Why can't civ7 be more like chess and less like checkers?

[planetfall]

Simple games that have stood the test of time are checkers and chess. Checkers because it is simple and very few paths to victory. Chess because it appears simple, but there are almost endless ways to play and win the game. The fun of older versions of civ was that there were many ways to win and play the game so the player did not tire of game very quickly. From the posts about civ7, it seems it's a tunnel game. You play the game just one way or you are toast. Not seeing the fun aspect yet, except being different and new. From what I've seen and read, the game is 90% annoying and 10 % having potential. At least with 6 there were districts and policies to play with. I have yet to hear of one, not less two, new gametime tools to add spice to the game. I keep on hearing of things you can't do with the new version, including running on current computer. So need a new computer and a new game license. Not feeling it. Not a rant so much as deep disappointment. This just doesn't feel like a game designed by Sid.

 

[Leyrann]

I'm sorry but checkers isn't nearly as simple as a lot of people think it is.

Simple rules =/= simple game.

Anyway the complaints about being "forced" into a victory path are just plain weird. These people would be playing the exact same way that they're being "forced" into if legacy paths didn't exist. They're genuinely just natural gameplay things to do.

As for new tools to add spice to the game, army commanders are pretty great, and very versatile. Civilizations are more unique than ever and it's a genuine joy to explore them one by one. I've never before been so invested in colonizing a different continent, either. Diplomacy is miles ahead of any previous civ game - and indeed most games in the genre. Navigable rivers don't need an explanation. Crises are underwhelming if you're an experienced player, but the idea behind them definitely looks valid to me and if they were to scale with difficulty level they'd be a great addition for everyone, rather than just the more casual players. Also, focusing on your economy is finally a victory path by itself, rather than a versatile base from which you can branch into a victory with slightly less efficiency but significantly more robustness. Do I need to keep going?

Edit: Also, between "from the posts about civ7" and "I keep on hearing of things" it sounds to me like you haven't even played the game, so what makes you feel qualified to say that it doesn't feel like a game designed by Sid? Nevermind that he hasn't been directly involved in the game design for several editions now, of course...

 

[TheGrayFox]

I'm sorry but checkers isn't nearly as simple as a lot of people think it is.

Simple rules =/= simple game.

Anyway the complaints about being "forced" into a victory path are just plain weird. These people would be playing the exact same way that they're being "forced" into if legacy paths didn't exist. They're genuinely just natural gameplay things to do.

It's obvious from the OP that they haven't played the game, they pretty much imply this outright in their langauge. Their position is coming from someone like myself sitting on the sideline listening to feedback, reviews, and coming to a conclusion based on what we've seen from others playing but I'm going to touch on this point very quickly because you've also made this point to me in another thread.

If VII was not forcing players into predefined narratives and very rigid mission objectives in every single round , no many of us would not always be playing a glorified terra map script where we are essentially forced to engage in European style colonialism to achieve half of the victory conditions. If there wasn't ages and their designed mission objectives and short rounds, no many of us would not be playing to spam an arbitrary number of wonders in the first age to "win" . Many players atleast in previous Civilizations would just play the game then pivot into trying to achieve a victory hours and hours and hours into their campaign... Again it's not even the fence sitters who are saying this, you can find review after review including professional game journalist pointing out the lose of freedom and the restrictive nature of the design around ages.

Most of the other things you cite like Navigable rivers, commanders are all things that most people think were good changes.

 

[VGT]

it sounds to me like you haven't even played the game, so what makes you feel qualified to [..]

I think this will be one of the issues that Firaxis will have to address somehow if they want to try to win back lost portion of fanbase. I mentioned already in some other discussions that it's hard to evaluate this game if someone is on the fence with controversial changes. I can't buy it, because I will learn nothing in 2 hours return window. Probably won't even reach first age switch which is the biggest gameplay issue for me from what I'm reading. So only thing I can base my opinion on is this forum, reviews, youtube videos, etc. And currently for me it's not working in Firaxis' favor.

