Where I'm at after 400+ Hours in Civ 7: Thoughts

[Kenshiro70]

I didn't mention my issues with the victory conditions because they're so bad they're obviously legacy path conditions, not victory conditions, and we have to be getting a fourth age (or an elongated third). One of the reasons for writing this was to state clearly that I've no interest in a fourth age if the basic problems of gameplay and immersion haven't been fixed yet.

Good news and bad news.

The Good news: They solved the problem of people not finishing games!
The Bad news: ... by ensuring people don't want to start games.





(That's as close to a mic drop as I could get)

 

[indario]

Honestly, I could live with civ switching, age transitions even though I'm not a fan.

But if they improved the AI so I can play Deity Marathon and not roll over AI (militarily), I would be a happy man.

 

[Gori the Grey]

(That's as close to a mic drop as I could get)

Here's a mic drop smiley. There is a very talented poster named @Buster's Uncle who, in the Off Topic forum of the site, works up smilies at other posters' requests. The thread is called Smilies Requests. He also did a rimshot, which could be appropriate for a zinger post like yours.

 

[Aldor]

Some of my personal frustrations with the game:

• Inability to settle on resources. Often I find what would be a "perfect" spot blocked by a resource...in earlier versions it was always possible to settle over such a resource, sometimes at the cost of losing it.
• Inability to improve the land around my towns (cities are a different story of course), since the only way to do so is by growing them (or placing "pointless" stuff so you can move a citizen). I barely use town focus, because I can't stand the unimproved tiles..so my towns often grow until the end of modern (the exception are very small one tile fishing villages). Give my back my builders/workers!
• "Unbelieveable" tile yields: Super snow/tundra farms anyone?

Of course, all of this was already expressed to some degree by the posts before, most of which I can only agree with.

 

[Siptah]

A way of get rid of resources would indeed be welcome, either by settling on them or by having a project in cities to remove them. If I settle in places that are coastal and mountainous, I often can't build the mid-late exploration buildings, because I have no more space for them. I would gladly trade a copy of salt or dates for a university and a pavilion.

 

[aieeegrunt]

A way of get rid of resources would indeed be welcome, either by settling on them or by having a project in cities to remove them. If I settle in places that are coastal and mountainous, I often can't build the mid-late exploration buildings, because I have no more space for them. I would gladly trade a copy of salt or dates for a university and a pavilion.

How is this still a thing? This was an issue in 6 that everyone rightly hated and mocked.

 

[Siptah]

How is this still a thing? This was an issue in 6 that everyone rightly hated and mocked.

In 6, you could at least harvest *some* resources iirc with builders though. Now resources are permanently blocking tiles. Which is fine for Antiquity in almost all cases I'd say (where you also need to amass resources for the legacy path), but can be an issue later on for city building.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The big question is where do we need the game between building whatever you want or adopting your settlements to the map. The wish for removable resources is a call to let more freedom for players, while another recent call to make tile yields more diverse moves in opposite direction - to force players to adapt to the map.

I, honestly, prefer status quo in both cases. I really like the need to adapt to the map and would like to see more things in this direction (like the means to specialize with specific biomes), so ability to remove resources look wrong to me. But having bad biomes and thus bad starts doesn't sound great to me, so I wouldn't that biomes differentiation that way.

 

[aieeegrunt]

The big question is where do we need the game between building whatever you want or adopting your settlements to the map. The wish for removable resources is a call to let more freedom for players, while another recent call to make tile yields more diverse moves in opposite direction - to force players to adapt to the map.

I, honestly, prefer status quo in both cases. I really like the need to adapt to the map and would like to see more things in this direction (like the means to specialize with specific biomes), so ability to remove resources look wrong to me. But having bad biomes and thus bad starts doesn't sound great to me, so I wouldn't that biomes differentiation that way.

This depends on whether you want to cater to the “Narrative role play” or “Gamer” type player

For the former, not being able to build a campus in a hex because there are immortal indestructible horses there is a definite drag.

Especially if the turn before you could because you had not discovered horses yet.

 

[stealth_nsk]

This depends on whether you want to cater to the “Narrative role play” or “Gamer” type player

Civ7 is a history-themed strategic game first and not a historical simulator like Paradox games. So, I'd say "gamer" approach should have higher priority. But I totally understand different views on this topic.

For the former, not being able to build a campus in a hex because there are immortal indestructible horses there is a definite drag.

In roleplay I could imagine a lot of immersion-friendly reasons not to build a university on a specific spot.

Especially if the turn before you could because you had not discovered horses yet.

Not the problem with Civ7 where resources are never discovered during age.

 

[Kenshiro70]

• Inability to settle on resources. Often I find what would be a "perfect" spot blocked by a resource...in earlier versions it was always possible to settle over such a resource, sometimes at the cost of losing it.

For a while I was convinced the map generation and resource algorithm did two passes - the first seeded the map, and the second calculated the optimal city locations and stuck a resource or mountain here.

Apparently Sid Meier has a name for people like me - "Mr. Paranoid"

I still maintain that hit percentages in XCOM2 are bunk. Hits are calculated in such a way that they produce maximum drama.

 

[aieeegrunt]

For a while I was convinced the map generation and resource algorithm did two passes - the first seeded the map, and the second calculated the optimal city locations and stuck a resource or mountain here.

Apparently Sid Meier has a name for people like me - "Mr. Paranoid"

I still maintain that hit percentages in XCOM2 are bunk. Hits are calculated in such a way that they produce maximum drama.

I swear there is a script where if you send a settler to a specific hex, every city state unit within range will try to occupy it

 

[Gori the Grey]

In Civ 5, the Shoshone get double the hexes when they found a city. I swear the map generation takes away resources from around the starting point, so that one actually gets fewer resources in 15 hexes than most civs get in their initial 7. The UA is called "The Great Expanse." I rename it "The Great Expanse of Nothingness."

 

[Kenshiro70]

I swear there is a script where if you send a settler to a specific hex, every city state unit within range will try to occupy it

The bane of Treasure Convoys. "Oh no! My destination 30 tiles away is occupied!!! I should just give up now."

 

[Foulweather]

I swear there is a script where if you send a settler to a specific hex, every city state unit within range will try to occupy it

It's right after the script that triggers the volcano when your unit approaches it.

 

[Kenshiro70]

It's right after the script that triggers the volcano when your unit approaches it.

I know that script - it's the one that floods the river when your settler is on it.

At first I thought it was weird that I could send out Settler's unprotected. Obviously I hadn't taken into account that they are an environmental disaster magnet.

It's fair to say that "Settlers are bad for the environment".

 

[uppi]

It's fair to say that "Settlers are bad for the environment".

Or rather the environment is bad for settlers.

Also, there has to be a script that instructs the AI to start building a wonder when I am halfway through researching the tech for it.