Will there actually be a Civ 7?

[LastSword]

This one is easy.
There is one chalice and fork in front of you, representing the player.
Now there are 6 other chalices for 6 leaders from civ 6.
Finally, we can see 7 forks being prepared to the left. Easily confirms civ 7.

Now, the release/announcement date. Probably something with portraits, let's go with birth of Tesla: July 10.
You can believe. You are welcome.

 

[tjs282]

This is not new, but now count seven here and find all the wonderful little possible clues.

Hmmm...

I see seven goblets (on seven hex-shaped coasters), seven forks grouped in front of seven plates, seven samosas on Gandhi's plate, seven segments to the cut orange in front of Monty(?), seven strawberries decorating the cake in front of Hammurabi(?), seven kofta/falafel(?) on Cleo's(?) plate...

 

[vorlon_mi]

While I agree that the City spam may lead to snowballing, performance issues and sometimes frustration because of the AI settling behavior, I don't think that the solution is necessarilly a Region System. Rather, we should take a closer look at the Issue, and reconsider the effectiveness of previous efforts of resolving it:
- Is Civ VI still suffering from the same ICS problem that previous games suffered from? if yes, is it still a big issue or did we solve some of the drawbacks? what are the Issues of ICS that we're still experiencing? IMO we still kinda still have that issue, but not to the same degree as previously.

ICS was most prevalent in Civ2, where it was possible to settle CxCxC (city, space, city, space, city) and the game mechanics for calculating commerce and science rewarded that tactic. Only two VC's: Total conquest or space.

In Civ3, they addressed that using several tools:

• Increasing the minimum distance
• Adding corruption and waste, where cities settled far from the capital would be less productive
• Adding an optimal city number (OCN) based on map size; cities founded after reaching the OCN would have more corruption and waste
• Added corruption reducing buildings, that countered some of the effects

They added culture as a means of establishing boundaries of an empire; units could trespass without automatically declaring war. Net result was empires of 20 founded cities, which grew to 80 cities or more after conquering.

In Civ4, they retained the minimum settling distance, but changed the cost equation. Each city added costs to the overall economy, until it grew large enough (pop 3 or 4) so that it was a net benefit. Players who expanded rapidly (using their Civ3 instincts) would usually crash their economies. Corruption and waste replaced by health and happiness; resources were used to keep citizens healthy and happy. Cities which lacked health or happiness became less productive, so road and rail networks were needed to provide resources to far-flung cities. Great people were generated using specialist citizens, providing an incentive to grow some cities larger to run those specialists. Net result was fewer self-founded cities, with more incentive to conquer cities.

Note that both Civ3 and Civ4 had victory conditions which depended on claiming lots of land. Conquest VC = eXterminate the other players, or vassalize them in Civ4. Domination VC = control a large percentage of the land in the world, say, 66%.

 

[Leyrann]

ICS was most prevalent in Civ2, where it was possible to settle CxCxC (city, space, city, space, city) and the game mechanics for calculating commerce and science rewarded that tactic. Only two VC's: Total conquest or space.

In Civ3, they addressed that using several tools:

• Increasing the minimum distance
• Adding corruption and waste, where cities settled far from the capital would be less productive
• Adding an optimal city number (OCN) based on map size; cities founded after reaching the OCN would have more corruption and waste
• Added corruption reducing buildings, that countered some of the effects

They added culture as a means of establishing boundaries of an empire; units could trespass without automatically declaring war. Net result was empires of 20 founded cities, which grew to 80 cities or more after conquering.

In Civ4, they retained the minimum settling distance, but changed the cost equation. Each city added costs to the overall economy, until it grew large enough (pop 3 or 4) so that it was a net benefit. Players who expanded rapidly (using their Civ3 instincts) would usually crash their economies. Corruption and waste replaced by health and happiness; resources were used to keep citizens healthy and happy. Cities which lacked health or happiness became less productive, so road and rail networks were needed to provide resources to far-flung cities. Great people were generated using specialist citizens, providing an incentive to grow some cities larger to run those specialists. Net result was fewer self-founded cities, with more incentive to conquer cities.

Note that both Civ3 and Civ4 had victory conditions which depended on claiming lots of land. Conquest VC = eXterminate the other players, or vassalize them in Civ4. Domination VC = control a large percentage of the land in the world, say, 66%.

While I cannot say anything about Civ 3, I do know that Civ 2 already had corruption (though late-game governments could eliminate it). Don't know if it had an OCN. It did have the Courthouse reducing corruption.

Also, according to what I've previously heard on this forum, ICS was actually at it's worst in Civ 3 because the corruption was so bad that except for your core empire every city would have the guaranteed 1 trade/commerce 1 production and the rest would all be corruption and waste, so the only thing you could do in those cities was build settlers at 1 production a turn because they were useless for everything else. In that way, it actually encouraged ICS.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Also, according to what I've previously heard on this forum, ICS was actually at it's worst in Civ 3 because the corruption was so bad that except for your core empire every city would have the guaranteed 1 trade/commerce 1 production and the rest would all be corruption and waste, so the only thing you could do in those cities was build settlers at 1 production a turn because they were useless for everything else. In that way, it actually encouraged ICS.