One thing that came to my mind right now is triggering free weekend at some point for people like me. This would give a better chance to form my own opinion instead of depending on others. They could "sell" it by saying that they see and understand doubt in part of the community and would like to give them a chance to see for themselves, that those new changes are good. Steam DRM on top of it would make it possible, games offer free limited time period all the time. But I doubt it would happen so close to the release.

 

[King Flevance]

It's the same victory conditions as always. It is still 4X gameplay. Just now, they reward milestones toward each victory. My next game, I was planning on just playing as a sandbox and seeing how I do. I bet I get a bunch of legacy points without even really focusing on them. I saw someone mention rotating out legacy paths, which would be interesting. The "funnel" gameplay doesn't really show up until the end for the victory, but that has always been true in Civ. You don't stumble into a cultural victory or domination victory. You have to actively map it out. We always have had to map out our victories. Now, there are just checkpoints along the path.

For the record, the districts and policies in 7 seem WAY more dynamic and flexible and have more impact than in 6. I feel like 7 has loads of potential if only we can clean up the underdeveloped mess of a UI and have it help us navigate like it should.

 

[King Flevance]

It's the same victory conditions as always. It is still 4X gameplay. Just now, they reward milestones toward each victory. My next game, I was planning on just playing as a sandbox and seeing how I do. I bet I get a bunch of legacy points without even really focusing on them. I saw someone mention rotating out legacy paths, which would be interesting. The "funnel" gameplay doesn't really show up until the end for the victory, but that has always been true in Civ. You don't stumble into a cultural victory or domination victory. You have to actively map it out. We always have had to map out our victories. Now, there are just checkpoints along the path.

For the record, the districts and policies in 7 seem WAY more dynamic and flexible and have more impact than in 6. I feel like 7 has loads of potential if only we can clean up the underdeveloped mess of a UI and have it help us navigate


Edit: The Age transition should be smoothed out. I have a few ideas but I think the crisis + transition needs to be a smoother blend with a connection point vs. the drastic swap that it is now.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

These people would be playing the exact same way that they're being "forced" into if legacy paths didn't exist. They're genuinely just natural gameplay things to do.

Indeed, in my current game I deliberately ignored the legacy paths and just played Civ but I'm making excellent progress in Mititary and Economic, most people here won't need to have their hands held but many new players will.

 

[planetfall]

Some of you did not read the original post. Yes, I have not played the game yet. Remember I mentioned I need to buy a new PC as current CPU does not meet minimum requirements. I play civ a lot, i.e. way too much, but I have never bought the game at first rollout. Usually it's after the first update, which are now called DLC's. Guess what I really need is what is new and exciting enough to spring the cash for a new computer. I vividly recall the horrors of earlier civ before the 3.17 patch where the game would crash multiple times in a session. Thank you for responding.

 

[ThichN]

Some of you did not read the original post. Yes, I have not played the game yet. Remember I mentioned I need to buy a new PC as current CPU does not meet minimum requirements. I play civ a lot, i.e. way too much, but I have never bought the game at first rollout. Usually it's after the first update, which are now called DLC's. Guess what I really need is what is new and exciting enough to spring the cash for a new computer. I vividly recall the horrors of earlier civ before the 3.17 patch where the game would crash multiple times in a session. Thank you for responding.

This really isn't meant to be a cheeky reply, but I recommend you reserve judgement and deep disappointment until you've actually played the game. You might find it surprises you!

If VII was not forcing players into predefined narratives and very rigid mission objectives in every single round , no many of us would not always be playing a glorified terra map script where we are essentially forced to engage in European style colonialism to achieve half of the victory conditions.

I've seen this mentioned and I wonder if I am cut from a different 4x cloth. My all-time favorite is Alpha Centauri. In that game, you are put through a narrative: the planet is alive and it is trying to communicate with you. How you approach that narrative is wildly different depending on which faction you play. In Civ7, I see something similar, and it has been something missing from recent 4x games (the last satisfaction I got from a 4x game was Old World, which does narrative quite well). There is a "story" that unfolds through the game. But contrary to "every single round" being the same, your choices will really impact how you play this out. It's not just picking your civ(s) and leader. You also have social policies (nothing new there) ... and attribute points. Attribute points are a call-back to what made Civ4 and Civ5 so great (and SMAC) -- a kind of social engineering. And your leader's attributes will remain for the game. They're impactful. And they'll shift how you navigate thru the ages. Not to mention lasting civ-specific social policies (not seeing these praised enough). At the end, the world has a story. I hear people say the endings are underwhelming. That may be true, because this time it's about the road, not the destination.

