This is 2 hours of love - thanks so much to Sleepy for the edit on this marathon! I'll answer as many comments as I can but remember - discord is great also!! LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE OR ELSE
Possibly one of your best videos, Ursa. A brilliant breakdown of a game we got so little actual gameplay of in the release video. Your video has made me much more excited for the game. Yes, they simplified so many mechanics, but I actual agree with all of them, and they can always build them up again with DLC's, etc. Thank you, Ursa, a fantastic video! ❤
It's not the guy you're thinking of. That cool guy has a yellow t-shirt. The impostor in the video doesn't, so I'm sure is not THE Ursa Ryan, but his less good looking twin brother, Ursa Bryan.
Here's my question: did any of the Firaxis employees recognise you and give you sympathetic looks that you've drawn so so many pictures and will continue drawing until the game releases?
This was the best bit of my trip - so many of the devs knew my drawings it was SO sweet!! More people knew about my drawings than my actual YT channel XD I left them a present in their office
Ursa I don’t want you to worry, but there is a human trying to cosplay you. I know that’s crazy since you’re in reality a bear with a blonde wig and sunglasses
Navigable rivers!!!! I appreciate how closer to real world development some of the changes around cities and towns, navigable rivers, etc etc. I was relieved to hear from you that it still feels like Civ. The base concepts from the developers sound really good (depth, etc.), I have a great deal of hope for this! Thank you for the detailed update (and how excited am I that you were part of this!!!).
Was hoping for more sizes of rivers - navigable to different sizes of ships.. From Very large to small rivers - large rivers would allow for barges etc. Looks like just one navigable river size.
Ursa, this is an incredible video. Wow. The amount of journalism you did to gather this amount of information is fantastic. And you share it in such a straightforward and holistic manner. Thanks so much for the hard work!
Haha - thank you! We spent FAR too long on this one. I don't get to be this serious much, it was a lot of fun! Hope it helps people = ) Sweet tea is NOT TEA
I asked a dev in the livestream chat about adding bridges to the game and he said something about "theres a civ with a bridge building mechanic that will interest you" before quickly deleting the comment, im thinking it would be netherlands but idk
As a Dutch person I would not consider my country exeptional at building bridges. Maybe in a figurative sense, but not a literal one. We are specialised in managing the water itself: preventing floods, redirecting rivers, dikes, drainage, polders, etc.
I’m so back and forth with this game. Some things in it, like how streamlined everything seems to be, I love. Nothing kills momentum in Civ 6 like the endless micro management of like 100 units and 15 cities etc but man, that UI and Civ changing thing just make me real real nervous
@@UrsaRyan I am happy to hear that. I know the Civ team are pretty good about listening to feedback. Also every new Civ game has been kinda dunked on upon release and then ends up being one of the best in the series. Fingers crossed 🤞🏻
After watching the whole video, my feelings toward Civ 7 are VERY positive! You did an awesome job in going over what you knew, and provided a very pleasant perspective. Civ 7 will hopefully be a good turn away from the way CIV 6 was beginning to feel, and I can't wait to experiment with the endless combinations the Firaxis has provided. Here's to videos to come in a short six months! HUZZAH!!!
I’m with you! One reason I didn’t want to get Humankind was because you change civilizations each era. I was so disappointed they are planning this for Civ 7. But watching this, I’m looking forward to playing!
Watched so many videos form different content creators about Civ VII long and short but yours is the best most informative interesting and gave me best overview of everything helping shape my own opinion. Thank you!
I think they should change the "Modern" Age to the "Age of Advancement", to better fit the naming and theming of the previous Ages of "Antiquity" and "Exploration".
The quality of this video is so high... Truely thank you for this! im really greatfull to have such a professional youtuber in a game that i love so much
I see a lot of DNA of Civilization Beyond Earth here. The Towns/Cities split, the "quest" like system for victory paths, the events with different choices, and even the leveling of your leader.
We should all be cautiously excited! There's no point in making a new game unless some bold changes are made. Some changes could be either masterful of disastrous. We'll just have to see!
I agree; I'd be disappointed if Civ 7 were just a re-skinned version of Civ 6. I am a bit anxious about the idea of one civ transitioning into another, but so far that's the only Civ 7 mechanic that gives me pause, and I feel I can get over it if it's well-implemented. All the other Civ 7 mechanics are actually things I've been dreaming about for years (navigable rivers, towns, and ditching builders/workers for something more streamlined), so on the whole, I'm pretty excited
@Phlebas from what I've seen specifically from Boesthius' video, it seems to be (at least to my eyes and tastes) well implemented and interesting looking. We haven't seen past the first age though, so really we have to wait and see!
Ursa, if anyone, then it was you who deserved to play Civ7 among first humans. Your dedication and the tolls you paid on your path through drawing various tableaux has unquestionably had it's impact on Civ7 coming soon in all it's glory. Huzzah! Ursabro, huzzah!
This video has really helped me become more excited for the game. The initial reveal was a little overwhelming with all of the major changes, but once i started diving in with this video, im starting to feel more excitement rather than concern!
I've always felt that while Civ did a lot of grand things that other big strategy games didn't, it was also one of the most arcadey feeling. It seems like Civ VII is going to offer much much more historical immersion. I'm optimistic
I'm really enjoying how the game will look, very promising and very fun. However, I really hate the idea of possibly being forced into playing a civilization totally alien to the one I played in the previous age. Moving from Egypt to Inca sounds ridiculous. However if our options for civilizations are exponentially larger and has to correlate with the previous age's civilization, then I really think it can work well. Like an Egypt to Mamluks to Arabia game, or a China to Mongolia to Qing. Although granted, all of these are intimately connected. Moving from Rome to India to Japan doesn't sound like something I would personally enjoy at all.
Choice seems like it will play a big role here, so just don't pick the exploration age civs that you dont like! Maybe on your 100th replay you might change your mind though
@@Blandge 'just dont pick the ones you dont like' is a stupid take. the fact that we're forced to change at all is problematic. it seems like 7's gameplay has a very myopic view of what alt-history should look like and it goes to great lengths forcing us to go along with it.
It's not going to be a free civ change. It's a civ upgrade. Example: egypt is your starting civ and exploration age upgrades to songhai. Songhai is essentially a better version of Egypt's ability. Egypt will not be available in the exploration or modern ages. At least that's how I saw it from the civ channel.
My big problem/concern is that Egypt IS a modern nation. It still exists. So does Japan. It might have been Feudal Japan, but it is now modern so is Egypt. I wouldn't mind if we can rename the civ name, as an example if mechanically I turn from Greece into the Beezantine empire, but rename it into Greece. That would let me feel like it was the same civ, but mechanically feel like it was changing.
@@austinjeral1201 if there is a way to have egypt in a different age, it won't be the same egypt and even if there was, they should make it available from the original civ in the first place. I don't see them doing that as looking at the civ channel's video, they show that songhai is practically a better ability version of egypt. And they even said that they made it this way because it was hard to make and balance abilities that would be useful at all points of the game.
The more I hear, the more I like I was one of those who bounced off civ5 and bounced even harder off civ6, especially after giving it another shot when 7 was announced. It seems Firaxis has decided to address many of my issues with the games not by going back (thankfully, I already have those games) but by trying some new things for the series.
I know several people who stopped played after Civ 4. Maybe Civ 7 will bring some of them back. We might lose some Civ 6 players, but nobody really missed the Civ 4 people that left when Civ 5 came out, so I see no problems as long as Civ 7 delivers.
Oh man, you and all of the top Civ players were in Baltimore? ARRRGGGHHHH!! I wish I knew ahead of time. I would have loved to have met you in person in my city. Huzzah!
Fantastic explanations of so many features, gameplay, gameplay mechanics, just everything. WELL DONE! Thank you sir. Very much looking forward to actually playing the game and the Growth of the games New features by the Developers and the Mod Creators.
I am really looking forward to civVII now. So much so I'm very likely to pre order it, (and fmo will likely mean it'll be the most expensive version, yes I got Zulu straight away in CivVI). I've enjoyed this franchise since the first civ game came out and this just feels like it is truely going to be amazing. There is a reason my wife "affectionately" calls this game the deal breaker, 😅. Thanks for the comprehensive review Ursa. I really enjoyed it.
I’m mixed on Civ 7, I like the city sprawl, art style and river traversal… but I’m not so much a fan of mixing leaders, leader portraits and the civ succession between eras. We will have to see!
By the looks of it, your leader is the permanent buff you start with that gets a ability tree to gain new abilities based on that leader. The civ change isn't like humankind which everyone could freely change civs, it's more like upgrading civs to a better one that isn't retroactively available to others. Like if you start with egypt, you can only play it in the first era only. There won't be egypt available to chose from in the later eras. At least that's how I saw it.
