any problems.

I agree.

The difference is that ages were meant as a counter against this. Instead of one linear development from fun to tediousness, it was meant to create three little waves from fun to not quite as tedious. Which in principle is a good thing imho. But as written, they haven‘t nailed that for the second age yet, and are basically at square 1 for the third age.

 

[Crashdummy]

I think it actually the same as with other civ game - early game is the most fun, late game is boring. I think eras just changed perspective, they didn't add or fix any problems.

The whole reason to introduce Ages was to solve that, it didnt. Ages did introduced other problems and didnt fix the one problem that was supposed to fix

 

[stealth_nsk]

The whole reason to introduce Ages was to solve that, it didnt. Ages did introduced other problems and didnt fix the one problem that was supposed to fix

They were meant to solve several problems, but all with limited success. For example, other than making later game more interesting they are designed to limit snowballing (they are partially effective here, snowballing is lower than in previous Civ games, but there are still a lot of things to do); also they are made to allow short and fun MP games (we're still waiting for age-specific victories and ability to finish in any age to taste it).

 

[Crashdummy]

They were meant to solve several problems, but all with limited success. For example, other than making later game more interesting they are designed to limit snowballing (they are partially effective here, snowballing is lower than in previous Civ games, but there are still a lot of things to do); also they are made to allow short and fun MP games (we're still waiting for age-specific victories and ability to finish in any age to taste it).

Noy only i do not consider snowballing a problem, i think if you play well early you SHOULD snowball, thats the whole point of playing well early and i dont play MP

 

[Gorbles]

Noy only i do not consider snowballing a problem, i think if you play well early you SHOULD snowball, thats the whole point of playing well early and i dont play MP

Imagine a game where if the AI pulled ahead of you, even once, you've lost.

Does that sound appealing?

 

[Leucarum]

As an attempt to counter late game tedium ages were/are worth pursuing I think. My concern is that I don't think they went far enough at launch to actually stop that tedium from creeping in, and Firaxis seem to be backpedalling further.

If that isn't the raison d'etre of ages being undermined then what would be?

They were meant to solve several problems, but all with limited success. For example, other than making later game more interesting they are designed to limit snowballing (they are partially effective here, snowballing is lower than in previous Civ games, but there are still a lot of things to do); also they are made to allow short and fun MP games (we're still waiting for age-specific victories and ability to finish in any age to taste it).

I think it might have made snowballing worse TBH, since when the player focuses on ageless setup then it feels like they end up with a much bigger leg up in the next age. It definitely feels like you snowball harder than previous Civ games once you understand what snowballing looks like.

Be careful about mentioning MP - it draws in haters faster than anything. I'm also not certain Civ7 has as much of a multiplayer focus as some players like to claim though. Or that it RuInEd TeH GaMe.

I don't know if the age system has done as much to make the late game better than the town/city split and settlement limits have done. Reducing Micro and keeping empires smaller is one of the best things in Civ7 overall. I do think they let us expand a bit too much in exploration. The micro still goes above what I enjoy by mid-exploration.

All that to say, I don't think ages are doing what they're supposed to do. The most useful thing they were trying to do is stop snowballing, but Firaxis looks like they're undermining that too...

I want ages to work but unless Firaxis throw us a big curveball I don't see how it happens.

 

[Bug Repellent]

I think it actually the same as with other civ game - early game is the most fun, late game is boring. I think eras just changed perspective, they didn't add or fix any problems.

They definitely added problems for me. Yes, that's a personal opinion.

Civ switching requires too many civs per age, and when you have to have that many of them, you'll have a handful of favorites that play differently and a whole bunch of watered down ones that all play the same. For me, the ideal Civ game would have 20 civs at most, ALL with very different playing strategies. Like Babylon, Portugal, Eleanor (either FR/EN), Mali, Mongolia, and a few others in Civ6. If Firaxis does a poll which civs people play the most in Civ6, I'm sure "bland" civs like Poland and Georgia come at the bottom.