If anything, I want them to exaggerate these more. I loved in the Exploration age when I got prompted to lean into a certain gov't type based on rebellion in my distant lands settlements.

The variety is there, and the customization, and each playthru for me has been dramatically different. Isn't that strange? You'll always have 3 eras. You'll often have treasure fleets (you could opt to not deal with them though). Etc. But every leader, civ, and consequently game I've gone through has been anything but static. Civ7 lets you be in the sandbox but gives you a reason to be in the sandbox. Civ6, imho, was a lot of dressing that felt hollow and gave me some kind of bureaucratic dread to play.

Btw, on the European colonialism note, it's worth mentioning that many cultures have sailed to faraway lands and extracted goods (and unfortunately, people) from them. China, Japan, Polynesia if we're talking East Asia alone, but also Islamic and Indian polities. The term "treasure fleet" to me doesn't imply a Euro-centric narrative of that era (esp when I arrive to the distant lands and find Rome ).

 

[ombak]

Some of you did not read the original post. Yes, I have not played the game yet. Remember I mentioned I need to buy a new PC as current CPU does not meet minimum requirements. I play civ a lot, i.e. way too much, but I have never bought the game at first rollout. Usually it's after the first update, which are now called DLC's. Guess what I really need is what is new and exciting enough to spring the cash for a new computer. I vividly recall the horrors of earlier civ before the 3.17 patch where the game would crash multiple times in a session. Thank you for responding.

This is a complete aside, and a pet peeve of mine I guess, so it is not aimed at you specifically, but DLCs and updates aren't the same. The first DLC is just a new leader or Civ, though it does coincide with a game update, but no one has to pay for the update itself. In fact there are multiple free updates already. But I guess that boat sailed long ago, probably when Steam labeled everything DLC.

I assume you mean a new expansion. I do think games with so much added content like Civ, even though they're good value for their money, are steep investments up front, so waiting for expansions and sales makes sense if you don't have the specs, or don't know if you will enjoy it. But keep in mind it was almost a year and a half before the first expansion to 6, and another year before the final expansion, which came out 6 years ago.

 

[teakbois2112]

Simple games that have stood the test of time are checkers and chess. Checkers because it is simple and very few paths to victory. Chess because it appears simple, but there are almost endless ways to play and win the game. The fun of older versions of civ was that there were many ways to win and play the game so the player did not tire of game very quickly.

By this definition, Civ VII does fall into the 'chess' scenario.

The first two ages are about setting up your civilization to succeed in the final age, but there are a lot of ways that can be done.

For instance, you can focus on expanding to distant lands in the Exploration age, which is what many assume the game railroads you into doing, but it could be just as beneficial to strengthen the home continent. Conquering your neighbour may not get you military path progress, but getting these cities could give you a better empire into modern age than a scattered overseas empire.

On top of that you have the civ swapping (and the civic trees of those civs mixing things up). The tech masteries add another wrinkle.
There are definitely more ways to shape your empire than in the recent iterations. A lot of them could use a whack form the nerf stick however.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I've seen this mentioned and I wonder if I am cut from a different 4x cloth. My all-time favorite is Alpha Centauri. In that game, you are put through a narrative: the planet is alive and it is trying to communicate with you. How you approach that narrative is wildly different depending on which faction you play. In Civ7, I see something similar, and it has been something missing from recent 4x games (the last satisfaction I got from a 4x game was Old World, which does narrative quite well). There is a "story" that unfolds through the game. But contrary to "every single round" being the same, your choices will really impact how you play this out. It's not just picking your civ(s) and leader. You also have social policies (nothing new there) ... and attribute points. Attribute points are a call-back to what made Civ4 and Civ5 so great (and SMAC) -- a kind of social engineering. And your leader's attributes will remain for the game. They're impactful. And they'll shift how you navigate thru the ages. Not to mention lasting civ-specific social policies (not seeing these praised enough). At the end, the world has a story. I hear people say the endings are underwhelming. That may be true, because this time it's about the road, not the destination.