Hey, I may just be really late to the party, but just saw Ursa crossed over to 60k subscribers!!! Congrats Ursa!!! I've been here since like 15k subs, and you put in a lot of hard work, and you deserve all the success! Hopefully this 60k milestone + being invited to Firaxis to play Civ 7 is just the tip of the iceberg. Can't wait to see how the channel grows as Civ 7 approaches and after the release.
Only 15 mins in so far, but I just want to say - Ursa, you speak so well, and you speak for all of us. I'm already super excited just knowing that Firaxis have acknowledged the trends of not finishing games, the struggle to keep the end game engaging and the frequent re-rolling for better starts. I'm hopeful that this could be a milestone in 4X game development.
honestly the civ series has been kinda similar in away since the start you make cities make builders rush thought the tech and civics tree there has been one or two big changes in each game and we've been on civ 6 for 8 years now with the same things so I'm very exited for big changes and new strategies because its brand new almost completely
I respect your work and effort on this video so much! Thank you for this incredibly in-depth look at CVII! I haven’t found any other creator that has been able to accomplish what you’ve done. I knew (heard) about some of the large changes from VI to VII, but I really had no idea how drastic the changes - game wide - were! I’m pretty shocked by it. It seems like most people have been focused on those “big” changes but haven’t really gone into the scope of all of the other ones. Based on what you’re showing us, however, it seems like almost every single aspect of the game has changed completely! While it makes me pretty excited to experience these changes, I’m actually kind of worried about just not being smart enough to play it! LOL. I’ve loved V and liked VI so much, but seeing your description of the enormous complexity of VII, it seems quite overwhelming. I remember feeling slightly frustrated by the increased complexity from V to VI; and now it seems even exponentially more complex from VI to VII. I almost wonder if this new game would have been easier to approach had I never played any other Civ game… (Having gotten used to all the other mechanics and stuff.) You mentioned that a dev had said, “depth not complexity,” but from my limited experience in seeing what’s coming in this game, it seems far more complex than anything else! Oh boy… I’ll try it, naturally, but if it’s just too big for my teeny brain, at least I’ll have V and VI to go back to, right? Hah hah! Thank you again for creating such an in-depth and interesting video here! I know it must have been TONS of work, and I really appreciate what you’ve done with it! Amazing, really.
That was fun to watch, thank you for sharing! I wonder if they'll work on adding a 4th era, just like in civ 6 they added a 4th government eventually. Maybe it would be in a game mode for a marathon turn game instead of turn count, but add an era? Idk. I understand that they wanted the persona to be consistent, so they chose the leader to be the part that stayed the same, but it's more logical to have the culture distinct and the leader change, imho. Egypt and China were very culturally consistent for thousands of years, but they had lots of leaders that led them in different directions. The advisors trying to give you useful tips and giving you "quests" was in Civ 2 if I remember right. I'll never forget the Elvis guy they had as the Luxury and Happiness advisor. I'm glad they're trying to address the snowballing that happens in all the other games, but if I have to wait 100 turns for a tiny Civ to reach the end of the tech tree when they're being raided to death, I don't see myself finishing very many games. On the other hand, I really don't want the Ages timer to be able to turn over too quickly; the feeling in Civ 6 when Ancient or Classical are ending when I have half their tech is crushing, and a heroic age ending in minimum time makes me cry.
Regarding the wide vs. tall debate, I'd argue that there was a correct answer in Civ V too. It wasn't quite as strong as it was in VI, but in Civ V the answer was definitely "tall". Going past 4-5 cities, especially founding them later in the game (which was frustrating when you could traverse the map and want resources in remote areas), was almost always worse than just developing what you already had.
It seems Civ 7 took several ideas from Age of Wonders 4. 1. Towns are similar to "outposts" in AoW4 2. City cap is very similar. 3. Expansion automatically giving tile improvements is also similar.
Fantastic video! I truly appreciate the work and depth you went through for us. Looking forward to more content on the future (will look at your older stuff for sure!).
On first view, the Ages thing is the only innovation that gives me cause for concern. How abrupt are these Ages transitions going to be? One minute I'm Egypt, and I've done this and that and pursued particular paths... and then... boom... I'm Persia? This makes me anxious.
Yeah, Humankind and a plethora of newer 4x games already did that. I was honestly counting on Civ to stay true to its roots. Im not happy about these interchangeable countries. Evolving Egypt into Mongolia is wild, so would be evolving England into the USA, for example. At best this game shapes up to be a better Humankind, rather than a better Civ so far. Which still might be fun, just not what I was looking for in a Civ game. Also cant wait for people to evolve Germany or Sweden into Saudi Arabia or something... we all know people will do it if there is a possibility. Devs have opened *that* particular can of worms with this radical change as well.
@@GrivehnI mean to be fair Britain to USA is… exactly what happened irl, since the US rebelled from being a colony of Britain. That said I get what you mean, tho I feel like the way they showcases the shift in their video makes it more paced than a sudden “you are no longer playing Egypt, suck it” cut, since you would likely have to research into that age for a while to begin with, and you get to chose what Civ you want to evolve into and what traits and perks you want to keep from the original culture/civ, allowing a line of continuity throughout the ages. (Case in point the ages seem to span from Stone Age through the Dark Age for the “Antiquity age”, from the Renaissance to the 19th century for the “age of exploration” and the modern age spans late 19th century to modern day, so it seems like each age would last quite a while compared to the tech ages in older Civ games
I could imagine them expanding on the how the game already plays, aka early game, mid game, and late game civ. If each age has about 3 "traditional" eras, like antiquity having ancient era, classical era, medieval era, exploration being renaissance, industrial, etc, it might feel the same
I enjoy the mechanics and complexity of Civ 6, but one thing that disappointed me is the graphics. Now Civ 7 has amazing graphics, but I'm disappointed with the mechanics, especially the transition between civilizations in each age, which feels disappointing. I want to play as Rome all the way to the modern era :(
@@melonive How can you be disappointed about the mechanics of transition been ages when we very explicitly haven't seen whether those those mechanics are good or bad? It sounds like you're disappointed with the concept, not the mechanics.
Radical changes is always better. I've had my fill of Civ6 and I want something different. Also the ages thing seems to mean 2 eras are just prep, last era you spend all your gold and see how fast you can catapult into a win.
I haven't enjoyed playing a Civ game since III...loved it and still do. Every title thereafter, I've tried, but it was either maddeningly cartoonish in aesthetics or exceptionally more anachronistic than I could bear. Would start a game and then stop soon after because I couldn't do it.
Finally finished the video! I'm so, so excited for this game. There are a few mechanics I'm on the fence about, but my reaction to the vast majority of changes you've described is positive. I genuinely trust Firaxis. They have a clear vision for what they want to do, and I'm here for it. Thank you, Ursa, for giving us all this information. You've answered all of the main questions I would have had about the game, and now I'm just excited to get playing it!
I think the make or break is going to be how the Age transition is handled and how well the rubber banding is implemented, those are my two main sticking points after watching this video. Thanks for the great deep dive thats hit me out of my doomer loop lol
Thanks for this video Ursa - glad you had a great trip to the US! I'm going to have watch this video in shifts, but so far it's sounding overall positive. The endless rerolling/not finishing games is a problem. The issue is that Civ VI is such an RNG-heavy game - your start makes a huge difference to how the game goes. Resources, city states, eurekas/inspirations, natural wonders, tribal huts, etc. all play a big part in how the game goes, especially with civs like Maya who are so spawn dependent. With the end game, typically you know if you've won or lost by the renaissance. More often than not, I know I've won because the later the game gets, the worse the AI is and it just becomes easy, on any difficulty. Anything they can do to address both issues is a positive to me. Settlement hierarchies (towns, cities, villages) is something I've wanted for a long time, so that's a big plus, along with navigable rivers! On the other hand, I'm very hesitant about the changing civs mechanic and separation of civ and leader. I'm trying to stay open minded, but at least on paper it's not a concept I like.
So Ursa finally knows when he will be able to stop drawing, huzzah! Quite a bold choice btw, but I'm intrigued by the changes. Looking forward to see more!
I think Commanders are my favorite change at the moment. Gonna have to play through some of the others to see how I like them. Interesting new mechanics though, should be fun… guess we’ll see if it stays for a decade like 6 has for me.
I know there’s a lot of changes people are hesitant about, but since CIV 6 isn’t going anywhere, I think CIV 7 will be a great calculated experiment to see what features are widely accepted in these types of games.
