Where is a good summary thread?

[SCBrain]

Hey all! I play the game on an iPad, so I am just now getting a handle on a game that most people here, I think, are more or less done with. And yet I'd like to see where the general opinion of the player base landed after all the add-ons and patches and expansions were released. Where's one central place?

My quick thoughts - I suspect these are done to death by now.

- AI cannot play 1UPT, as it couldn't in Civ5.
- I have been surprised by how passive the AI is at Prince and King. It's as though the AI is just trying to slow you down as you take them out, and their primary defensive strategy is retake cities though cultural reconversion.
- The natural disasters look pretty, but are annoying. They had these in Civ1, and were annoying then, too. One has to go around cleaning up messes when it's time to win the game.
- The Cultural Victory system is confusing at best.
- Barbarians are too strong! I just turn them off, but I feel like I am cheating.
- The optional game modes are fun.
- The World Congress mini game requires the player to guess what the other leaders will choose. Sometimes that's possible and sometimes it's not. It's cheating to go back and vote again after learning what the outcomes will be, but is there some other way to know what will happen? How can I know which luxury good will be chosen? Seems silly.
- Much of the Culture tech tree seems random and filled with placeholder techs. Earlier Civ games were more intuitive about desirable pathways while making different strategies possible.
- The religious game is so tiresome, although I wouldn't want a game without religion. The constant floods of apostles crossing my land every turn seeking to disrupt my country are annoying and make no sense. Rather than fighting them, I just want them to go away. And with respect to believability - can any religious movement in the modern era do any more than gain a few adherents when spreading an alternative religion to a new country? Totally wiping a religion from the face of the earth without genocide isn't possible. The times in history when countries have tried to wipe out an "enemy" religion represent egregious criminal actions. After the initial period of founding faiths, religious change should be slow, gentle, and passive.
- And why does religious strength help me produce rock and roll bands? It should come from cultural capital, not religious.
- National Parks are difficult to create.
- After all the improvements, the map looks ugly. Perhaps this is commentary on modern life, but after all my efforts, I'd like it to look nice.

Anyway, this has all been hashed out - where is the best place to read the hashing?

Thanks!

 

[pokiehl]

Where's one central place?

There is no consensus here. Some people hate the game and come here to tell us constantly, some people love it; maybe most commonly you’ll find people who think it’s a great game with flaws but we all disagree on what the biggest flaws are and what we want changed in Civ 7.

 

[criZp]

Keep playing if you want more reasons why it's not a good game

 

[Aristos]

There is no consensus here. Some people hate the game and come here to tell us constantly, some people love it; maybe most commonly you’ll find people who think it’s a great game with flaws but we all disagree on what the biggest flaws are and what we want changed in Civ 7.

What about those that love AND hate it?

 

[pokiehl]

What about those that love AND hate it?

That’s not the impression I get from you at all. I think all of your posts I’ve read have been leveling harsh criticism in a tone that I don’t think is very constructive. Some of it verges onto personal attacks on the developers. I would never guess you like the game but for the amount of time and energy you spend discussing it I guess.

It mostly comes across as really angry.

 

[Aristos]

That’s not the impression I get from you at all. I think all of your posts I’ve read have been leveling harsh criticism in a tone that I don’t think is very constructive. Some of it verges onto personal attacks on the developers. I would never guess you like the game but for the amount of time and energy you spend discussing it I guess.

It mostly comes across as really angry.

Harsh criticism is not a personal attack. Nor is it anger.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: This personal stuff is not helping the OP. If you cannot stay on topic, then do not post. OP asked for help and instead gets this? Knock it off.

 

[Linklite]

There are plenty of threads on this board that's discussed pretty much every single aspect of the game several times over. I think that's about as central as you're going to get. It gets pretty repetitive though. There are real gems of a discussion, however.

 

[SCBrain]

Thanks, Linklite. I think I've found some of them. Do you happen to remember one thread that was especially useful?

 

[SCBrain]

It seems to me that the two biggest problems are AI skills - in my opinion, related to 1UPT - and the religion game. 1UPT is easy to fix - the AI knew how to play Civ4 well - but I have no idea whether the developers of Civ7 agree.

The religious game is so bad that it is starting to discourage me from playing. I think I'll just turn religious victory off and just ignore the swarms of apostles that the AI sends my way, just like I turn off the barbarians. The problem with this is that the AI is playing a different game, and is wasting resources without knowing why.

I have an idea about how to fix the religious game. There should only be two religious units: Great prophets (who can found religions) and missionaries. Missionaries cannot enter foreign territory if the city has adopted a religion. That is, if a city is newly founded and has no religion, it's fair game and anyone can send in a missionary. But once a city has a religion, only the owner of the city can send missionaries into that city's territory.

After the cities have established religions, conversion should be possible, but gentle, passive and slow. Players should be able to convert their own cities to their declared state religion by sending missionaries - this has happened often in history. But they shouldn't be able to convert foreign cities actively, with missionaries. If two neighboring civs have different religions, but one civ builds a lot of religious buildings and wonders and has a lot of trade to a neighbor while the other ignores religion, then a slow conversion should be possible. But if both civs have roughly equal levels of religious infrastructure, then there should be religious stability - like there is between Russia and Poland today, for instance, or Mexico and the US.

That's not to say that there shouldn't be religious wars. There should be. Religious difference between two neighbors may very well cause friction leading to war, but the wars shouldn't be fought by priests and rabbis.