If anything, I want them to exaggerate these more. I loved in the Exploration age when I got prompted to lean into a certain gov't type based on rebellion in my distant lands settlements.

The variety is there, and the customization, and each playthru for me has been dramatically different. Isn't that strange? You'll always have 3 eras. You'll often have treasure fleets (you could opt to not deal with them though). Etc. But every leader, civ, and consequently game I've gone through has been anything but static. Civ7 lets you be in the sandbox but gives you a reason to be in the sandbox. Civ6, imho, was a lot of dressing that felt hollow and gave me some kind of bureaucratic dread to play.

We'll have to agree to disagree because Alpha Centauri and its inferior successor Beyond Earth didn't really interest me and I don't think the emergent and dynamic narrative events of Old World and its optional and completely flexible ambition victory mechanics are really comparable to what we got in VII. I'm glad that you're enjoying the game though and I repeat as that my criticisms are not meant to ruin anyone else's enjoyment of the game but simple provide perspective as someone who does not like the direction I've seen from the game.

Btw, on the European colonialism note, it's worth mentioning that many cultures have sailed to faraway lands and extracted goods (and unfortunately, people) from them. China, Japan, Polynesia if we're talking East Asia alone, but also Islamic and Indian polities. The term "treasure fleet" to me doesn't imply a Euro-centric narrative of that era (esp when I arrive to the distant lands and find Rome ).

No, China Japan, Indians, and Muslims really didn't sail out to faraway unknown lands to colonize people and exploit resources in the manner being depicted in VII though. Japan wasn't really capable of external and succesful imperialism until the 19th century, China's medieval Treasure voyages are not really comparable to exploration age discovery and exploitation of the new world being modeled and Indians/Arabs never colonized the new world either. Only one among this list that has actual sailed great distances to settle were Polynesians but the treasure fleets in VII are very clearly modeling the current of European colonization of the Americas and not their expansion in the Pacific.

 

[ThichN]

We'll have to agree to disagree because Alpha Centauri and its inferior successor Beyond Earth didn't really interest me and I don't think the emergent and dynamic narrative events of Old World and its optional and completely flexible ambition victory mechanics are really comparable to what we got in VII. I'm glad that you're enjoying the game though and I repeat as that my criticisms are not meant to ruin anyone else's enjoyment of the game but simple provide perspective as someone who does not like the direction I've seen from the game.



No, China Japan, Indians, and Muslims really didn't sail out to faraway unknown lands to colonize people and exploit resources in the manner being depicted in VII though. Japan wasn't really capable of external and succesful imperialism until the 19th century, China's medieval Treasure voyages are not really comparable to exploration age discovery and exploitation of the new world being modeled and Indians/Arabs never colonized the new world either. Only one among this list that has actual sailed great distances to settle were Polynesians but the treasure fleets in VII are very clearly modeling the current of European colonization of the Americas and not their expansion in the Pacific.

Aye, that makes sense. I think there are different camps or types of players. Maybe it's like waves that come and go... the next iteration could be far more to your liking at not to mine. The universe in balance.

So, speaking purely Civ-abstractly here: the Muslim conquests of the Mediterranean, thru spread of culture/religion/tech in Spain, etc., could be considered a sort of "treasure fleet." Japan went to Korea in its feudal era (heck, even Mongolia sailed to Japan in a failed conquest). Japanese daimyo also participated in / sponsored piracy around East Asia. China absolutely went on expeditions for resources over land and sea. Just saying, depending on whatever weird abstract map you have in Civ7, the allegory to real-life European colonization is flimsy at best, an echo, representation, or option imho more of a generalized progression (for better or worse) of different cultures through one of the 4x (exploitation).