Going in the direction of lots and lots of civs, leaders, wonders, unique units, etc. is a mistake in my opinion. My favorite game of all time is Heroes of Might and Magic 3. In that game, there were only 7 factions and one (conflux) added later in an expansion, all with VERY different in abilities and units. I spent thousands of hours of immense fun in it and still do, because the game had depth. In chess you have 32 pieces on an 8 by 8 grid and people love it and enjoy it for a lifetime. So instead of lots and lots of eye candy, I'd very much prefer a game with a very competent AI, meaningful decisions, strategies that require careful planning, etc. I don't know exactly how to do that, but I know for sure 20 civs per age and 3-4 ages ain't it.

 

[Sagax]

also they are made to allow short and fun MP games (we're still waiting for age-specific victories and ability to finish in any age to taste it).

I don't have the energy now to start a long post, but my stance on this is that FXS are not reading the room correctly and don't understand what draws people to multiplayer video games (emphasis on "video games"). Even if they implement age-specific victories, the current design will mainly appeal to those who like euro board games with friends, rather than the more competitive crowd that seeks more active player competition and interactions. Whether it's something a game like Civ can or even should fundamentally provide, I don't know. But based on the rumblings in the MP community, it surely feels like Civ 6 did it much better.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The whole reason to introduce Ages was to solve that, it didnt. Ages did introduced other problems and didnt fix the one problem that was supposed to fix

Yup. Honestly at this point I feel like we need to roll back to 3 and start over with lessons learned and maybe the best mechanics from 4 to 7

Imagine a game where if the AI pulled ahead of you, even once, you've lost.

Does that sound appealing?

Yes

Yes it does IF it means the AI outplayed me, and then leveraged their position of strength to keep me down

That would be amazing. Last time I legit remember Civ being capable of that, as opposed to “early rush with 7 free warriors” was 4.

Why the hell are people so afraid of taking a loss? You learn more from defeat than victory.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Civ7 is very fun for the first age! It always bears repeating just how good Antiquity era Civ7 is. I genuinely think Antiquity is the best that the Civ series has ever been.

Antiquity Age is fun but I think the reason it is so good is mostly due to the early game being inherently more fun. That is when the game is new, there is a whole map to discover and expand into, new civs to meet and you are laying the foundation for the rest of the game. Unfortunately, the legacy paths restrict your playstyle in each Age. So every Antiquity Age follows a similar playthrough: explore and expand fast, get 5-6 settlements with 1-2 cities. Then build libraries, build wonders and conquer an enemy capital. if you expand well, you can set yourself up to basically do well in all the legacy paths almost on autopilot.

Exploration is a weird one. I think it's very random whether the start of exploration is fun or frustrating. If very much feels like there's a 2nd round of RNG which kind of determines whether the age will be worth playing a bit or not. So maybe some of that is down to map scripts, but I suspect some of the time it'll always be there no matter how good Firaxis make map scripts.

I think the Exploration Age is very map dependent. If you get easy access to the distant lands and quick access to treasure fleet resources, it can be fun. But if distant lands are very far, with lots of deep ocean, and already covered by other civs, then it is frustrating since it takes too long to get there and you cannot really get treasure fleet resources, conquer or settle easily. So that is the economic and military legacy paths nerfed.

I think it actually the same as with other civ game - early game is the most fun, late game is boring. I think eras just changed perspective, they didn't add or fix any problems.

I have a theory that the fun in 4X strategy games is proportional to how much engagement the player has with each X in 4X. Since the early game gives you a lot of exploration and expansion to do, that is 2 of the 4Xs that are at their highest engagement. You are also starting to do eXploit, as you build up your settlements, get resources, build wonders etc... You can also go to war for the first time, which gives a lot of engagement in the eXtermine X. So all 4 of the 4Xs are represented well. The middle game gets less fun because the eXplore and eXpand go down in engagement as there is less to explore and expand. The eXploit goes up in engagement as you develop your cities and build stuff. Unfortunately, building stuff tends to be more passive than exploring, expanding or exterminating. So the eXploit X tends to be inherently less fun most of the times. The eXterminate can go up if you go to war but if you are at peace with everyone, or happen to be alone on a continent, then eXterminate can have zero engagement in the middle game. The late game is most boring as basically all 4 of the 4Xs have low engagement. Exploration is done since the entire map is uncovered. Expansion is done since there is no room to expand anymore. Exploit is basically done since you've build everything you can in all your cities. That only leaves eXterminate if you want to go to war.