I have to disagree. Civ is an established franchise and this seems like it could seriously alienate fans with features that don't feel befitting of that franchise. Each entry should be a clear progressive step forward without forgetting the series' core mechanics and identity. Civ 6 exists, yes, but Civ 7 should be that and more, and right now it just doesn't look like it's going to be
@@U_C_G Did you already forget the civ 6 launch? People had all sorts of negative things to say about it. Now I don't think it's controversial to say its the best, although there are some 5 and earlier fans and that's just fine
Found the channel about 1.5 weeks ago, because youtube decided it was cool to recommend the forth video of your Court of Love vs. Sid Meier series; been binging series after series because this channel is awesome; still new to Civ VI and super suck at it; and now Civ VII is coming out soon. And I was told you were a bear with blonde hair and sunglasses. What did you do to the real Ursa?! And I missed the fucking stream! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!! It's fine... I'm fine...
I wish your leader would change instead of civ because: 1. It would keep the 'charm' you talked about. 2. It would still allow for more adaptation. 3. It feels a lot more grounded. 4. It doesn't feel like copy and pasting humankind
It didn't feel like playing Humankinnd - ) One thing to mention, aspects of your civ do flow from one age to the next - buildings and city stuff. We just haven't seen it yet
I think it's way too early for you to make conclusions like that. Man, these concerns are VERY similar to all the controversy leading up to the release of Civ 6 lol.
Or make it culture or geography based. You could start as ming and from china, yuan or Manchu depending on what you want to do in the game. You can start as Rome, get the choice of going byz or west Roman Empire, then had a wide range of viable picks in the modern era of European nations. You could do gaul into France/Belgium. Vikings into Norway for naval war bonuses, Denmark for economy or Sweden for culture. It felt like losing the game when you changed civ in humankind, but nation forming like this, like you do in PDX games would be a very cool implementation.
Population in civ 5 was a big thing. The more the better because it scales your science. In civ 6 population became a cap to the number of districts and amount of production your city has. quantity became less important. It sounds like in civ 7 population is not important and not hard to get a lot of. I feel you can consistently grow your cap every 3 turns in civ 7 if you are good but having lots of population won't help you with any important yields.
POp is easy to get if you have a lot of towns and only 1 city. As you get more cities pop gets harder to get. So there is going to be a big new balance to adjust to here
Having a natural progression through the ages is kind of logical, as it never really made sense to start with America in the first ages when literally all your abilities don't do anything until the late game anyway. I also really like the removal of builders and having to work more naturally with terrain. This was one of my major criticisms of Civ 6, where I could just place some district 3 tiles away over 2 mountain tiles and that was apparently not a logistical issue for my city. The removal of builders is also a good thing in my personal opinion, as the game became a bit of a micromanagement hell towards the late game, which I think is one of the main reasons a lot of people don't really enjoy the late game of Civ 6. I really enjoyed the game but am definitely in the majority of people that love the early game and never finish games. I think these changes make a ton of sense in theory and are great for the more casual player base, but I'm also a bit reserved and curious as to how and if it will work in practice.
My two cents on keeping the leader and changing the nation for each age: ¢1: The leader can represent the fundamental specialization that defines a civilization, while the nation can represent the economic and military choices made to adapt to its circumstances (resources, neighbors, events, technologies). Nature & nurture, if you like. I prefer this to the other way 'round. ¢2: Once you expand your definition to accept that Moses, Newton, Beethoven and Franklin were leaders, you have a wider, deeper, more accurate and more interesting (and less necessarily warlike) way of specializing your civilization. Finally, I say. (And the modders will produce hundreds of them, which those of us who don't like making the same dang choices in the same dang way every dang time will appreciate. Though some of your commenters won't.)
Firaxis gameplay livestream had such a toxic chat, i had to close it completely. Really nice to see more constructive criticism and a while lot more positive putlook on the game here in the commments. Early Bears are the best.
Thank you for doing this video Ursa. I am a litle worried about the rubberbanding in each era as well. I hope the game finds a way to reward Civilizations sweats like all of us. Huzaaaaar!
Not a fan of the leaders looking like Sims 4 characters, and I don't like civs like Egypt being locked to early eras and then forced to change later. Similar feeling toward being able to have stuff like Hamurabi of England or Cleopatra of Japan 😅 One problem with the age locked civs is that civs like China and Russia are very much global powerhouses in the modern era, part of the "top 3" next to America, but China for instance is historically a powerhouse in earlier ages too with the various dynasty, great wall, gunpowder, etc. The way they've set it up, you can only play them in one age and they're locked from the others. That makes no sense. They're never going to put a modern Chinese or Russian leader in the game for political reasons, so you're only ever going to be able to play that civ in an early era regardless of how many expansions come out despite them being a global leader in the modern era. This is a self imposed problem that doesn't exist in civ 6 where we can take Qin or Yongle all the way to space.
I agree but think its likely they’re not going back to Maoist China and will keep it ancient/medieval. E.g. Rome are antiquity and imagine China will probably be so too as they were also vibing at the same time.
The leaders look like that, because they are no longer CGI like in Civ 5 and 6. The problem I have it they are realistic but styled it remind me of the Final Fantasy games.
I think it would be cool if they have civs turn into a civ like they did in the real world. Like Ancient Egypt could turn into the Ottoman Empire during the Exploration age and then turn into the Sultanate of Egypt or Republic of Egypt for the Modern Age.
So I don't know why so many people are whining about the fact that Firaxis is changing game play so civilisations change after every age. I'm one of those players who plays civ because I love history and one of the things that has always bothered me is the fact that the civilization you play with stays static throughout history. This is just not the way history has played out for most nation states (you might argue the Chinese or the Greeks have been able to remain relatively static but not really). We'll have to see how the mechanics work but it's definitely a step forward for those people who want to mimic some sort of historical accuracy when they play.
Civ 6 is just so much better than civ 5 in terms of options and mechanics. I only play civ 5 for nostalgia. I could see civ 7 being something that makes me go back to civ 6 every now and then just because I want a certain play style over another on any given day. I’m excited!
@@SuperDarkMan12TVthat is very true. I love tall games. I probably put there are very very limited circumstances where I would choose civ 5 over civ 6.
@@SuperDarkMan12TV you can absolutely play tall in Civ 6, it might not be the most theoretically optimal strategy but I love building tall empires and it can totally work even on deity difficulty. Not to mention the crazy amount of mods that let you play however you want to.
Hi Ursa, fantastic analysis as always! Just a suggestion for future informational videos-consider diving into the main content a bit earlier. I think many viewers are eager to get straight to the core information. Keep up the great work!
What if instead of changing civilizations they changed leaders instead? Functionally, the leader's abilities and civ abilities, instead of leaders growing with abilities, the civ grows abilities. It functions the same as before, just a bit of a name swap. Makes the roleplaying better, as you conceivably see leaders swapping with different eras instead of civs.
Changing civilizations is not the issue for me, because it's somewhat historical. The problem is going Aztec > Mongolia > France. If you could go Vikings > Norway/Sweden/Denmark > Scandinavia / Nordic union / or be forced to stay as the old civ because you could not get the right pre requisites, I would be hyped. You could have different and interchanging routes, like Athens > Macedon > Greece, or Rome > Byzantium > Greece. Some nations existed in multiple eras, and that should be reflected aswell, like England and France should both be playable in the exploration and modern age. It would require a lot of nations to developed, but it's a lot less work to design a banner for a nation that it is to design a leader model anyways, so there is no problem implementing hundreds of civilization paths like this over time.
@jeppepuus yeah I think it'll work like you suggested. Plus England as a medieval nation was so different than Great Britain. Same with France. I mean they literally spoke different languages. Old English and Old French are called that for a reason. Even putting Charlemagne and Louis XIV is a stretch but even those guys have more in common than Napoleon or the modern French country
I love the look of the new cities (I like to build tall); however, I would have rather seen the Leaders change with age not the Civ. For example, as Rome start with Augustus -> Columbus -> Garibaldi as a warfare/conquest game.
@@gamer1X12 That's a bit of a radical assessment. Civilizations changed all the time in history. The Roman Empire being a prime example of that. We got the ancient Roman kingdom, the empire at its height, then a continuation in the East, which eventually saw spiritual succession in both the HRE and the Ottoman empire. If you look at it from that lens, I think changing civilizations makes a lot of sense.
@@NavidIsANoob you described a single cultural and religious identity adapting over time. the Romans didn't wake up one day and start speaking Cantonese. Egyptians to Songhai is dumb and so is your take. I'm not impressed. Changing leaders wouldve made a lot more sense.
Ursa, I have no idea if this is your first time revealing your face, but for me it is and it certainly is a treat. Always love watching your videos and I genuinely cannot imagine your voice belonging to you given your appearance lol. Keep it up man.
Sounds like they took a lot of innovations from Old World, Humankind & Millennia and piled them on the solid basis of Civ6. I'm really excited to see how it all comes together.
Second comment (watching the video in chunks!): Settlement hierarchy (cities/towns) is something I'm really excited about. It's close to an idea I've had for a while, because I think it's really weird that cities in Civ have to be self-sufficient - clearly they're not in real life. It makes more sense in the early game where transportation makes it harder to move goods around, but later on, when trade becomes easier, cities should share resources (with the range increasing with tech/buildings: market --> shipyard --> railway --> airport). There are lots of directions this could go from a gameplay perspective, but this seems like a good idea without being overly complicated. One of the interesting gameplay impacts this could have is making it easier to settle marginal terrain - desert and tundra cities could be more feasible (Phoenix and Longyearbyen, for example, are not self-sufficient with their food), which is good.
At least to me, snowballing (for the player) is a fundamental reason why 4X strategy games are fun to me. I don’t like the idea of rubberbanding. Yes, it feels bad when you are so far behind early in the game you can never possibly win. But that sadness is countered and then some by the elation of being so overpowered early you can never lose. I’m speaking from a purely single player mindset.
I also only play single player, but I don't really enjoy snowballing. Being so overpowered early that the rest of the game is just passing time because your natural progression means no one can catch up, and no challenges can occur. It's boring. On the flip side, if you are so far behind that you cannot win or really compete, that's also boring, and often you will just die when you get invaded and killed with tanks running over your musketeers. That's also boring. Gaining an advantage but not essentially becoming godly compared to your rivals makes the game more fun.
@@nicolaszan1845this makes sense. I am slightly worried that the rubberbanding that occurs when you move ages will be too much and you will feel like you’ve lost all the advantage you built up during the previous age. Hopefully they strike a balance where you retain enough of the advantage to make it fulfilling.
@@nate1004 I imagine that won't happen simply because there would be little to no point in playing the ages before Modern if any advantage was reset to zero, except a couple territorial changes which will get less important compared to Civ 6. It's likely that some advantage can be kept through mastery points and stuff like that. That's what I would do at least.
I don't get the backlash about the leaders not being heads of state. I mean Gandhi wasn't a head of state or held any true government office in his life. And I believe Gorgo was more of an advisor to king leonidas as opposed to being a formal head of state, hell were not even sure Gilgamesh was a real person in the first place. I don't see anything wrong with notable figures in a nation's history being leaders. To me it's more important each figure represents the spirit of that nation. Also opens up more options for multiple leaders per civ.
things I'm excited for and hoping for: -I was excited for the possibility of a turn based version of total war combat when you go in for battles. - civ specific wonders and buildings that aren't just limited to one over a whole civs lifetime -civ leader being a movable general/statesman -controllable fort/outposts instead of having a make an awful city for resources (it's already a mod for civ 6) -navigable rivers (so excited for this) -no arbitrary limit to your cities borders (make a sensible way to increase borders sizes, like currency, more military presents for border control or something) - movable animal tiles, if the tile is suitable (sheep and other herdable animals) -ability to design your own leader (if leaders don't really mean anything to the actual civs, then character customisation for looks and then also you pick 1 ability/effect from 5 different pots of abilities) - leaders that are movable on the map, who can die due to illness, war/battles, political cloak and dagger stuff. These leaders gain attributes over time and give buffs and debuffs to your civ, and they all have power currency that allows you to spend them on things like how many cities/settlements they can control and when they die their power is divided by their public opinion and becomes a currency called legacy, which can be a minus or pisitive number that effects your civ for generations to come.
For those who essentially want a Civ6.5 remember the role of moders. Big steps need to be taken to push a franchise forward. All the small changes you want will be completed by moders, just like they did to Civ 5. Plus future updates will iron out any poorly received features
@@Silentbob515 if it's a game very similar to Civ 6 then yes. This exact argument happened with Civ 5 & it now has a crazy amount of overall mods to support that fan base. Civ 6 already has a insane amount of mods. I'd recommend trying these if you haven't already
This is 2 hours of love - thanks so much to Sleepy for the edit on this marathon! I'll answer as many comments as I can but remember - discord is great also!!
LIKE AND SUBSCRIBE OR ELSE
@@UrsaRyan we love it! Thanks papa Ursa!
Possibly one of your best videos, Ursa. A brilliant breakdown of a game we got so little actual gameplay of in the release video. Your video has made me much more excited for the game. Yes, they simplified so many mechanics, but I actual agree with all of them, and they can always build them up again with DLC's, etc. Thank you, Ursa, a fantastic video! ❤
Still need drawings daily
I've got 7,700 hrs in Civ VI. No I'm not a streamer
You have a human face?? Here I thought you were a sunglasses-clad teddy bear! My immersion is shattered!
Seeing his human face feels wrong
It's not the guy you're thinking of. That cool guy has a yellow t-shirt. The impostor in the video doesn't, so I'm sure is not THE Ursa Ryan, but his less good looking twin brother, Ursa Bryan.
I hope he doesn't take it the wrong way. Ryan you're a beautiful man. We're just not used to not listening to the bear with sunglasses lol
That is AI generated. No one knows what real Ursa looks like. Not even his mom
I know it’s rather sad. I personally would have wanted him to be a giant crab man, but I already knew he was a human unfortunately
Here's my question: did any of the Firaxis employees recognise you and give you sympathetic looks that you've drawn so so many pictures and will continue drawing until the game releases?
This was the best bit of my trip - so many of the devs knew my drawings it was SO sweet!! More people knew about my drawings than my actual YT channel XD
I left them a present in their office
Waaaaaaitttt that’s him? I didn’t know!
It sounds like Civ 7 borrowed some concepts from HumanKind. Did the devs speak of the inspirations for their new ideas?
"Borrowed" is being kind. My initial thoughts are it's been robbed blind.
@@UrsaRyan💩
Ursa I don’t want you to worry, but there is a human trying to cosplay you. I know that’s crazy since you’re in reality a bear with a blonde wig and sunglasses
Free the real URSA!!!
My identity!!! Nooooooo
Its just a deepfake
Navigable rivers!!!! I appreciate how closer to real world development some of the changes around cities and towns, navigable rivers, etc etc. I was relieved to hear from you that it still feels like Civ. The base concepts from the developers sound really good (depth, etc.), I have a great deal of hope for this! Thank you for the detailed update (and how excited am I that you were part of this!!!).
navigable rivers and plateaus/cliffs on land are something I was hoping for. I'm happy.
@@widgetb ikr! I liked this feature from Humankind and now even navigable rivers, that's just wild.
Navigable rivers and multiple layered cities are big wins for me - we'll have to see how the gameplay goes but I was stoked
@@UrsaRyan The layered cities is huge! And the crisis transition sounds neat too. As you said, we'll see how the gameplay actually goes.
Was hoping for more sizes of rivers - navigable to different sizes of ships.. From Very large to small rivers - large rivers would allow for barges etc. Looks like just one navigable river size.
Ursa, this is an incredible video. Wow. The amount of journalism you did to gather this amount of information is fantastic. And you share it in such a straightforward and holistic manner. Thanks so much for the hard work!
Also, sweet tea is superior to gross hot tea. 😝
Haha - thank you! We spent FAR too long on this one. I don't get to be this serious much, it was a lot of fun! Hope it helps people = )
Sweet tea is NOT TEA
I spent all day listening!! My wife is mad at me because I can't stop talking about civ. I'm so happy! I love all the changes
Strangely my wife puts up with a lof of civ chat as well!!
I asked a dev in the livestream chat about adding bridges to the game and he said something about "theres a civ with a bridge building mechanic that will interest you" before quickly deleting the comment, im thinking it would be netherlands but idk
@@jaredmorin1163 it's Rome
As a Dutch person I would not consider my country exeptional at building bridges. Maybe in a figurative sense, but not a literal one. We are specialised in managing the water itself: preventing floods, redirecting rivers, dikes, drainage, polders, etc.
Bridges were "hinted" at quite a bit with us as well!!
Certainly districts over navigable rivers seemed to be something implimented
Denmark is bridge-crazy.
how about venice
Ursa is a legend. He had a full mop of hair before he started drawing Civ6 until Civ7 was released. 😂🎉😢😮😅
The drawings took my hair!!!
@@UrsaRyanyou gave us your life force! Respect
@@UrsaRyan How are you feeling now, when you know you will stop drawing in February not December 2025? :D
My sleep schedule will never recover, huzzah!
We don’t need to sleep or eat!!!! Holy Crustus will nourish us, we will play civ7 for every free moment of our life as worship to Crustus
@@Mrwhoisdreks hail crustus
These late night announcements are also ruining my sleep as well!!!
I’m so back and forth with this game. Some things in it, like how streamlined everything seems to be, I love. Nothing kills momentum in Civ 6 like the endless micro management of like 100 units and 15 cities etc but man, that UI and Civ changing thing just make me real real nervous
Same here.. i think the quality went down.. civ 6 UI was so soooo much better.. the UI and leader in C7 looks like they're from civ 4
That UI does need change but other than that, I think they are gonna pull it off. :)
UI I know is being worked on
A lot of the changes here seem to be focused on late game. That's encouraging to me
@@UrsaRyan I am happy to hear that. I know the Civ team are pretty good about listening to feedback. Also every new Civ game has been kinda dunked on upon release and then ends up being one of the best in the series.
Fingers crossed 🤞🏻
@@Kuhnonthecob yeah they are a good dev team and no game is perfect on launch
After watching the whole video, my feelings toward Civ 7 are VERY positive! You did an awesome job in going over what you knew, and provided a very pleasant perspective. Civ 7 will hopefully be a good turn away from the way CIV 6 was beginning to feel, and I can't wait to experiment with the endless combinations the Firaxis has provided. Here's to videos to come in a short six months! HUZZAH!!!
Huzzah!!! I wanted people to see the good and the bad in a balanced way so I hope it was useful!
I’m with you! One reason I didn’t want to get Humankind was because you change civilizations each era. I was so disappointed they are planning this for Civ 7. But watching this, I’m looking forward to playing!
Watched so many videos form different content creators about Civ VII long and short but yours is the best most informative interesting and gave me best overview of everything helping shape my own opinion. Thank you!
I think they should change the "Modern" Age to the "Age of Advancement", to better fit the naming and theming of the previous Ages of "Antiquity" and "Exploration".
I was thinking Age of Technology
Ive watched boethius and mcwhiskeys vids and this was the most clear and in depth out of all of them. Great work man thank you
The quality of this video is so high... Truely thank you for this! im really greatfull to have such a professional youtuber in a game that i love so much
Haha - you're welcome!!
I see a lot of DNA of Civilization Beyond Earth here. The Towns/Cities split, the "quest" like system for victory paths, the events with different choices, and even the leveling of your leader.
Beyond Earth 2 confirmed!!
@@UrsaRyanI wish they did BE with Civ 6
This is by a long margin the most in-depth and useful summary of the Civ 7 demo that I have seen. Thanks very much.
This is the best summary of the upcoming game on youtube right now!
Thanks so much! We tried really hard with this one!
We should all be cautiously excited! There's no point in making a new game unless some bold changes are made. Some changes could be either masterful of disastrous. We'll just have to see!
I agree; I'd be disappointed if Civ 7 were just a re-skinned version of Civ 6.
I am a bit anxious about the idea of one civ transitioning into another, but so far that's the only Civ 7 mechanic that gives me pause, and I feel I can get over it if it's well-implemented. All the other Civ 7 mechanics are actually things I've been dreaming about for years (navigable rivers, towns, and ditching builders/workers for something more streamlined), so on the whole, I'm pretty excited
@Phlebas from what I've seen specifically from Boesthius' video, it seems to be (at least to my eyes and tastes) well implemented and interesting looking. We haven't seen past the first age though, so really we have to wait and see!
Hater.
@@Phlebasonly casuals gamers lire the news features.
We could have had a Civ 6.5. This is not that!!!! Firaxis did not pull their punches
Ursa, if anyone, then it was you who deserved to play Civ7 among first humans. Your dedication and the tolls you paid on your path through drawing various tableaux has unquestionably had it's impact on Civ7 coming soon in all it's glory. Huzzah! Ursabro, huzzah!
0:01 General Kenobi you are a bold one!
Wow, what a fantastic and thorough overview! ❤
Thanks Ursa, I’m super excited for Civ VII, even if we lose your wonderful drawings then 😊
Hope it was helpful as a breakdown!!!
This video has really helped me become more excited for the game. The initial reveal was a little overwhelming with all of the major changes, but once i started diving in with this video, im starting to feel more excitement rather than concern!
I'm pleased!! Thanks for watching!
I've always felt that while Civ did a lot of grand things that other big strategy games didn't, it was also one of the most arcadey feeling. It seems like Civ VII is going to offer much much more historical immersion. I'm optimistic
I'm really enjoying how the game will look, very promising and very fun. However, I really hate the idea of possibly being forced into playing a civilization totally alien to the one I played in the previous age. Moving from Egypt to Inca sounds ridiculous. However if our options for civilizations are exponentially larger and has to correlate with the previous age's civilization, then I really think it can work well. Like an Egypt to Mamluks to Arabia game, or a China to Mongolia to Qing. Although granted, all of these are intimately connected. Moving from Rome to India to Japan doesn't sound like something I would personally enjoy at all.
Choice seems like it will play a big role here, so just don't pick the exploration age civs that you dont like!
Maybe on your 100th replay you might change your mind though
@@Blandge 'just dont pick the ones you dont like' is a stupid take. the fact that we're forced to change at all is problematic. it seems like 7's gameplay has a very myopic view of what alt-history should look like and it goes to great lengths forcing us to go along with it.
It's not going to be a free civ change. It's a civ upgrade. Example: egypt is your starting civ and exploration age upgrades to songhai. Songhai is essentially a better version of Egypt's ability. Egypt will not be available in the exploration or modern ages. At least that's how I saw it from the civ channel.
My big problem/concern is that Egypt IS a modern nation. It still exists. So does Japan. It might have been Feudal Japan, but it is now modern so is Egypt. I wouldn't mind if we can rename the civ name, as an example if mechanically I turn from Greece into the Beezantine empire, but rename it into Greece. That would let me feel like it was the same civ, but mechanically feel like it was changing.
@@austinjeral1201 if there is a way to have egypt in a different age, it won't be the same egypt and even if there was, they should make it available from the original civ in the first place. I don't see them doing that as looking at the civ channel's video, they show that songhai is practically a better ability version of egypt. And they even said that they made it this way because it was hard to make and balance abilities that would be useful at all points of the game.
The more I hear, the more I like
I was one of those who bounced off civ5 and bounced even harder off civ6, especially after giving it another shot when 7 was announced. It seems Firaxis has decided to address many of my issues with the games not by going back (thankfully, I already have those games) but by trying some new things for the series.
I know several people who stopped played after Civ 4. Maybe Civ 7 will bring some of them back. We might lose some Civ 6 players, but nobody really missed the Civ 4 people that left when Civ 5 came out, so I see no problems as long as Civ 7 delivers.
Me too!!
@@Blandgethose will always complain. Just simpletons
A huge amount of time and energy has been put into the mid to late game seemingly. I really think this will help draw a lot of people back
@@UrsaRyan sounds promising!!!
This is the best overview video out there right now, thank you!
Oh man, you and all of the top Civ players were in Baltimore? ARRRGGGHHHH!! I wish I knew ahead of time. I would have loved to have met you in person in my city. Huzzah!
Huzzah!!! Super sneaky
Fantastic explanations of so many features, gameplay, gameplay mechanics, just everything. WELL DONE! Thank you sir. Very much looking forward to actually playing the game and the Growth of the games New features by the Developers and the Mod Creators.
Thanks so much!! I really am excited about this all!
Unrelated, but that's a nice map of Middle Earth in the background 😎
Why thank you - you should see my skyrim map behind the camera
I am really looking forward to civVII now. So much so I'm very likely to pre order it, (and fmo will likely mean it'll be the most expensive version, yes I got Zulu straight away in CivVI). I've enjoyed this franchise since the first civ game came out and this just feels like it is truely going to be amazing. There is a reason my wife "affectionately" calls this game the deal breaker, 😅. Thanks for the comprehensive review Ursa. I really enjoyed it.
I’m mixed on Civ 7, I like the city sprawl, art style and river traversal… but I’m not so much a fan of mixing leaders, leader portraits and the civ succession between eras.
We will have to see!
you mean 7 right?
@@chimichangle He said he liked the art style, so he MUST be talking about 7
By the looks of it, your leader is the permanent buff you start with that gets a ability tree to gain new abilities based on that leader. The civ change isn't like humankind which everyone could freely change civs, it's more like upgrading civs to a better one that isn't retroactively available to others. Like if you start with egypt, you can only play it in the first era only. There won't be egypt available to chose from in the later eras. At least that's how I saw it.
Hey, I may just be really late to the party, but just saw Ursa crossed over to 60k subscribers!!! Congrats Ursa!!! I've been here since like 15k subs, and you put in a lot of hard work, and you deserve all the success! Hopefully this 60k milestone + being invited to Firaxis to play Civ 7 is just the tip of the iceberg. Can't wait to see how the channel grows as Civ 7 approaches and after the release.
Fantastic video Ursa, thanks for the time and effort that went into this 👍
Excited, can’t wait!
Cheers! Hope it helps!
Only 15 mins in so far, but I just want to say - Ursa, you speak so well, and you speak for all of us. I'm already super excited just knowing that Firaxis have acknowledged the trends of not finishing games, the struggle to keep the end game engaging and the frequent re-rolling for better starts. I'm hopeful that this could be a milestone in 4X game development.
honestly the civ series has been kinda similar in away since the start you make cities make builders rush thought the tech and civics tree there has been one or two big changes in each game and we've been on civ 6 for 8 years now with the same things so I'm very exited for big changes and new strategies because its brand new almost completely
This will feel like a whole new game, that's for sure. But it felt like civ to me
I respect your work and effort on this video so much! Thank you for this incredibly in-depth look at CVII! I haven’t found any other creator that has been able to accomplish what you’ve done.
I knew (heard) about some of the large changes from VI to VII, but I really had no idea how drastic the changes - game wide - were! I’m pretty shocked by it. It seems like most people have been focused on those “big” changes but haven’t really gone into the scope of all of the other ones. Based on what you’re showing us, however, it seems like almost every single aspect of the game has changed completely! While it makes me pretty excited to experience these changes, I’m actually kind of worried about just not being smart enough to play it! LOL.
I’ve loved V and liked VI so much, but seeing your description of the enormous complexity of VII, it seems quite overwhelming. I remember feeling slightly frustrated by the increased complexity from V to VI; and now it seems even exponentially more complex from VI to VII. I almost wonder if this new game would have been easier to approach had I never played any other Civ game… (Having gotten used to all the other mechanics and stuff.)
You mentioned that a dev had said, “depth not complexity,” but from my limited experience in seeing what’s coming in this game, it seems far more complex than anything else! Oh boy… I’ll try it, naturally, but if it’s just too big for my teeny brain, at least I’ll have V and VI to go back to, right? Hah hah!
Thank you again for creating such an in-depth and interesting video here! I know it must have been TONS of work, and I really appreciate what you’ve done with it! Amazing, really.
That was fun to watch, thank you for sharing!
I wonder if they'll work on adding a 4th era, just like in civ 6 they added a 4th government eventually. Maybe it would be in a game mode for a marathon turn game instead of turn count, but add an era? Idk.
I understand that they wanted the persona to be consistent, so they chose the leader to be the part that stayed the same, but it's more logical to have the culture distinct and the leader change, imho. Egypt and China were very culturally consistent for thousands of years, but they had lots of leaders that led them in different directions.
The advisors trying to give you useful tips and giving you "quests" was in Civ 2 if I remember right. I'll never forget the Elvis guy they had as the Luxury and Happiness advisor.
I'm glad they're trying to address the snowballing that happens in all the other games, but if I have to wait 100 turns for a tiny Civ to reach the end of the tech tree when they're being raided to death, I don't see myself finishing very many games. On the other hand, I really don't want the Ages timer to be able to turn over too quickly; the feeling in Civ 6 when Ancient or Classical are ending when I have half their tech is crushing, and a heroic age ending in minimum time makes me cry.
I would not be suprised if we had new eras as dlc!!!
Good work, I was on the fence after the live stream, but this video has well and truly returned the hype. I cannot wait!
Regarding the wide vs. tall debate, I'd argue that there was a correct answer in Civ V too. It wasn't quite as strong as it was in VI, but in Civ V the answer was definitely "tall". Going past 4-5 cities, especially founding them later in the game (which was frustrating when you could traverse the map and want resources in remote areas), was almost always worse than just developing what you already had.
Yeah I could have sworn it was mostly agreed upon that tall was pretty much always better in Civ V.
Thank you so much for having your video divided into labeled sections! Makes it so much easier to digest! Great video!
It seems Civ 7 took several ideas from Age of Wonders 4.
1. Towns are similar to "outposts" in AoW4
2. City cap is very similar.
3. Expansion automatically giving tile improvements is also similar.
It feels like a strange mesh of Humankind, Age of Wonders and Millennia.
Fantastic video! I truly appreciate the work and depth you went through for us. Looking forward to more content on the future (will look at your older stuff for sure!).
I'm excited for you as it will bring your viewer count up! Also please don't base your view of the US on Baltimore....
This is an incredible labour of love for Civ fans. Thank you!
On first view, the Ages thing is the only innovation that gives me cause for concern. How abrupt are these Ages transitions going to be? One minute I'm Egypt, and I've done this and that and pursued particular paths... and then... boom... I'm Persia? This makes me anxious.
Yeah, Humankind and a plethora of newer 4x games already did that. I was honestly counting on Civ to stay true to its roots. Im not happy about these interchangeable countries. Evolving Egypt into Mongolia is wild, so would be evolving England into the USA, for example.
At best this game shapes up to be a better Humankind, rather than a better Civ so far. Which still might be fun, just not what I was looking for in a Civ game.
Also cant wait for people to evolve Germany or Sweden into Saudi Arabia or something... we all know people will do it if there is a possibility. Devs have opened *that* particular can of worms with this radical change as well.
@@GrivehnI mean to be fair Britain to USA is… exactly what happened irl, since the US rebelled from being a colony of Britain. That said I get what you mean, tho I feel like the way they showcases the shift in their video makes it more paced than a sudden “you are no longer playing Egypt, suck it” cut, since you would likely have to research into that age for a while to begin with, and you get to chose what Civ you want to evolve into and what traits and perks you want to keep from the original culture/civ, allowing a line of continuity throughout the ages. (Case in point the ages seem to span from Stone Age through the Dark Age for the “Antiquity age”, from the Renaissance to the 19th century for the “age of exploration” and the modern age spans late 19th century to modern day, so it seems like each age would last quite a while compared to the tech ages in older Civ games
I could imagine them expanding on the how the game already plays, aka early game, mid game, and late game civ. If each age has about 3 "traditional" eras, like antiquity having ancient era, classical era, medieval era, exploration being renaissance, industrial, etc, it might feel the same
I enjoy the mechanics and complexity of Civ 6, but one thing that disappointed me is the graphics. Now Civ 7 has amazing graphics, but I'm disappointed with the mechanics, especially the transition between civilizations in each age, which feels disappointing. I want to play as Rome all the way to the modern era :(
@@melonive How can you be disappointed about the mechanics of transition been ages when we very explicitly haven't seen whether those those mechanics are good or bad? It sounds like you're disappointed with the concept, not the mechanics.
Great summary of all the changes. Thanks for putting this together so well.
Made me so happy to see that you went along with the other Civ content creators!!
It was an absolute pleasure to go! If not mega hot!!
Congratulations Ryan on a fantastic walkthrough to this early game
Radical changes is always better. I've had my fill of Civ6 and I want something different. Also the ages thing seems to mean 2 eras are just prep, last era you spend all your gold and see how fast you can catapult into a win.
I haven't enjoyed playing a Civ game since III...loved it and still do. Every title thereafter, I've tried, but it was either maddeningly cartoonish in aesthetics or exceptionally more anachronistic than I could bear. Would start a game and then stop soon after because I couldn't do it.
God I can’t wait! So glad you got to visit the Yanks in Mary Land. Huzzah!!
Huzzah!!
Finally finished the video! I'm so, so excited for this game. There are a few mechanics I'm on the fence about, but my reaction to the vast majority of changes you've described is positive. I genuinely trust Firaxis. They have a clear vision for what they want to do, and I'm here for it. Thank you, Ursa, for giving us all this information. You've answered all of the main questions I would have had about the game, and now I'm just excited to get playing it!
First for O*ford University in Civ 7!
NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Now this is what I call an encyclopedic breakdown. 👏 Appreciate your theories as well.
I think the make or break is going to be how the Age transition is handled and how well the rubber banding is implemented, those are my two main sticking points after watching this video. Thanks for the great deep dive thats hit me out of my doomer loop lol
Yeah we need to see the transition
Of all the videos I've watched on Civ 7, this was the most insightful. Subscribed.
1:28:00 soooo... Skylanders Swap Force meets Humankind? Very cool! I like the idea,,, tho it fells as if nothing needs to make sense anymore.
Thanks for this video Ursa - glad you had a great trip to the US! I'm going to have watch this video in shifts, but so far it's sounding overall positive. The endless rerolling/not finishing games is a problem. The issue is that Civ VI is such an RNG-heavy game - your start makes a huge difference to how the game goes. Resources, city states, eurekas/inspirations, natural wonders, tribal huts, etc. all play a big part in how the game goes, especially with civs like Maya who are so spawn dependent. With the end game, typically you know if you've won or lost by the renaissance. More often than not, I know I've won because the later the game gets, the worse the AI is and it just becomes easy, on any difficulty. Anything they can do to address both issues is a positive to me. Settlement hierarchies (towns, cities, villages) is something I've wanted for a long time, so that's a big plus, along with navigable rivers! On the other hand, I'm very hesitant about the changing civs mechanic and separation of civ and leader. I'm trying to stay open minded, but at least on paper it's not a concept I like.
I know a huge amount of design is in the mid to late game. Fingers crossed we're going to see a lot of interesting mechanics and hooks!
So Ursa finally knows when he will be able to stop drawing, huzzah!
Quite a bold choice btw, but I'm intrigued by the changes. Looking forward to see more!
I can finally rest!!!
@@UrsaRyan well not yet, you need to wait for its actual release 🤣
It's always nice to see the video of the creator! I'm very excited about Civ 7
I think Commanders are my favorite change at the moment. Gonna have to play through some of the others to see how I like them. Interesting new mechanics though, should be fun… guess we’ll see if it stays for a decade like 6 has for me.
It's the first time I watch your content, and I loved how accurate you were, and how well you explained everything :)
36:00 Ooooh, excellently said. City count 'malus' and gains. And finely articulates why I can't quit Civ V as my favorite :).
Civ 5 has a lot of drags, like happiness, worker micromanagement, citizen micromanagement. Same as 6 though, hope that 7 runs more smoothly
Late game I think is where Civ 7 shines
Many elements from Millennia - C7 looks amazing. Can't wait!! TY for sharing all this great info.
Sadly the only cool thing is a navigable river...
There is alot to be excited about I think!
I know there’s a lot of changes people are hesitant about, but since CIV 6 isn’t going anywhere, I think CIV 7 will be a great calculated experiment to see what features are widely accepted in these types of games.
I have to disagree. Civ is an established franchise and this seems like it could seriously alienate fans with features that don't feel befitting of that franchise. Each entry should be a clear progressive step forward without forgetting the series' core mechanics and identity. Civ 6 exists, yes, but Civ 7 should be that and more, and right now it just doesn't look like it's going to be
@@U_C_GDisagree, give me a brand new game. I'm sick of Civ after 2 really similar games.
@@BlandgeThen… play a different game? 😂Leave the civ type games to civ players
@@U_C_G Did you already forget the civ 6 launch? People had all sorts of negative things to say about it. Now I don't think it's controversial to say its the best, although there are some 5 and earlier fans and that's just fine
They perhaps should have tested these features first with a smaller spinoff game like how Beyond Earth was.
Ursa this was fantastic. An absolute gift, and you really weren't kidding when you said you'd tell us everything!!
Cheers = )
Found the channel about 1.5 weeks ago, because youtube decided it was cool to recommend the forth video of your Court of Love vs. Sid Meier series; been binging series after series because this channel is awesome; still new to Civ VI and super suck at it; and now Civ VII is coming out soon. And I was told you were a bear with blonde hair and sunglasses. What did you do to the real Ursa?!
And I missed the fucking stream! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!! It's fine... I'm fine...
Haha - glad you found us eventually though!
Honestly I really like it so far, and thanks for the in depth talk about the game.
Glad you enjoyed = )
I wish your leader would change instead of civ because:
1. It would keep the 'charm' you talked about.
2. It would still allow for more adaptation.
3. It feels a lot more grounded.
4. It doesn't feel like copy and pasting humankind
It didn't feel like playing Humankinnd - )
One thing to mention, aspects of your civ do flow from one age to the next - buildings and city stuff. We just haven't seen it yet
I think it's way too early for you to make conclusions like that. Man, these concerns are VERY similar to all the controversy leading up to the release of Civ 6 lol.
Or make it culture or geography based. You could start as ming and from china, yuan or Manchu depending on what you want to do in the game. You can start as Rome, get the choice of going byz or west Roman Empire, then had a wide range of viable picks in the modern era of European nations. You could do gaul into France/Belgium. Vikings into Norway for naval war bonuses, Denmark for economy or Sweden for culture. It felt like losing the game when you changed civ in humankind, but nation forming like this, like you do in PDX games would be a very cool implementation.
Such a well put together and clear vid. 😊
Looks good. I’m excited for it.
Huzzah!!
Great vid, very detailed. Change is scary, but they're def giving their all trying something new. Overall, hyped!
Exactly! Hype!
Population in civ 5 was a big thing. The more the better because it scales your science. In civ 6 population became a cap to the number of districts and amount of production your city has. quantity became less important. It sounds like in civ 7 population is not important and not hard to get a lot of. I feel you can consistently grow your cap every 3 turns in civ 7 if you are good but having lots of population won't help you with any important yields.
POp is easy to get if you have a lot of towns and only 1 city. As you get more cities pop gets harder to get. So there is going to be a big new balance to adjust to here
Having a natural progression through the ages is kind of logical, as it never really made sense to start with America in the first ages when literally all your abilities don't do anything until the late game anyway.
I also really like the removal of builders and having to work more naturally with terrain. This was one of my major criticisms of Civ 6, where I could just place some district 3 tiles away over 2 mountain tiles and that was apparently not a logistical issue for my city.
The removal of builders is also a good thing in my personal opinion, as the game became a bit of a micromanagement hell towards the late game, which I think is one of the main reasons a lot of people don't really enjoy the late game of Civ 6. I really enjoyed the game but am definitely in the majority of people that love the early game and never finish games.
I think these changes make a ton of sense in theory and are great for the more casual player base, but I'm also a bit reserved and curious as to how and if it will work in practice.
My two cents on keeping the leader and changing the nation for each age:
¢1: The leader can represent the fundamental specialization that defines a civilization, while the nation can represent the economic and military choices made to adapt to its circumstances (resources, neighbors, events, technologies). Nature & nurture, if you like. I prefer this to the other way 'round.
¢2: Once you expand your definition to accept that Moses, Newton, Beethoven and Franklin were leaders, you have a wider, deeper, more accurate and more interesting (and less necessarily warlike) way of specializing your civilization. Finally, I say. (And the modders will produce hundreds of them, which those of us who don't like making the same dang choices in the same dang way every dang time will appreciate. Though some of your commenters won't.)
If modders get there way, we'll have hundreds of leaders!!!
I have to say ... and I do not say this very often, much less so emphatically:
This video is FANTASTIC!
Thanks so much!!
Firaxis gameplay livestream had such a toxic chat, i had to close it completely. Really nice to see more constructive criticism and a while lot more positive putlook on the game here in the commments. Early Bears are the best.
Early bears are indeed the best = )
Thank you for doing this video Ursa. I am a litle worried about the rubberbanding in each era as well. I hope the game finds a way to reward Civilizations sweats like all of us. Huzaaaaar!
Huzzah!!
Not a fan of the leaders looking like Sims 4 characters, and I don't like civs like Egypt being locked to early eras and then forced to change later. Similar feeling toward being able to have stuff like Hamurabi of England or Cleopatra of Japan 😅
One problem with the age locked civs is that civs like China and Russia are very much global powerhouses in the modern era, part of the "top 3" next to America, but China for instance is historically a powerhouse in earlier ages too with the various dynasty, great wall, gunpowder, etc. The way they've set it up, you can only play them in one age and they're locked from the others. That makes no sense.
They're never going to put a modern Chinese or Russian leader in the game for political reasons, so you're only ever going to be able to play that civ in an early era regardless of how many expansions come out despite them being a global leader in the modern era. This is a self imposed problem that doesn't exist in civ 6 where we can take Qin or Yongle all the way to space.
I agree but think its likely they’re not going back to Maoist China and will keep it ancient/medieval.
E.g. Rome are antiquity and imagine China will probably be so too as they were also vibing at the same time.
japanese empress Cleopatra so that weebs will play Civ7 will surely be a marketing move by Firaxis
The leaders look like that, because they are no longer CGI like in Civ 5 and 6.
The problem I have it they are realistic but styled it remind me of the Final Fantasy games.
@@LinkdarksideThey are all CGI, it’s a video game. What are you talking about?
I think it would be cool if they have civs turn into a civ like they did in the real world. Like Ancient Egypt could turn into the Ottoman Empire during the Exploration age and then turn into the Sultanate of Egypt or Republic of Egypt for the Modern Age.
So I don't know why so many people are whining about the fact that Firaxis is changing game play so civilisations change after every age. I'm one of those players who plays civ because I love history and one of the things that has always bothered me is the fact that the civilization you play with stays static throughout history. This is just not the way history has played out for most nation states (you might argue the Chinese or the Greeks have been able to remain relatively static but not really). We'll have to see how the mechanics work but it's definitely a step forward for those people who want to mimic some sort of historical accuracy when they play.
Civ 6 is just so much better than civ 5 in terms of options and mechanics. I only play civ 5 for nostalgia. I could see civ 7 being something that makes me go back to civ 6 every now and then just because I want a certain play style over another on any given day. I’m excited!
You can't play tall in Civ 6. That too me is a massive weakness compared to Civ 5. Had more variability in strategy.
@@SuperDarkMan12TVthat is very true. I love tall games. I probably put there are very very limited circumstances where I would choose civ 5 over civ 6.
@@mirrenmoomin6314 Strategy from Civ 5 + complexity from Civ 6 + art style from Civ 7 = Perfect Civ game ,. waiting a few more years :(
@@SuperDarkMan12TV you can absolutely play tall in Civ 6, it might not be the most theoretically optimal strategy but I love building tall empires and it can totally work even on deity difficulty. Not to mention the crazy amount of mods that let you play however you want to.
Hi Ursa, fantastic analysis as always! Just a suggestion for future informational videos-consider diving into the main content a bit earlier. I think many viewers are eager to get straight to the core information. Keep up the great work!
Good to know! I suspected as much, hence the timestamps XD
What if instead of changing civilizations they changed leaders instead? Functionally, the leader's abilities and civ abilities, instead of leaders growing with abilities, the civ grows abilities. It functions the same as before, just a bit of a name swap. Makes the roleplaying better, as you conceivably see leaders swapping with different eras instead of civs.
This 100%
Certainly would have been the safer switch!
Could work, seeing as civs already had multiple leaders in past games.
Changing civilizations is not the issue for me, because it's somewhat historical. The problem is going Aztec > Mongolia > France. If you could go Vikings > Norway/Sweden/Denmark > Scandinavia / Nordic union / or be forced to stay as the old civ because you could not get the right pre requisites, I would be hyped. You could have different and interchanging routes, like Athens > Macedon > Greece, or Rome > Byzantium > Greece. Some nations existed in multiple eras, and that should be reflected aswell, like England and France should both be playable in the exploration and modern age. It would require a lot of nations to developed, but it's a lot less work to design a banner for a nation that it is to design a leader model anyways, so there is no problem implementing hundreds of civilization paths like this over time.
@jeppepuus yeah I think it'll work like you suggested. Plus England as a medieval nation was so different than Great Britain. Same with France. I mean they literally spoke different languages. Old English and Old French are called that for a reason. Even putting Charlemagne and Louis XIV is a stretch but even those guys have more in common than Napoleon or the modern French country
Thanks for great in-depth video! Also, thanks for creating great content on Civ6, arguably the most interesting Civ-specialized here on YT.
thank you!
I love the look of the new cities (I like to build tall); however, I would have rather seen the Leaders change with age not the Civ. For example, as Rome start with Augustus -> Columbus -> Garibaldi as a warfare/conquest game.
yeah civ changing but static leader makes absolutely zero sense on any level, especially with CIV 6 alternate leaders being such a wild success.
@@gamer1X12 That's a bit of a radical assessment. Civilizations changed all the time in history. The Roman Empire being a prime example of that. We got the ancient Roman kingdom, the empire at its height, then a continuation in the East, which eventually saw spiritual succession in both the HRE and the Ottoman empire. If you look at it from that lens, I think changing civilizations makes a lot of sense.
@@NavidIsANoob you described a single cultural and religious identity adapting over time. the Romans didn't wake up one day and start speaking Cantonese. Egyptians to Songhai is dumb and so is your take. I'm not impressed. Changing leaders wouldve made a lot more sense.
@@gamer1X12 oh man, are you implying that Songhai was a Chinese empire? Embarassing 🫢
Ursa, I have no idea if this is your first time revealing your face, but for me it is and it certainly is a treat. Always love watching your videos and I genuinely cannot imagine your voice belonging to you given your appearance lol. Keep it up man.
My face is everywhere = ) Glad you enjoyed though!
I'm sure they'll add a "historical" mode and an "ahistorical" mode for everyone and/or the AI.
This is a fantastic video. Thank you so much
Sounds like they took a lot of innovations from Old World, Humankind & Millennia and piled them on the solid basis of Civ6. I'm really excited to see how it all comes together.
It's a huge evolution for certain!
Second comment (watching the video in chunks!): Settlement hierarchy (cities/towns) is something I'm really excited about. It's close to an idea I've had for a while, because I think it's really weird that cities in Civ have to be self-sufficient - clearly they're not in real life. It makes more sense in the early game where transportation makes it harder to move goods around, but later on, when trade becomes easier, cities should share resources (with the range increasing with tech/buildings: market --> shipyard --> railway --> airport). There are lots of directions this could go from a gameplay perspective, but this seems like a good idea without being overly complicated. One of the interesting gameplay impacts this could have is making it easier to settle marginal terrain - desert and tundra cities could be more feasible (Phoenix and Longyearbyen, for example, are not self-sufficient with their food), which is good.
Thanks a bunch for everything you do man! I hope you had a great time here in the US!
At least to me, snowballing (for the player) is a fundamental reason why 4X strategy games are fun to me. I don’t like the idea of rubberbanding. Yes, it feels bad when you are so far behind early in the game you can never possibly win. But that sadness is countered and then some by the elation of being so overpowered early you can never lose. I’m speaking from a purely single player mindset.
I also only play single player, but I don't really enjoy snowballing. Being so overpowered early that the rest of the game is just passing time because your natural progression means no one can catch up, and no challenges can occur. It's boring. On the flip side, if you are so far behind that you cannot win or really compete, that's also boring, and often you will just die when you get invaded and killed with tanks running over your musketeers. That's also boring.
Gaining an advantage but not essentially becoming godly compared to your rivals makes the game more fun.
@@nicolaszan1845this makes sense. I am slightly worried that the rubberbanding that occurs when you move ages will be too much and you will feel like you’ve lost all the advantage you built up during the previous age. Hopefully they strike a balance where you retain enough of the advantage to make it fulfilling.
@@nate1004 I imagine that won't happen simply because there would be little to no point in playing the ages before Modern if any advantage was reset to zero, except a couple territorial changes which will get less important compared to Civ 6.
It's likely that some advantage can be kept through mastery points and stuff like that. That's what I would do at least.
Couldn't make it to the stream because of needing to wake up early this morning but thank you for making this I'm so exited for CIV VII
Hope you enjoyed it!
I don't get the backlash about the leaders not being heads of state. I mean Gandhi wasn't a head of state or held any true government office in his life. And I believe Gorgo was more of an advisor to king leonidas as opposed to being a formal head of state, hell were not even sure Gilgamesh was a real person in the first place. I don't see anything wrong with notable figures in a nation's history being leaders. To me it's more important each figure represents the spirit of that nation. Also opens up more options for multiple leaders per civ.
things I'm excited for and hoping for:
-I was excited for the possibility of a turn based version of total war combat when you go in for battles.
- civ specific wonders and buildings that aren't just limited to one over a whole civs lifetime
-civ leader being a movable general/statesman
-controllable fort/outposts instead of having a make an awful city for resources (it's already a mod for civ 6)
-navigable rivers (so excited for this)
-no arbitrary limit to your cities borders (make a sensible way to increase borders sizes, like currency, more military presents for border control or something)
- movable animal tiles, if the tile is suitable (sheep and other herdable animals)
-ability to design your own leader (if leaders don't really mean anything to the actual civs, then character customisation for looks and then also you pick 1 ability/effect from 5 different pots of abilities)
- leaders that are movable on the map, who can die due to illness, war/battles, political cloak and dagger stuff. These leaders gain attributes over time and give buffs and debuffs to your civ, and they all have power currency that allows you to spend them on things like how many cities/settlements they can control and when they die their power is divided by their public opinion and becomes a currency called legacy, which can be a minus or pisitive number that effects your civ for generations to come.
For those who essentially want a Civ6.5 remember the role of moders.
Big steps need to be taken to push a franchise forward. All the small changes you want will be completed by moders, just like they did to Civ 5.
Plus future updates will iron out any poorly received features
What if i just want a Civ game? Will the modders help with that as well?
@@Silentbob515 if it's a game very similar to Civ 6 then yes. This exact argument happened with Civ 5 & it now has a crazy amount of overall mods to support that fan base.
Civ 6 already has a insane amount of mods. I'd recommend trying these if you haven't already
@@Silentbob515 They probably will, haha. There are some nutty modders.
Spectacular review Ursa, thanks a bunch.
Huzzah!!!!