I mean, if we have these conversations, we also have to say... Gandhi never went on a global conquest. Civ7 was never really meant to be a historical reflection, my point above being less so of an argument for the game's historical accuracy and more to show that the game contains mechanics that capture a variety of global situations and scenarios that can fit into an overall collective of generalized historical traits that the franchise is well-known for.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Aye, that makes sense. I think there are different camps or types of players. Maybe it's like waves that come and go... the next iteration could be far more to your liking at not to mine. The universe in balance.

So, speaking purely Civ-abstractly here: the Muslim conquests of the Mediterranean, thru spread of culture/religion/tech in Spain, etc., could be considered a sort of "treasure fleet."

I would disagree completely as the Arab conquests were done contigiously and their empire was largely overland (crossing the strait of Gibraltar is not comparable to sailing overseas and colonizing the Americas). Arabs were also not sailing to a new continent they didn't know about

Japan went to Korea in its feudal era (heck, even Mongolia sailed to Japan in a failed conquest). Japanese daimyo also participated in / sponsored piracy around East Asia. China absolutely went on expeditions for resources over land and sea. Just saying, depending on whatever weird abstract map you have in Civ7, the allegory to real-life European colonization is flimsy at best, an echo, representation, or option imho more of a generalized progression (for better or worse) of different cultures through one of the 4x (exploitation).

Japan attempt at conquering Korea failed but even then they weren't sailing to a new continent or lands they already weren't well aware of and neither were the Mongols. Naval invasions like this are not comparable to the European colonization of the Americas being depicted in VII

Also China's did not go on its treasure expeditions to colonize distant lands. Their expeditions were largely trade oriented (in fact they were the ones sending out ships full of treasure) and simply an extention/continuation of their tributary system. Not really comparable to the process of New World colonization being modelled here in VII's exploration age.

I mean, if we have these conversations, we also have to say... Gandhi never went on a global conquest. Civ7 was never really meant to be a historical reflection, my point above being less so of an argument for the game's historical accuracy and more to show that the game contains mechanics that capture a variety of global situations and scenarios that can fit into an overall collective of generalized historical traits that the franchise is well-known for.

You're right Gandhi never did those things in real life but the tagline of the series has always been build an empire to stand the test of time and the entire series was about imperialism and taking an eternal leader/civ and creating immessive alt history story from the abstraction of all of human history . Which is why many of us do not like being forced into very specific historical narratives like an exploration age themed so heavily and specifically around European colonization every single game.

 

[ThichN]

I would disagree completely as the Arab conquests were done contigiously and their empire was largely overland (crossing the strait of Gibraltar is not comparable to sailing overseas and colonizing the Americas). Arabs were also not sailing to a new continent they didn't know about



Japan attempt at conquering Korea failed but even then they weren't sailing to a new continent or lands they already weren't well aware of and neither were the Mongols. Naval invasions like this are not comparable to the European colonization of the Americas being depicted in VII

Also China's did not go on its treasure expeditions to colonize distant lands. Their expeditions were largely trade oriented (in fact they were the ones sending out ships full of treasure) and simply an extention/continuation of their tributary system. Not really comparable to the process of New World colonization being modelled here in VII's exploration age.



You're right Gandhi never did those things in real life but the tagline of the series has always been build an empire to stand the test of time and the entire series was about imperialism and taking an eternal leader/civ and creating immessive alt history story from the abstraction of all of human history . Which is why many of us do not like being forced into very specific historical narratives like an exploration age themed so heavily and specifically around European colonization every single game.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this stuff. Notwithstanding the historicity (e.g., the Ming Dynasty's forays into the Indian Ocean and East Africa, Korea at the time of Japanese invasions being very much an unknown world and entity[!], how Islam, seeking spices, no less, traveled all the way to Indonesia, etc.) I absolutely do not think it forces a player into European colonization, any more that it has forced players to do anything in previous iterations. What I am speaking of is fundamentally what the game represents through its mechanics -- which is a variety of global realities, just as Civ has always been. This is like saying that the "Code of Laws" tech in Civ makes it predominantly focused on Mesopotamia, despite variations of a similar code appearing throughout history, but none as specific to Hammurabi's as the OG Civ proclaims. Civ's ability to take from history and adapt is standard.