I think the Ages were meant to solve this by resetting the engagement with each X at the start of each Age.

The Exploration Age is meant to boost the eXplore and eXpand Xs back up again as you go and discover and settle in the distant lands, also add some eXploit X as you try to get treasure fleet points. The military legacy path gives points to settling and conqurering on the distant lands, so this can boost eXpand and eXterminate. I think the big issue is that the map can make it hard to reach the distant lands or get access to treasure fleet resources quick enough. When that happens, it basically nerfs the 4Xs in the distant lands.

The Modern Age tries to boost eXploit via the economic victory with factory resources. It also tries to boost the eXterminate X with ideologies to force a world war.

 

[Crashdummy]

Imagine a game where if the AI pulled ahead of you, even once, you've lost.

Does that sound appealing?

In Deity, if the AI played much better than me? Yes

 

[moondog385]

I think the Exploration Age is very map dependent. If you get easy access to the distant lands and quick access to treasure fleet resources, it can be fun. But if distant lands are very far, with lots of deep ocean, and already covered by other civs, then it is frustrating since it takes too long to get there and you cannot really get treasure fleet resources, conquer or settle easily. So that is the economic and military legacy paths nerfed.

Agree with this. Economic path can be satisfying to pull off in Exploration but it’s so map dependent I feel it’s not even worth trying sometimes. You spend half the Age bumbling around the map looking for Treasure Resources because you were arbitrarily not allowed to go into deep ocean in the previous Age.

 

[Monene]

Do you really think they'll make the game better? Civ 6 has the potential to be better, and they didn't do it because it was more economically profitable to sell a new game with better graphics but no replayability to sell DLC. I doubt they'd rather make a good game than make a profit.

 

[McSpank01]

I think the Ages were meant to solve this by resetting the engagement with each X at the start of each Age.

The Exploration Age is meant to boost the eXplore and eXpand Xs back up again as you go and discover and settle in the distant lands, also add some eXploit X as you try to get treasure fleet points. The military legacy path gives points to settling and conqurering on the distant lands, so this can boost eXpand and eXterminate. I think the big issue is that the map can make it hard to reach the distant lands or get access to treasure fleet resources quick enough. When that happens, it basically nerfs the 4Xs in the distant lands.

The Modern Age tries to boost eXploit via the economic victory with factory resources. It also tries to boost the eXterminate X with ideologies to force a world war.

This is why I am still quietly optimistic that Civ 7 can be turned around and made into a good game. If you had described how the game was going to work before I had seen the reality I would think these are all good ideas. I do love the concepts behind the ages, the idea that you would need to slightly switch focus for each age, and the game becomes different within it, is enticing and could work really well.

I think the problem is that the game is not inherently different in each age, much of it feels like you are just repeating yourself and moving ahead incredibly slowly. Its that lack of momentum that kills it for me every time. Someone mentioned earlier that the first age should be setting yourself up for the implementation of your plan, but it never feels like that is what you are doing in the game. Mostly it feels like someone just kicked your sandcastle over and you need to build it up again. I think the problem goes far deeper than smoothing out the transition as well, which is what the devs are concentrating on.

It's the whole idea that now I need to overbuild (yeah its actually just rebuilding) the same buildings, but now they just have different names and slightly better yields, is really not very interesting. The gameplay is inherently the same between the ages, with just a bit of extra flavour. That is a fundamental design decision, that I don't know if it can be fixed. Overbuilding itself is not a bad idea, having to basically rebuild everything, that is a bad idea. Having to start my tech tree again, starting each age being unable to do very much at all, these all contribute to the killing of game momentum, which I think is one of the main issues with the game.

So maybe I'm less optimistic than I thought I was, but I still think the idea of ages can work, but it really needs some major rethinks as to what they mean.