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

[Jeppetto]

I think he just means that in Exploration Age, you must focus on exploration and religion even if you dont feel like it becsuse now the whole Age is defined by it.

 

[ColtSeavers]

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)

True, but I played England on Terra mostly, no matter the bonuses (though it had some nice ones in Civ 5). Germany mostly land focussed maps. I just don't want to be "forced" to play expansionist at a certain age, I want to decide for myself, if and when I expand to foreign lands.
Civ 7's map design and the way the age system works, doesn't seem to give you much flexibility here, apparently.

 

[Isengardtom]

It's not historical, immersive or realistic, but from a gameplay perspective, it does make sense, and it's fairer for representation.

personally I find it more historical , immersive and realistic than say Civ 6 : Wilhelmina leading the Netherlands in the Ancient Era with warriors and Archers.

 

[ThunderLizard2]

AI seems to be crap again so no not buying it.

 

[ColtSeavers]

personally I find it more historical , immersive and realistic than say Civ 6 : Wilhelmina leading the Netherlands in the Ancient Era with warriors and Archers.

Wilhemina (if she makes it to the game) will still lead a Civ whether it is Rome or China or whatever in the Ancient Era with Warriors or Archers. How that would be more historical, immersive or even realistic? than the previous system, is beyond my imagination.

 

[Psychotronics]

Depends on how I'm going on money in February. My income is inconsistent and the start of the year can be quite rough.
Usually, I would budget to make sure I have on Day 1, but I'm not a fan of the changes Firaxis announced so I'll just leave it up to chance.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

AI seems to be crap again so no not buying it.

This is based on what exactly?

Wouldn't be at all surprised if the AI is poor again but we haven't seen nearly enough gameplay to make that kind of definitive judgement, not even close.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

This is based on what exactly?

Wouldn't be at all surprised if the AI is poor again but we haven't seen nearly enough gameplay to make that kind of definitive judgement, not even close.

You would have thought if they'd focussed on it enough to make it good, they'd be selling that and explaining how front and centre. That they haven't said anything is sign enough for me that we've got more of the same.

 

[Jeppetto]

They said they have people working on improved AI AND that they simplified the game for AI imptovement.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

They said they have people working on improved AI AND that they simplified the game for AI imptovement.

They can say what they like. Increased resource is a positive sign but not an indication of success in and of itself. They can say they've simplified the game, but they haven't at all. What they've done is required the AI to be competitive in three separate games rather than 1, so it remains to be seen if that works, but it's not obviously simplified to me, and potentially runs to the contrary.

They've still not been selling AI improvement front and centre, and what they have said has left the quality of AI unspoken and lacking in any words to be held to, which is ambiguous enough that they aren't confident in saying it's better too, and they've nothing to show for it so far, which they would be selling much more clearly like the age system if they had.

I'm 95% confident in thinking we're getting more of the same based on what I've heard and seen so far from the livestream and Dev announcements, including what you've quoted them as saying.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

As it is, I'm unlikely to get it until more is known. (denuvo has to go first, however long that takes)
I still don't like having to get a 2k acct either.
No Chermany, nein sale!

 

[gdr_willter]

They can say what they like. Increased resource is a positive sign but not an indication of success in and of itself. They can say they've simplified the game, but they haven't at all. What they've done is required the AI to be competitive in three separate games rather than 1, so it remains to be seen if that works, but it's not obviously simplified to me, and potentially runs to the contrary.

They've still not been selling AI improvement front and centre, and what they have said has left the quality of AI unspoken and lacking in any words to be held to, which is ambiguous enough that they aren't confident in saying it's better too, and they've nothing to show for it so far, which they would be selling much more clearly like the age system if they had.

I'm 95% confident in thinking we're getting more of the same based on what I've heard and seen so far from the livestream and Dev announcements, including what you've quoted them as saying.

Just you missed it. FXS told they doubled the AI team, and they also said the developer who could beat 6 deity can't do same thing in 7 deity. You said why they aren't selling AI improvement front and center, but there're so many changes in the basic game system. Those are the main advertising points for now. Honestly they even don't need to emphasize the AI issue, because Civ 5 and 6 sold the most copies in the franchise with the "dumbest" AI.