In my first game as the Khmer, I transitioned to the Majapahit. With fleets of cetbang I went to the "distant lands," where a vastly superior empire led by Augustus awaited me (and crushed my first entry). But eventually, I could still create treasure fleets and send them home. I never sent enough for that victory condition, but did manage to get a scientific victory during that age.

In another game, with Ibn leading the Abbasids, I didn't even do the distant lands treasure thing, but instead sent Islamic missionaries overseas to every corner of the globe (both home continent and new continent) which contributed towards an expansion and cultural victory for that age.

 

[TheGrayFox]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this stuff. Notwithstanding the historicity (e.g., the Ming Dynasty's forays into the Indian Ocean and East Africa, Korea at the time of Japanese invasions being very much an unknown world and entity[!], how Islam, seeking spices, no less, traveled all the way to Indonesia, etc.)

These places weren't unknown to China. Eurasia is one massive continent and East Africa had been part of that trade route and there had been intercontinental trade between Asia (particularly Middle East and Iran across the Red Sea) and East Africa for centuries. There had literally been trade and contact between Romans and China since Antiquity.....

and no Korea was not an unknown land to Japan in the 16th century..... That's simply objectively incorrect. Japan had known about its existence and been interacting with Korea since the 3rd century. You don't think Japan was unaware of the existence of its neighbors? What the Japanese Shogunate wanted to do to Korea and eventually China isn't much different than what England tried to do to France. That's not what's being modelling with distant lands in VII

I absolutely do not think it forces a player into European colonization, any more that it has forced players to do anything in previous iterations. What I am speaking of is fundamentally what the game represents through its mechanics -- which is a variety of global realities, just as Civ has always been. This is like saying that the "Code of Laws" tech in Civ makes it predominantly focused on Mesopotamia, despite variations of a similar code appearing throughout history, but none as specific to Hammurabi's as the OG Civ proclaims. Civ's ability to take from history and adapt is standard.
In my first game as the Khmer, I transitioned to the Majapahit. With fleets of cetbang I went to the "distant lands," where a vastly superior empire led by Augustus awaited me (and crushed my first entry). But eventually, I could still create treasure fleets and send them home. I never sent enough for that victory condition, but did manage to get a scientific victory during that age.
In another game, with Ibn leading the Abbasids, I didn't even do the distant lands treasure thing, but instead sent Islamic missionaries overseas to every corner of the globe (both home continent and new continent) which contributed towards an expansion and cultural victory for that age.

We'll have to agree to disagree. THe game literally forces every single game to be a terra map variant and =/3rd the game is directly themed around European colonization of the Americas..... with half of the victory conditions requiring you to engage in this narrative or engaging in a other rigid mission objectives or religion mechanic which seem to be the worst the series has ever seen.

I'm glad you're enjoying the game though but I'm not seeing the vision.

 

[tman2000]

Simple games that have stood the test of time are checkers and chess. Checkers because it is simple and very few paths to victory. Chess because it appears simple, but there are almost endless ways to play and win the game. The fun of older versions of civ was that there were many ways to win and play the game so the player did not tire of game very quickly. From the posts about civ7, it seems it's a tunnel game. You play the game just one way or you are toast. Not seeing the fun aspect yet, except being different and new. From what I've seen and read, the game is 90% annoying and 10 % having potential. At least with 6 there were districts and policies to play with. I have yet to hear of one, not less two, new gametime tools to add spice to the game. I keep on hearing of things you can't do with the new version, including running on current computer. So need a new computer and a new game license. Not feeling it. Not a rant so much as deep disappointment. This just doesn't feel like a game designed by Sid.

You sound like you haven't played it at all.

It's not simple. Leader/civ bonuses can become extremely complicated and specific and it can be very tricky to use most of them. Typically, people will build settlements fast and then rely on economic legacy points for tons of gold to steamroll in the late game. Beyond that, it takes a ton of attention to detail to use most of the bonuses properly. It's not easy. People haven't even begun to get into the nuances of this game.

If I took the top 10 players and put them together and banned about 10 policies/leaders/civs and then forced each of them to play an underplayed civ, it would get real interesting real fast and they wouldn't necessarily do so well. The game is just beginning.

