When, if at all, will you purchase Civ VII based on what you have seen so far?

[UWHabs]

I'll preorder close to launch for the sake of Tecumseh and Shawnee. Don't see much of a reason to do so any quicker.

I want to see if they will spoil any details about those other DLC packs, so that I can make a better decision of just base game or one of the deluxe versions. If they don't reveal anything, I'll probably just get the base game. If there's something in those packs that catches my eye, I might upgrade to one of them.

 

[Civciv5]

Would hypothetical quick emergence of mods dealing in various ways with this mechanic sway your opinion, or would you remain steadfast in this rebellion?
In the meantime after playing a bit with modded version you could even give a chance to the vanilla game and itd new paradigm and check if it isn't fun after all

Long would be the list of the games which I expected to love yet I hated, and the games which I expected to hate yet I loved, for the man cannot always predict the taste of a new meal

Probably not. My interest in the game is currently zero due to the entire civ swapping mechanic.

Mods can do a lot, but they can't fundamentally change a core mechanic of the game.

How would mods even solve the issue?
Just disable civ swapping for everyone? Possibly resulting in tons of bugs/side-effects?

 

[Krajzen]

Probably not. My interest in the game is currently zero due to the entire civ swapping mechanic.

Mods can do a lot, but they can't fundamentally change a core mechanic of the game.

How would mods even solve the issue?
Just disable civ swapping for everyone? Possibly resulting in tons of bugs/side-effects?

Make all civs work like ancient ones, in that the can be freely chosen in the menu screen, and make transitions impossible one way or another for both human and AI. In case no subtler modding were possible, which I rather doubt, I assume modders could still simply commit to the brute force method of creating copy paste fake "civs" for sake of "transitions" which would work like France -> France -> France, so technically speaking there are "transitions every era to another civ" while in practice it works like the old game. Time will show, but potentially it may actually end up being fairly trivial technical matter to create such mod.

That being said, even without such measures the game shall offer very sensible historical transtitions such as Han->Ming->Qing, Maurya->Chola->Mughal etc, more of them as the roster of factions gets filled with expansions (mods shall also help a lot with that)

Core mechanic of the game is not civ swapping, it is the division of the entire game's structure into three dramatically different Ages with crises between them, in order to fundamentally take on the bane of all 4X games: the games scaling worse and worse and becoming more and more boring the longer they last (also known as simply boring endgame problem or even simpler - snowballing). Civ switching came later in design.
I assume heavily modifying that would be a hard thing to do, civ switching is trivial matter on top of this entire internal machinery of the new game (though I also assume we shall get tools to for example add more eras or whatever).

 

[LastSword]

Mods cannot fix leaderless civilizations.

Right now I wait to see if AI is not embarrassing. The spark of hope may flicker, but it is not yet extinguished.

 

[Gedemon]

Mods cannot fix leaderless civilizations.

I've never cared about leaders, but if I had to "fix" that, 3 choices:

simple solution 1: remove the leaderless civs

simple solution 2: remove all leaders

less simple/longer solution: mod in leaders for leaderless civs

Probably not. My interest in the game is currently zero due to the entire civ swapping mechanic.

Mods can do a lot, but they can't fundamentally change a core mechanic of the game.

How would mods even solve the issue?
Just disable civ swapping for everyone? Possibly resulting in tons of bugs/side-effects?

From a modder's point of view, the core mechanism is the age transition, not the civ-switching, there is no need to change the age transition to remove civ switching, so unless your issue is the age transition itself, not just the civ-switching part, the main issue would be balance IMO.

 

[Kyriakos]

For me it's not just the forced change of civ mechanism. Having only a few, and always set, modern era civs is dumb and beats the point of playing a game=>those civs magically are there regardless of how the game went; they are there literally before the game even begins.
Maybe in the future there will be mods with a logical set of civs that advance to their obvious later eras, and then this will be playable=>the mechanism will be overruled as in effect you'd be playing as one civ.

 

[Bast]

I think that the reason why they are splitting up into eras is that it allows for more civilizations to be represented. So for instance, if it's like earlier games, something like Hawaii would not really make it in as it's already represented by the Americans whether that's right or wrong. But now you have a path to play Hawaii at some point. In a way, for certain civilizations like ancient Egypt, it makes sense that you may only want to play them in the antiquity because that is what we typically associate the golden age of that civilization with. Also, they may have had difficulty trying to come up with leaders for every single civilization. Not just an actual identity but the gameplay dynamics. So in that sense, the previous versions favored those civilizations that have had a large impact in history with well known identifiers and leaders. By expanding this to 1 leader and 3 civs per playthrough, you almost get to experience 4 difference civs in one playthrough. It's not historical, immersive or realistic, but from a gameplay perspective, it does make sense, and it's fairer for representation.

