- Joined
- Nov 11, 2021
Sid Meier's Civilization
- Thread starter MrWarioWare
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Shining Wit
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2021
Change the game speed. Epic is usually what I play on and it means you spend longer in each era
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
For the first time in a long time, I actually feel hyped out for a AAA game.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
It's here
And the devs are doing a live stream
And the devs are doing a live stream
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2018
This era based civilization swapping and the leader changes they've made seem really sloppy (probably to also inject diversity into leader roles where it doesn't belong)
grump
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
It seems they are borrowing a lot to the point people are accusing this of being CivHumankind. Having never played Humankind I'm neutral on this. I'm at least glad their bold enough to try to really change things up even if it ends up not going too well, this seems to be the biggest revamp to the basic mechanics since 1. Now its waiting to see what sort of woke they will try to inject in.
los pepes
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2019
This feels like one big april fools joke. It has to be.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
Super Hans v2
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2022
For shame Firaxis, getting Gwendoline Christie for the narrator? Very half-assedly diverse of you. Should have gotten CCH Pounder instead.
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2018
I will give them 10 dollars 10 years from now.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2021
The major unknown with the civ swapping is how it'll be controlled. Humankind operates on first come first served and outside of Civ VII restricting the choices no good indication it'll be different. Allowing duplicate picks too will rub many more the wrong way so that needs some elaboration soon. Also not sure three ages alone are enough to cover all the bases.
I'm most interested seeing how the city building works in practice personally. While I like Humankind, the district spam by late game makes the map look like a mess; tying urban districts to rural improvements might offer more organic city growth.
I'm most interested seeing how the city building works in practice personally. While I like Humankind, the district spam by late game makes the map look like a mess; tying urban districts to rural improvements might offer more organic city growth.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
Shining Wit
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2021
The graphics look neat and I love how the cities sprawl, but goddamn is that civ change mechanic not even quarter baked, it doesn't even feel like Civ anymore.
A sensible solution would be the civ changing style somewhat (like being able to develop your civ into one with horse raider influences or something)
I'll wait for the inevitable expansions and pricedrop if it comes out better than expected, I can still keep playing the old ones
A sensible solution would be the civ changing style somewhat (like being able to develop your civ into one with horse raider influences or something)
I'll wait for the inevitable expansions and pricedrop if it comes out better than expected, I can still keep playing the old ones
Dammit Mandrake!
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2018
Ah great! I was posting in the 4X thread but this is probably more appropriate. I'll just paste my post over here; it should mostly fit into the discussion. 
I thought this looked pretty darn good.
As far as Civ goes, for the last 15 years or so I've mostly played Civilization IV and Civilization V. There is a mod called Caveman2Cosmos that actually takes the number two slot in terms of playtime, so take that for what it is worth. And I still visit Civilization III and Alpha Centauri from time to time; I have little interest in playing Civilization or Civilization II again. You may notice that I did play very much of Civilization VI.
Civilization VI was a fine game but it just wasn't for me. I like the district idea but I guess it didn't really click with me. But I hear the game with all of its expansion packs is really good, so maybe I'll go back to it for a month or two. And I think I am the only person that liked the visual style; but Civ V's higher level of detail was much better and it looks like VII finds a good middle ground. I want to stay with the idea of districts though, seeing as they were my biggest issue with Civ VI.
Districts are something I find very intriguing. They solved my largest complaint with Civilization which was that your cities never really got huge or became sprawling areas. Districts fixed that! It looks as if much of that is retained for Civilization VII. I really can't explain why I've changed my mind, but I'm willing to give districts a shot once again. Maybe it all needed some more time in the oven. Either way, my major hurdle has been ovecome but now we have a new one!
The live chat in the full version of the video above was going on about a game called "Humanity", which I know nothing about. I did look into it briefly last night but I can't speak on it to any meaningful degree. They were focusing in on Civilization VII's "new" concept of ages. I think they are a compelling idea for the game and look forward to their implications. Even the idea of fencing off civilizations by their general place in the timeline is pretty interesting. I'm not going to tell you that I love it, but okay. I'll see where this goes. I'm interested. Hopefully I can still play a single, large game with one civilization like the "old days" of Civ. I would be pretty surprised if we were unable to do this; I would be less surprised if we had to buy DLC to do this. Ahem...