 

[Leyrann]

If VII was not forcing players into predefined narratives and very rigid mission objectives in every single round , no many of us would not always be playing a glorified terra map script where we are essentially forced to engage in European style colonialism to achieve half of the victory conditions.

No, but that has nothing to do with the victory conditions. It's because of the treasure fleet resources. The victories are a natural extension of the gameplay that comes with having those resources. So if you have such a big issue with this, criticize the treasure resources, not the legacy paths.

And if you ask me, having valuable resources in faraway lands isn't a weird gameplay mechanic at all.

If there wasn't ages and their designed mission objectives and short rounds, no many of us would not be playing to spam an arbitrary number of wonders in the first age to "win"

If you can simply spam an arbitrary number of wonders to "win" in Antiquity you need to be playing on a higher difficulty, my friend. There is nothing simple or easy (like you make it sound) about pursuing that particular legacy path on Deity.

So, speaking purely Civ-abstractly here: the Muslim conquests of the Mediterranean, thru spread of culture/religion/tech in Spain, etc., could be considered a sort of "treasure fleet." Japan went to Korea in its feudal era (heck, even Mongolia sailed to Japan in a failed conquest). Japanese daimyo also participated in / sponsored piracy around East Asia. China absolutely went on expeditions for resources over land and sea. Just saying, depending on whatever weird abstract map you have in Civ7, the allegory to real-life European colonization is flimsy at best, an echo, representation, or option imho more of a generalized progression (for better or worse) of different cultures through one of the 4x (exploitation).

Also, in my current game I'm playing the Majapahit, and my gameplay was actually pretty similar to what they historically did; I've settled a bunch of towns and cities overseas, ten in total in fact, but most of them on smaller islands or isolated in empty pockets that remained, and I haven't conquered any.

Or, well, I got one from a peace deal after a war that I got dragged into through an alliance.

I would disagree completely as the Arab conquests were done contigiously and their empire was largely overland (crossing the strait of Gibraltar is not comparable to sailing overseas and colonizing the Americas). Arabs were also not sailing to a new continent they didn't know about

The geography of Earth does not exactly allow for colonizing a New World multiple times across it's history... I'm sure the Arabs or Chinese would've loved colonizing/subjugating the New World, had they gotten there before the Europeans. And I'm sure that if the technological advantages and diseases had been reversed (and their home situation had been more stable), the Aztecs would've loved to colonize Europe.

 

[ThichN]

These places weren't unknown to China. Eurasia is one massive continent and East Africa had been part of that trade route and there had been intercontinental trade between Asia (particularly Middle East and Iran across the Red Sea) and East Africa for centuries. There had literally been trade and contact between Romans and China since Antiquity.....

and no Korea was not an unknown land to Japan in the 16th century..... That's simply objectively incorrect. Japan had known about its existence and been interacting with Korea since the 3rd century. You don't think Japan was unaware of the existence of its neighbors? What the Japanese Shogunate wanted to do to Korea and eventually China isn't much different than what England tried to do to France. That's not what's being modelling with distant lands in VII

Let me reframe this: Distant lands, the very concept, has meant different things to different civilizations throughout time. My distant lands in one game was a series of islands 5 tiles from my capital, that I could see the coastline of since the ancient era. You mistake geographic knowledge for geopolitical certainty. Africa was still considered a "distant land" to China, despite its knowledge of it being there. In Korea, Japanese military failure was largely due to an underestimation of Korean political and military integrity (thru lack of intel), despite centuries of cultural and religious exchange. If you want a more literal "sailing" example for Japan, you look up Ryukyu and the eventual colonization of Okinawa.

Btw, the game talks about the other civs in the ancient era, and that's pretty interesting. Sometimes you get a pop-up saying that a civ in a distant land is extremely scientifically advanced. It's like a rumor.

We'll have to agree to disagree. THe game literally forces every single game to be a terra map variant and =/3rd the game is directly themed around European colonization of the Americas..... with half of the victory conditions requiring you to engage in this narrative or engaging in a other rigid mission objectives or religion mechanic which seem to be the worst the series has ever seen.