This proposal would do one more thing: it would get rid of all religious magical warfare. No apostles with lightning bolts, no gurus, none of that. Such things don't happen in real life, so they are both unrealistic and annoying. There might be inquisitors: missionaries could act as inquisitors if the player has decided to declare an inquisition, although that should come with some tradeoffs, like a decrease in scientific output or something. This has happened in life, and it's reasonable to give players a way to mold their own civilizations. But religious warfare as an offensive strategy to win the game is both annoyingly unfun and not based in reality.

 

[MrRadar]

I think I'll just turn religious victory off and just ignore the swarms of apostles that the AI sends my way,

Just keep in mind that turning off victory conditions does not impact AI behaviour in any way whatsoever and they happily continue with

wasting resources without knowing why.

This line is a great summary of the current state of the AI, by the way.

I came to think that the AI that was written for the vanilla ruleset was hardly changed to accommodate all the new stuff that came later in the expansions, and before too long it becomes obvious that the AI has little clue how to play at all. The devs went to great lengths to make each civ unique, but the AI is oblivious to all these fine differences and plays everyone the same.
As for religion, you can ignore those units even without turning off the victory condition, AI is unable to win a RV, unless it is a small or tiny map, where one of the waves may be enough to achieve the critical mass of converted cities. But on standard size map you're pretty much safe. Take a peak at the religious screen from time to time, though, just in case

Anyway, a new 30-year Civ celebration video just came out, have you seen it? It says: You, the Great. The Player is the Great One, be it even without really trying. Good AI? Why? It may hurt sales. Forget it...

 

[SCBrain]

Good to know, MrRadar! I play on an iPad, and small maps are the default. I actually lost once with a RV because I wasn't paying attention and Japan managed to convert majorities. As though that makes any sense at all.

As for my proposal, I think it's good except one thing: I don't know what a religious victory would look like, since converting another civ's religion would be basically impossible.

 

[Dotsworthy]

Just keep in mind that turning off victory conditions does not impact AI behaviour in any way whatsoever and they happily continue with

It is also the one victory type the AI can do well with on 4 civ maps.

I came to think that the AI that was written for the vanilla ruleset was hardly changed to accommodate all the new stuff that came later in the expansions, and before too long it becomes obvious that the AI has little clue how to play at all

That is absolutely the case. They don't have a strategy for Diplo victories, also see cultists, soothsayers, and their lack of prioritising techs for a science victory.

 

[Thormodr]

I am an iPad player, too. (Well, I have it on my laptop as well but I prefer playing on the iPad.)
It's a very good adaptation but they need to fix a few bugs.

There are some good strategy guides and gameplay videos by some you tubers. I can recommend Potato McWhiskey and Marbozir. They are entertaining and help you learn how to play better.

 

[PiR]

Thanks, Linklite. I think I've found some of them. Do you happen to remember one thread that was especially useful?

@Pietato 's thread about remaining issues covers quite a lot.

 

[SCBrain]

Great answers, PiR and Thormodr! Thank you very much.

 

[Victoria]

I play on the iPad as well as a PC.
I must admit my iPad games often feel easier but I guess it’s just perception.
This iteration does not use 1 UPT in its purest form but allows you to combine into Corps and armies which gives a clue I feel about how they are trying to provide a compromise. I think the bottom line is they will not go away from fighting directly on the map, that is quite popular but they may try more compromises in the next iteration.

Firaxis has been doing this a long time and have worked out what is popular and that count a lot when shareholders are concerned. Bottom line is a lot of people like to win or like more of a general 4x game rather than a min/max hard game. Still Firaxis appears to try and be as inclusive of them as possible. So with all of that I cannot see a civ IV iteration coming back, and also people’s concept of what an ‘AI’/expert system can do with a set amount of money is just skewed.

My opinion considering the above is that the game is great, it pushes my buttons in the right way because it provides variety, replay ability and has shown quite a lot of skill in limiting snowball mechanics. Sure can still min/max and get ahead in a variety of ways and I suspect some of that is design.
The game is complex, a culture victory being a good example where it has had to be worked out precisely how it works, when different tourism is modified etc. Some bits you really cannot work out without spending an insane amount of time trying. I think most players do not care, the vast majority that just play and do not visit forums.

I also find that sadly some people who do not like the current iteration seem to be overly negative much like online feedback is nowadays. A personal view like you gave is great. Balanced and fairly accurate for a youngish player. For example, apostle floods everyone complained about, but for those that have played for a couple of years you just do not think about it. I rarely take religion and when others come to convert, that’s fine, my people do not care what religion they are and it typically does not affect my game. If I am playing a religion, it is also quite easy to deal with, the AI is a genius at army combat compared to religious combat and there are plenty of ways to counter. A religious victory is also the easiest and quickest to get although on deity it can be tricky with a poor start.

The threads pointed out give some of the better views now. I find it interesting how everyone has a slightly different view, even those like me who still love and play the game like and hate different aspects. Regardless the statistics on steam speak for themselves, it is still a popular, much played and well loved game, it is just easier to point out bad bits rather than good bits.

I do hope they drop faith in the next iteration, it is really culture as you say but I guess they can rationalise it by saying faith is a type of culture and you can apply that to rock bands. I suspect they just crowbarred rock bands into faith to keep faith still relevant, and rock bands do give a cultural victory.

Of all the online guides, the ones @Thormodr stated are indeed superior, they at least know what they are talking about properly.