I'm absolutely certain that Firaxis are looking forward to supporting this game for many years to come. But I'm being a bit over the top. The game looks good and I am very interested.
Also, combat looked pretty decent. I like the lines of conflict and the added detail. It looks like they may be drawing up some more ideas to make combat more interesting. I've always envisioned a more rewarding and slightly more complex combat system in Civilization whereby your battles take place over longer periods of time and reap larger rewards/penalties while also possibly changing the landscape. But that's a whole lot more than the scope of this simple post, so I will leave it there.
What do you all think?
As far as Civ goes, for the last 15 years or so I've mostly played Civilization IV and Civilization V. There is a mod called Caveman2Cosmos that actually takes the number two slot in terms of playtime, so take that for what it is worth. And I still visit Civilization III and Alpha Centauri from time to time; I have little interest in playing Civilization or Civilization II again. You may notice that I did play very much of Civilization VI.
Civilization VI was a fine game but it just wasn't for me. I like the district idea but I guess it didn't really click with me. But I hear the game with all of its expansion packs is really good, so maybe I'll go back to it for a month or two. And I think I am the only person that liked the visual style; but Civ V's higher level of detail was much better and it looks like VII finds a good middle ground. I want to stay with the idea of districts though, seeing as they were my biggest issue with Civ VI.
Districts are something I find very intriguing. They solved my largest complaint with Civilization which was that your cities never really got huge or became sprawling areas. Districts fixed that! It looks as if much of that is retained for Civilization VII. I really can't explain why I've changed my mind, but I'm willing to give districts a shot once again. Maybe it all needed some more time in the oven. Either way, my major hurdle has been ovecome but now we have a new one!
The live chat in the full version of the video above was going on about a game called "Humanity", which I know nothing about. I did look into it briefly last night but I can't speak on it to any meaningful degree. They were focusing in on Civilization VII's "new" concept of ages. I think they are a compelling idea for the game and look forward to their implications. Even the idea of fencing off civilizations by their general place in the timeline is pretty interesting. I'm not going to tell you that I love it, but okay. I'll see where this goes. I'm interested. Hopefully I can still play a single, large game with one civilization like the "old days" of Civ. I would be pretty surprised if we were unable to do this; I would be less surprised if we had to buy DLC to do this. Ahem...
I'm absolutely certain that Firaxis are looking forward to supporting this game for many years to come. But I'm being a bit over the top. The game looks good and I am very interested.
Also, combat looked pretty decent. I like the lines of conflict and the added detail. It looks like they may be drawing up some more ideas to make combat more interesting. I've always envisioned a more rewarding and slightly more complex combat system in Civilization whereby your battles take place over longer periods of time and reap larger rewards/penalties while also possibly changing the landscape. But that's a whole lot more than the scope of this simple post, so I will leave it there.
What do you all think?
- How did you like the tweaks to the game's visuals and the overall level of detail?
- What are your thoughts about the new system of ages? What if you are unable to play without this mechanic enabled? Can you speak to this sort of system in other 4X games?
- Which Civilization game is your favorite?
- Will the game's new systems lead to more dynamic gameplay over time? Or will the community fall into a set strategy of evolving this civ into that civ and doing the same thing every time?
- Sid Meier is looking good. 70 hasn't slowed him down too much.
- Talk to me about river traversal?
Sargon's wife's son
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2019
Fine but if I'm playing this Germany I demand to be able to play as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini I demand Giuliani gentiles allowed to leave my Italian civilization ohh wait civilization is filled with weak beta males in the development team they would never do that
Shining Wit
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2021
Just watched some more and goddamn that Augustus model is UGLY. I think the V one still looks better.
I actually liked the cartoony leaders in VI but these leaders seem kind of boring. They should have the unique backgrounds like 5
I actually liked the cartoony leaders in VI but these leaders seem kind of boring. They should have the unique backgrounds like 5
Dammit Mandrake!