I'm glad you're enjoying the game though but I'm not seeing the vision.

What I am saying is the game lets you experience all of the above. You realize sailing to a new continent and extracting treasure fleets is a single victory type in Civ7 (economic)? It's like saying, "I hate how Civ6 railroads you into building spaceships for a science victory." Why the focus on only this economic victory type? My point is not that all of these cultures/societies mentioned above had exact parallels to European colonization, but rather that their conditions in history are reflected in other victory types and ways of playing during that specific age. You don't have to settle the other continent; you can capture cities there. Befriend independent powers. You can spread your religion. Or you can not deal with it all, instead focusing on science or conquest or culture at home. You have 4 options for victory in each age, and heck, you could opt to not go for any of them, too.

You mention a love of Civ providing alt history situations. If the many exact game examples I've written throughout this thread haven't shown that the new iteration does that, I don't know what will. I respect that you may not enjoy playing this game, but I notice you also saying "it seems," so it begs the question: Have you played the game? This might be the case where we'll have to talk down the line if you ever choose to. I'd be genuinely curious to hear your thoughts then.

 

[TheGrayFox]

Let me reframe this: Distant lands, the very concept, has meant different things to different civilizations throughout time. My distant lands in one game was a series of islands 5 tiles from my capital, that I could see the coastline of since the ancient era. You mistake geographic knowledge for geopolitical certainty. Africa was still considered a "distant land" to China, despite its knowledge of it being there. In Korea, Japanese military failure was largely due to an underestimation of Korean political and military integrity (thru lack of intel), despite centuries of cultural and religious exchange. If you want a more literal "sailing" example for Japan, you look up Ryukyu and the eventual colonization of Okinawa.

Btw, the game talks about the other civs in the ancient era, and that's pretty interesting. Sometimes you get a pop-up saying that a civ in a distant land is extremely scientifically advanced. It's like a rumor.

Again, I'm sorry but Korea wasn't a "distant land" for Japan.. neither was Iberia to the Arabs. What is being modelled here in civ with its whole "discover the new world after the medieval age, go colonize and exploit it to send back treasure ships" routine is very obvious, it's European colonization. The mechanic is not an abstraction of China's treasure voyages, which agin were trade and tributary oriented. Africa wasn't colonized by China, they reached the coast of the east with a trade expedition, traded briefly and then went back home where they fell out of direct contact with one another for a few more centuries

What I am saying is the game lets you experience all of the above. You realize sailing to a new continent and extracting treasure fleets is a single victory type in Civ7 (economic)? It's like saying, "I hate how Civ6 railroads you into building spaceships for a science victory." Why the focus on only this economic victory type? My point is not that all of these cultures/societies mentioned above had exact parallels to European colonization, but rather that their conditions in history are reflected in other victory types and ways of playing during that specific age. You don't have to settle the other continent; you can capture cities there. Befriend independent powers. You can spread your religion. Or you can not deal with it all, instead focusing on science or conquest or culture at home. You have 4 options for victory in each age, and heck, you could opt to not go for any of them, too.

2/4 of the victory conditions in Exploration are themed around European colonization of "distant lands" and you are gimping yourself in most cases by not engaging in this land grab. You're right not every victory is themed around colonization but that doesn't change that every single game of VII is a glorified terra mapscript with strict mission objectives for its short three round structure. I don't like that coming from past civ titles where I can completely edit and customize the map and play a long form campaign where I don't even have to think about victory conditions in the first 10 hours

You mention a love of Civ providing alt history situations. If the many exact game examples I've written throughout this thread haven't shown that the new iteration does that, I don't know what will. I respect that you may not enjoy playing this game, but I notice you also saying "it seems," so it begs the question: Have you played the game? This might be the case where we'll have to talk down the line if you ever choose to. I'd be genuinely curious to hear your thoughts then.

I've already admitted I haven't played. My position is one of watching others play, reading reviews, and the like. I'm not interested in most of the changes to the formula they've made outside of like navigible rivers and commanders, which is why I have no interest in shelling out 70-100USD to try. I'll wait for deep sales and I'll get back to you