 

[Taefin]

I’ll preorder a week before launch to get bonus content (close to day1). I’m most excited for how 7 (and ostensibly AI) is built around dynamics that never really emerged in 6, most notably colonization which in past games (and HK, Millennia) just amounted to being the only player conquering the other continent and then winning (at least based on AI scoring points on the victory screen). I also felt that VC in 6 were tuned so that culture was impossible at the higher difficulties, whereas anything else was automatic if you didn’t get killed early, and I like that you don’t seem to need to focus on VC during the first two ages, and I hope the modern reveal shows something good. Automatically updating AI units at era is also a huge plus for me, as the main stagnating point in 6, HK, and millennia (where AI armies with one bad unit were so much weaker than player armies). If it could just feel like a scramble to the end, I’ll be happy.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Mods cannot fix leaderless civilizations.

Right now I wait to see if AI is not embarrassing. The spark of hope may flicker, but it is not yet extinguished.

What do you mean by "fix leaderless civilizations"?

When you play the game, you will always have a leader. It's the first thing you pick. Only, under a lot of circumstances, your leader may not match historically to the civ you're playing. But it's not broken. It's not only intended, it's an advertised feature. It fits the paradigm of idiosyncratic anachronism that the series is known for. It's not, nor has ever been, a history sim.

I'm actually excited about being able to mix up leaders and civs. (Not totally thrilled about changing civs through the course of the game, but that's just something I will have to live with.)

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

The problem I have with the "mods will fix it" argument is that for me that means mods need to be compatible with multiplayer. That has traditionally not been made very easy, so id rather stick with what I've got that now works and I still enjoy

 

[Krajzen]

Mods cannot fix leaderless civilizations.

That's true
(though I also expect mods adding leaders for all civs - but obviosuly with static images, not animation and sound)

but honestly that's something that have always been far smaller problem for me than civ switching - mainly because
1) Most such games (age of empires, paradox, other 4x etc) felt fine without any leaders anyway, I shall survive with "only" like half of (seemingly much more) civs having their historical leaders now - especially as it opens the door for...
2) Sure leaders for every civ are great, you know what's also great? Civ7 with the new system finally being able to acommodate civs such as Missisipians, where we had absolutely zero chance of figuring out their leader and hence they could never enter the series before
3) As well as the opposite possibility: of "civless leaders" such as Tamerlane, Bolivar, Attila; or Charlemagne entering the game while avoiding the endless debate of whether he is "French" or "German" (and the undesired Franks/HRE civ ghetto), and being able to lead any European civ, like the Father of Europe deserves to. Another good example of this opportunity is Saladin and the avoidance of the endless pain of him being Arab vs Egyptian vs Syrian vs Kurdish vs "Ayyubid" civ leader.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

More than fixing leaders by making more or removing them, I hope they add a create your own option with some appearance and talent customization

 

[Gedemon]

The problem I have with the "mods will fix it" argument is that for me that means mods need to be compatible with multiplayer. That has traditionally not been made very easy, so id rather stick with what I've got that now works and I still enjoy

in the context of the change required here, such a mod would certainly be 100% database, without scripting (it's Lua coding that required extra attention in civ6 to prevent desynchronization)

 

[Jeppetto]

I'll preorder close to launch for the sake of Tecumseh and Shawnee. Don't see much of a reason to do so any quicker.

If thats all you want, and you dislike preordering, couldnt you just buy after release (and more info and reviews) the deluxe? I believe it contains the pack even after release. Foundes' Stuff seems to be the only thing, for now, barred behind preorder.

 

[LastSword]

What do you mean by "fix leaderless civilizations"?

When you play the game, you will always have a leader. It's the first thing you pick. Only, under a lot of circumstances, your leader may not match historically to the civ you're playing. But it's not broken. It's not only intended, it's an advertised feature. It fits the paradigm of idiosyncratic anachronism that the series is known for. It's not, nor has ever been, a history sim.

I'm actually excited about being able to mix up leaders and civs. (Not totally thrilled about changing civs through the course of the game, but that's just something I will have to live with.)

Yes, and some people are excited about civ switching. It's the most advertised feature.
Of course, it is not a history sim. Yet it is a history-themed game with a long tradition of decently matched leader-civilization.
It is a bit same as with music. Human brain likes music because it expects what is next, it is why it can detect false notes. I have the same reaction to leaders outside their civilization, I feel only: "ugh, why?", no excitement at all. I feel like this aspect of the game didn't need a change/innovation. Maybe I am just not persona enjoyer, to me leaders are just puny when taken out of their environment: almost to the point that they are reduced to Humankind's avatars.
Though of course I am glad that you like it. Good for you.

simple solution 1: remove the leaderless civs

Yesterday I checked what would be the day 1 rooster for that option. Not too impressive.
It doesn't help that they went with a lot of civless leaders.

That's true
(though I also expect mods adding leaders for all civs - but obviosuly with static images, not animation and sound)

but honestly that's something that have always been far smaller problem for me than civ switching - mainly because
1) Most such games (age of empires, paradox, other 4x etc) felt fine without any leaders anyway, I shall survive with "only" like half of (seemingly much more) civs having their historical leaders now - especially as it opens the door for...
2) Sure leaders for every civ are great, you know what's also great? Civ7 with the new system finally being able to acommodate civs such as Missisipians, where we had absolutely zero chance of figuring out their leader and hence they could never enter the series before
3) As well as the opposite possibility: of "civless leaders" such as Tamerlane, Bolivar, Attila; or Charlemagne entering the game while avoiding the endless debate of whether he is "French" or "German" (and the undesired Franks/HRE civ ghetto), and being able to lead any European civ, like the Father of Europe deserves to. Another good example of this opportunity is Saladin and the avoidance of the endless pain of him being Arab vs Egyptian vs Syrian vs Kurdish vs "Ayyubid" civ leader.

1) Cool. It almost as this one game series spoiled me in this regard. Forget the name though. However you are ultimately right, technically leaders could be cut all together. It would be sad though.
3) Not really excited. Charlemagne-Franks and WilliamConqueror-Normans would be both perfect. We had Bolivar in civ6. What is even undesired at this point? Missisipians cool, Franks undesired? And it didn't stop a "debate", I have seen internet warriors claiming he is INSERTNATIONHERE almost immediately after reveal.

 

[Roald Amundsen]

After buying into Civ 5 and 6 at day one, I'm not doing that mistake again. These games were in a very poor state at launch. Also, I find it annoying to have the game mechanics changed every other day as the devs tries to balance the game. I voted "wait for patches," but more accurately I'll wait for some proper reviews of the game and keep an eye on the discussions here which I bet there will be plenty. If it seems all good, then I'll be happy to buy this game before patches.

 

[Evolena]

Yesterday I checked what would be the day 1 rooster for that option. Not too impressive.

Something like that, with a strict interpretation of "leading" (thus Confucius is not leading the Han):

 

[Lord Lakely]

I'll buy it eventually. Price is a bit of a concern and I need to ensure that it doesn't fully brick my PC when I play it.

Playing the waiting game is fine for me. I have plenty of other games to play in the meantime.

 

[ColtSeavers]

No plans of buying it so far. At first I was only concerned with the Civ Switching Mechanism, but after the last couple of live streams the gameplay aspects themselves worry me quiet a bit, too. Especially that it seems to me, that the game is no longer a sandbox, but incentives you to play certain style, no matter what Civ you are playing. In prior Civ games, I did like to focus on exploration when I played England, but focused more on domestic development when I played Germany. Not sure, if that is possible anymore. Furthermore I expect a ton of new micro management mechanics, and not less (as it was promised when the game was first announced). Not thrilled about the graphics, especially the leader presentation either.

 

[Krajzen]

Especially that it seems to me, that the game is no longer a sandbox, but incentives you to play certain style, no matter what Civ you are playing. In prior Civ games, I did like to focus on exploration when I played England, but focused more on domestic development when I played Germany. Not sure, if that is possible anymore.

I'm not sure what do you mean by that. I mean for example many civ unique bonuses in civ5 were so weak and insignificant in the overall campaign that it did indeed often feel like I have a "sandbox", as in "practically speaking I don't get any really important bonuses towards any particular endeavour so I fell ok doing whatever" but I wouldn't count that as an upside but as a weakness of my beloved civ5

Like yeah sure I am glad Spain has more concrete bonuses towards colonisation now, compared with its civ5 edition of two weak-to-really-mediocre military units and its unique bonus being completely random and unpredictable, at least this time as Spain I am going to feel I am particularly good at some purposeful behavior rather than nothing (I have never counted "simply explore the map like you always do anyway, but this time get random bonus gold or tile yield if you get lucky" as a good faction design)