A better tactic described in these forums is to grow those towns into size 6, use scientist specialists (whose output is not subject to corruption) and set them to produce wealth, not settlers. The maps are larger in Civ3, so the player does have more room for closely packed cities, but not full-on ICS. I'm pretty confident that the Deity and Sid players are more focused on warfare than ICS.

 

[snakeboy]

Firaxis has been posting this image on social media. Are they teasing civ7?

I sure like that style. It is a lot less cartoony.

 

[steveg700]

I sure like that style. It is a lot less cartoony.

Yes, I second that. Let's have more realistically depicted rock bands and golf districts.

That's what steals the wind from my sails a bit. I feel like Firaxis took the Civ franchise and gave it over to designers that want it to offer light and whimsical gameplay. Is there really a strong fanbase for zombie or post-apocalyptic battle royale modes?

 

[Civinator]

...Also, according to what I've previously heard on this forum, ICS was actually at it's worst in Civ 3 because the corruption was so bad...

The Civ 3 mod CCM uses a completely different - and in my eyes very effective - way to stop the ICS tactics:

This setting allows a much better game play, too, as it is shown in many Civ3 - Succession Games (marked with the suffix CCM).

 

[Leyrann]

The Civ 3 mod CCM uses a completely different - and in my eyes very effective - way to stop the ICS tactics:

View attachment 626405

This setting allows a much better game play, too, as it is shown in many Civ3 - Succession Games (marked with the suffix CCM).

I can imagine that's effective, however it's also gimmicky to a level that I'd never want to play with it. Not even one game.

You're basically hard enforcing that everyone has the same number of settlers, removing the entire eXpansion part of 4X.

 

[Civinator]

I can imagine that's effective, however it's also gimmicky to a level that I'd never want to play with it. Not even one game.

You're basically hard enforcing that everyone has the same number of settlers, removing the entire eXpansion part of 4X.

Have a look at the linked Civ 3 succession games with tons of well documented games and you can see, that the expansion part becomes even more interesting, as the location of new cities now is considered much more carefully.

 

[Leyrann]

Have a look at the linked Civ 3 succession games with tons of well documented games and you can see, that the expansion part becomes even more interesting, as the location of new cities now is considered much more carefully.

Oh, I'm not denying that. I can see how choosing the optimal settle location becomes important, and probably a bunch of other things. I'd just absolutely hate not getting to build settlers on my terms.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I sure like that style. It is a lot less cartoony.

How can you tell, or make any inference, what the game would be like if it is teasing Civ 7 by that picture?

 

[AntSou]

I mean, I've seen things more cryptic than this...

---

This is not new, but now count seven here and find all the wonderful little possible clues.

Spoiler :

View attachment 626299

I hope this is genuine and they're really that deep into trolling us.

 

[snakeboy]

How can you tell, or make any inference, what the game would be like if it is teasing Civ 7 by that picture?

I cannot. I was only commenting on the style of that particular logo - which I like. And hopefully, perhaps, maybe, suggests something more elegant and less cartoony.

 

[Linklite]

I cannot. I was only commenting on the style of that particular logo - which I like. And hopefully, perhaps, maybe, suggests something more elegant and less cartoony.

So long as it's not the ugly Civ 5, I'd be happy with it.

 

[Wardog]

I'm not very optimistic about Civ 7. Civ 6 was by far the worst in the series for me, but it was certainly a big commercial success and that's what matters to Firaxis - and I totally understand it, since they are a company and the most important thing should be to sell their games well.

So I expect them to keep the Civ 6 standard will small modifications. Among other things, I wanted them to bring back some characteristics of older Civ games but I don't even think they are going to change that horrible Civ 6 cartoony graphic style.

 

[Leyrann]

I'm not very optimistic about Civ 7. Civ 6 was by far the worst in the series for me, but it was certainly a big commercial success and that's what matters to Firaxis - and I totally understand it, since they are a company and the most important thing should be to sell their games well.

So I expect them to keep the Civ 6 standard will small modifications. Among other things, I wanted them to bring back some characteristics of older Civ games but I don't even think they are going to change that horrible Civ 6 cartoony graphic style.

What makes Civ 6 the worst in the series, not even barely but by far?

You think it's significantly worse than both Civ 3 and Civ 5? Really?

 

[reddishrecue]

What makes Civ 6 the worst in the series, not even barely but by far?

You think it's significantly worse than both Civ 3 and Civ 5? Really?

He said the cartoony graphics but I feel the opposite way about the cartoony graphics... By far civ 5 seemed less cartoony.

 

[Leyrann]

He said the cartoony graphics but I feel the opposite way about the cartoony graphics... By far civ 5 seemed less cartoony.

I get that some people might dislike the graphic style of Civ 6, but I just cannot imagine someone would find it so important as to call it "by far the worst game in the series" with no regard to anything gameplay related.

 

[Wardog]

What makes Civ 6 the worst in the series, not even barely but by far?

You think it's significantly worse than both Civ 3 and Civ 5? Really?

Yes, it is significantly worse than both Civ 3 and Civ 5. I could write a big text here and give you my reasons - not related to the graphic aspects of the game -, but I know you naturally wouldn't agree since you are a Civ 6 fan. So it would be a waste of time and space for you and me.

I'm not criticizing you. I said Civ 6 was by far the worst "to me". But I respect that you and the vast majority in this Civ 6 forum think it's the best!