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2018
I thought there would be more excitement for a new Civilization game. But I guess Civ fans keep to themselves.
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2021
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2018
They've gone at leaders/civilizations backward. If they wanted to be bold, they would have your Leaders die at the passing of ages, and have you choose a new one. That way, you're not banging stones together as Benjamin Franklin (instead of banging French cougars).
From what I've heard, they've given up on having Religious victory, and folded Religion into Tourism (making it a part of Cultural victory). I don't know about you, but suggesting that Religion is made-up and passive seems a bit curt. Perhaps this goes hand-in-hand with the removal of City-States and the reintroduction of Barbarian Cities (or the removal of Barbarians and expansion of City-States, I guess), bringing the series back towards Civilization 4.
Not being able to upgrade units sounds like it's going to make Military Victory impossible -- unless you switch to whichever Civilization has the best unique troop of the era, but even THEN you have to build up your army from scratch on a regular basis.
Ages are handled more-or-less the same as in Civilization 6: Rise and Fall, except that you appear to get bonuses even if you play badly... oh, and that these bonuses are WEIRD, ranging from free Civics/Tech, to free units, to free money, to free Population, to either free settlements or an increase to your settlement cap. If there is a settlement cap, then that will suck, killing/neutering Wide play and basically forcing everyone to play with the same sizes.
There are three tiers to settlements. Towns let you build typical tile improvements, Cities presumably let you build only the urban tile improvements, and the Capital builds "Quarters" (which are presumably "super-Districts"). Tile improvements appear to be built in the same manner as Civilization 6 Districts (and Civilization 7 Districts) -- that is, to say, without Builder units. Towns and Cities can both build Districts. I assume that a Town immediately evolves into a City if it has enough Population and gets an open slot for doing so -- which loops me back to the settlement cap concern, only this time for Tall.
The Age delineation and civilization choices from the trailers are embarrassing. Every single African civilization can become every single other African civilization. How do they show this? By having Egypt's default swap be Songhai. SONGHAI. An Empire that existed FOR ONLY 150 YEARS, only noteworthy because it's the only Medieval West African state whose entire existence was recorded in writing. Then there's Buganda (the default Modern pick only for African Exploration civilizations), an East African Kingdom that was hardly relevant at all for its 150 YEARS of prominence, before it stopped existing in 1962. There should have been more ages than just Antiquity, Exploration, and Modern; saying Antiquity ends with the big boat is kinda ridiculous, as that makes the second age last only 200-400 years (less than a tenth as long as the previous age).
Your Leader is geared towards one age, with their bonuses only seeming to matter for that age; or maybe Hatshepsut was a bad pick for their gameplay trailer. There are two preferred picks for Antiquity for your Leader, but you can honestly choose ANY Civ for your Leader. Then there's a bottleneck when the Age of Exploration comes: your Leader has only a few preferred picks for Explration, your Antiquity Civilization unlocks one default pick, and certain thresholds such as the now-memed "three Horses for Mongolia" exist for "ahistorical" switches. Then all that bullshit gets thrown out the window for the Modern Age; there are a selection of Civs that are only pickable depending on what your Exploration Age Civ was, but most are available to everyone, and your Leader does not matter at all.
Rivers being roads is fine, I guess... Wait, actually it's not, because rivers flow only one way. I hope they don't fuck that up. Also we have fixed (no percentage) Building bonuses and Adjacency bonuses again, so hyper-focusing on terrain in the early game and building Wide once you get Currency is the only way to go again. It's a little funny, seeing how absolutely-tiny Buganda was.
Faith has been COMPLETELY replaced with "Influence", which has a stupid-looking icon and pools up around as quickly as Gold, even at the start of the game. Pantheons still exist, though, and are now gotten immediately after you research Mysticism. On a similar note, the "Writing" technology now has tiers.
I heard that Multiplayer supports only five players for long games and eight players for short ones. Hopefully that's just people lying on Steam.