 

[Jeppetto]

That they haven't said anything is sign enough for me that we've got more of the same.

They said they have people working on improved AI AND that they simplified the game for AI imptovement.

They can say what they like.

You're changing point of your argument, though.

 

[Gedemon]

They can say what they like. Increased resource is a positive sign but not an indication of success in and of itself. They can say they've simplified the game, but they haven't at all. What they've done is required the AI to be competitive in three separate games rather than 1, so it remains to be seen if that works, but it's not obviously simplified to me, and potentially runs to the contrary.

They've still not been selling AI improvement front and centre, and what they have said has left the quality of AI unspoken and lacking in any words to be held to, which is ambiguous enough that they aren't confident in saying it's better too, and they've nothing to show for it so far, which they would be selling much more clearly like the age system if they had.

I'm 95% confident in thinking we're getting more of the same based on what I've heard and seen so far from the livestream and Dev announcements, including what you've quoted them as saying.

What can be said at this point is that almost no one here played the game and is in position to judge the AI.

It's not obviously simplified for AI from your PoV, but it is to me: rubber-ban mechanism, AI movement helped by grouping units.

What thing I can already agree is that it will surely not be enough for our competitive players, so including you if you're part of that group, but from what we know it should do better than in civ6.

 

[pokiehl]

You're changing point of your argument, though.

Yeah…

“They haven’t said anything about AI so I know it’s gonna be bad.”

“Actually they said this…”

“They can say whatever they want, doesn’t matter.”

People are free to believe what they want, but stuff like this just makes it seem like they’ve made up their mind no matter what and that any further discussion is pointless.

Seems like some people just want the game to be bad no matter what.

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

I am being misrepresented here though. They haven't said anything about the AI being better. They have said what they have done to try, and as I said, trying is not evidence of success.

This is an internet forum, not an academic journal. I know what I mean and I do my best to convey it. That I don't always succeed in conveying my meaning exactly to everyones suitable understanding doesn't mean I'm twisting my argument or lying or misrepresenting things, it can just mean I have a life outside of the forum and post quickly to get a point across

End of the day, I'm not satisfied from what's been said so far that there has been improvement, and I don't know how anyone could be as we have not had any evidence of improvement. Only token indications of some effort being spent. I'm am deeply cynical of anyone trying to sell me anything, so I don't take that as evidence of anything. This is the English common law approach to standards of evidence if you like

For me personally that's not a dealbrsaker though. I've never been concerned about the AI. I'm just chipping in on what evidence we have about AI - and making a point about a weighted probability from absence of evidence

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I've never been concerned about the AI. I'm just chipping in on what evidence we have about AI - and making a point about a weighted probability from absence of evidence

And I think that is reasonable, it's probably where I land too. I do take issue with anyone making more definitive statements like "AI seems to be crap again". One needs significantly more than an absence of evidence to say that with such conviction.

 

[Citron]

I think he just means that in Exploration Age, you must focus on exploration and religion even if you dont feel like it becsuse now the whole Age is defined by it.

Civ is a 4X game (Explore Expand Exploit Exterminate) if you don’t like exploration then why play civ?

 

[Jeppetto]

Civ is a 4X game (Explore Expand Exploit Exterminate) if you don’t like exploration then why play civ?

I assume to him it's more so question of how, to what extent and when. EA will mandate that you explore in specific way (colonies to extract Treasure Fleets from rather than just finding goodie huts) to specific extent (overwhelming enough that you can collect victory points from it) and at specific time. But thats just my interpretation.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I assume to him it's more so question of how, to what extent and when. EA will mandate that you explore in specific way (colonies to extract Treasure Fleets from rather than just finding goodie huts) to specific extent (overwhelming enough that you can collect victory points from it) and at specific time. But thats just my interpretation.

I mean, it's not mandatory, no? Victory points can give you bonuses, but they aren't needed (at least in the two Ages we've seen,) and even then internal city building can get you to the end of one of the victory paths all on its own. There's even a civ that has an ability that allows you to pursue a domination victory entirely in the Homelands. Add on the fact that the devs have hinted at specific bonuses from not pursuing a given victory path at all (I really want to hear more about these "Dark Ages") and I think there's going to be a lot more player choice than people are giving the system credit for.