Don't get me STARTED on how they're handling fog-of-war. We might be losing Military Victory entirely. Oh, and when you buy a unit, you can now place it ANYWHERE within your borders; that's just fucking great, totally not dumb.
The game has motherfucking Paradox-Game Random Events.
From what I've heard, they've given up on having Religious victory, and folded Religion into Tourism (making it a part of Cultural victory). I don't know about you, but suggesting that Religion is made-up and passive seems a bit curt. Perhaps this goes hand-in-hand with the removal of City-States and the reintroduction of Barbarian Cities (or the removal of Barbarians and expansion of City-States, I guess), bringing the series back towards Civilization 4.
Not being able to upgrade units sounds like it's going to make Military Victory impossible -- unless you switch to whichever Civilization has the best unique troop of the era, but even THEN you have to build up your army from scratch on a regular basis.
Ages are handled more-or-less the same as in Civilization 6: Rise and Fall, except that you appear to get bonuses even if you play badly... oh, and that these bonuses are WEIRD, ranging from free Civics/Tech, to free units, to free money, to free Population, to either free settlements or an increase to your settlement cap. If there is a settlement cap, then that will suck, killing/neutering Wide play and basically forcing everyone to play with the same sizes.
There are three tiers to settlements. Towns let you build typical tile improvements, Cities presumably let you build only the urban tile improvements, and the Capital builds "Quarters" (which are presumably "super-Districts"). Tile improvements appear to be built in the same manner as Civilization 6 Districts (and Civilization 7 Districts) -- that is, to say, without Builder units. Towns and Cities can both build Districts. I assume that a Town immediately evolves into a City if it has enough Population and gets an open slot for doing so -- which loops me back to the settlement cap concern, only this time for Tall.
The Age delineation and civilization choices from the trailers are embarrassing. Every single African civilization can become every single other African civilization. How do they show this? By having Egypt's default swap be Songhai. SONGHAI. An Empire that existed FOR ONLY 150 YEARS, only noteworthy because it's the only Medieval West African state whose entire existence was recorded in writing. Then there's Buganda (the default Modern pick only for African Exploration civilizations), an East African Kingdom that was hardly relevant at all for its 150 YEARS of prominence, before it stopped existing in 1962. There should have been more ages than just Antiquity, Exploration, and Modern; saying Antiquity ends with the big boat is kinda ridiculous, as that makes the second age last only 200-400 years (less than a tenth as long as the previous age).
Your Leader is geared towards one age, with their bonuses only seeming to matter for that age; or maybe Hatshepsut was a bad pick for their gameplay trailer. There are two preferred picks for Antiquity for your Leader, but you can honestly choose ANY Civ for your Leader. Then there's a bottleneck when the Age of Exploration comes: your Leader has only a few preferred picks for Explration, your Antiquity Civilization unlocks one default pick, and certain thresholds such as the now-memed "three Horses for Mongolia" exist for "ahistorical" switches. Then all that bullshit gets thrown out the window for the Modern Age; there are a selection of Civs that are only pickable depending on what your Exploration Age Civ was, but most are available to everyone, and your Leader does not matter at all.
Rivers being roads is fine, I guess... Wait, actually it's not, because rivers flow only one way. I hope they don't fuck that up. Also we have fixed (no percentage) Building bonuses and Adjacency bonuses again, so hyper-focusing on terrain in the early game and building Wide once you get Currency is the only way to go again. It's a little funny, seeing how absolutely-tiny Buganda was.
Faith has been COMPLETELY replaced with "Influence", which has a stupid-looking icon and pools up around as quickly as Gold, even at the start of the game. Pantheons still exist, though, and are now gotten immediately after you research Mysticism. On a similar note, the "Writing" technology now has tiers.
I heard that Multiplayer supports only five players for long games and eight players for short ones. Hopefully that's just people lying on Steam.
Don't get me STARTED on how they're handling fog-of-war. We might be losing Military Victory entirely. Oh, and when you buy a unit, you can now place it ANYWHERE within your borders; that's just fucking great, totally not dumb.
The game has motherfucking Paradox-Game Random Events.
Last edited: