You sure it wasn't a "Clown-city level edit." "cough" Cities and Towns and Trade, video reference, "cough" Never mind. Edit - Great video by the way. Thanks for explaining things and keeping me informed otherwise I wouldn't have a clue what was happening with civ7.
I really like the idea of towns because I often want to secure more land but don’t really want to make more cities. This is mainly an issue in civ 5 with happiness. This means you can go tall on cities but get your desired borders with towns.
Civ 7 is my most anticipated game right now. I cant wait to see more of your content on it JumboPixal! I found your channel with Age of Wonders 4 and been enjoying it since then!
@@luckyme8723 hopefully, the game is already mentally taxing. I don’t want to be visually depressed while learning, reading or thinking. I really love it when I get Golden Age in Civ6 because the game and UI just becomes brighter so it feels nice to look at everything. All this Grey UI looks like a constant forever Dark Age.
I would like it if certain natural wonders could be developed. For instance, the Rock of Gibraltar had a Moorish castle built on it, then eventually the Rock was tunneled creating the Great Siege Tunnels and by WWII the Rock was a fortress in it's own right.
Love the city-town distinction. Feels like a great step towards balancing tall vs wide, where most civ games lean very heavily in one direction. Still can't get over how the UI looks like a mobile game though :(
This is my question too. How exactly will strategic resources work- is iron needed for swordsmen, are horses needed for horsemen/cavalry? What about saltpetre for gunpowder units and coal/oil etc in the late game?
Loved the video, thanks! Though I'm not really sure about your distinction between bonus and luxury resources 🤔 I thought they made only 2 types of resources (those that are for settlements, and those for the empire). The only thing is that some resources bonus only make sense if they are assigned to a city. Maybe I'm wrong, would love a source for that somewhere if anyone has any.
The official civilization youtube channel sorted resources into three, bonus, luxury, and imperial. So yeah, he's right. Bonus are the ones with just straight forward yields, while luxuries are more like unique bonuses. Luxuries however can only be placed in cities.
Can't wait for this game!!! I LOVE how the map looks, but man that UI looks outdated, haha.... Everything else though, like the rulers and towns and even the concept of "ages" has me psyched.
I am a bit skeptical but I also know I am someone who clings to 'the old ways' being someone with 2K hours on Civ 3 and another 2k+ on civ 5...but did not enjoy 4 or 6. Fingers crossed this has got towns and right this is more enjoyable than 6 was. Thanks so much for the video, you sure make it look awesome!
Man I have to say as someone who enjoyed both 5 and 6...you really missed out on 6, especially once the Storm expansion came out. What an incredibly fun game.
As I understand, they do increase your number of settlements (meaning you can go over the limit with happiness penalty) then the captured settlement is automatically a town, even if it already has urban quarters. You will have to pay gold to concert it to a city.
It is not really a cap, you will get a happiness penalty for surpassing it, but if you have excess happiness you can continue to settle or capture as much as you like
Interesting take. I was always looking forward to seeing us being able to create states/provinces each with their own capital. Hopefully one day. Are colonies back? Though sounds like towns might be similar.
@HiLoMusic real goods economy with transportation and some basic logistics system involving trains as well as population management for production/military It was great in civilization colonization Producing tanks and rifles and TV's would be even better as opposed to cotton sweatshirts:)
Personally I am cautiously optimistic about civ 7. I am worried about some features but I am looking forward to others. To be honest I am glad it will be different because that is one of my favorite things about the civ series compared to many other games. Instead of trying to remake their previous games they try new things and change major things, it makes it feel less like "an upgraded version of the last game" as most game sequels and more like "a different game in the same series". But of course, as many people realized with payday 3 and of course, civ 6. If you don't like the new one you can always play the old one. I respect Firaxis' drive to shake things up even if I am not confident in how some of the changes will play. But I also accept that I have never taken the civ series that seriously, and for someone that has put thousands of hours into each of them maybe you would wish they would just remake civ 4 or civ 5 every time (or whichever other one was your favorite). By far the spookiest thing I have seen on civ 7 so far was the civ swapping, which I had heard was the most hated feature in humankind, why would you copy the most hated feature of your competitor? I don't know, but maybe it will be good in civ. If not then at least the previous ones aren't going anywhere.
Personally, I found civ switching in Humankind not that great because it didn't really have any connecting logic (any civ could transition to any other civ), and because it felt like choice was taken away from you. Only one person could pick each civ for an era, which meant that if you fell behind in an era, you'd have to pick something you didn't originally want, and you had to hope that your available choices still synergised at least partly with your current game plan, otherwise you were basically screwed for a long time. Civs kind of got reduced to a bunch of bonuses that you tried to stack through the game. They didn't really all that unique either. With your civilisation/faction normally being such a large part of your identity in strategy games, it just didn't work for me. I'm more optimistic about Civ's approach because the Civ changes are defined by certain choices, which I think will help to preserve a sense of identity through the game. Civ also has fewer, but seemingly more detailed eras than Humankind, and it seems that new mechanics will become available in later eras. I'm hoping this means they can focus on the strengths of each civ for every era and keep them feeling relevant. This is kind of a problem that Civ 6 has - often your civ feels 'vanilla' outside of the specific ages where it's strong.
Civ 5 is really good in it's final form. Also, the mod community has some awesome upgrades for steam/PC. Better UI, more info in more logical places for starters. Some even have extra units, buildings, mechanics, resources, etc..
i always hated how subs are usless be nice if you could raid a trade route with subs where the route is not 100% cut off but you steal a bit based on how many subs are raiding the trade route
Honest question here. Ive never played a Civ game and I am a casual console player. Will the game be decent on ps5? Please no troll answers, just be honest.
@CrimsonKingThe oof. I was thinking of getting this for my Wife on her Switch as well since she loves those town builder games. Damn. Just another cash grab from a gaming company. Ty for being honest.
@PxNxWxGxW I play civ 6 on xbox series X and it runs pretty well, occasional crashes but no big issues. They seem to be really determined to have a simultaneous smooth launch on all platforms so hopefully it will work well. Not sure how good it will be on switch, if I were you I'd wait for some reviews before purchasing but have some hope, there's a decent chance it's good.
It is an interesting relationship between cities and towns. But I'm not sure it will be a net positive for the game. It seems like a more micro-heavy way of playing with cottages/hamlets/villages/towns as we know them from Civ IV. Trade is also made cumbersome in later Civ-games. I like the automated way trade happened in Civ IV. You automatically got the most lucrative trade-routes with no need for time-consuming gameplay just to set up one route. And it was quick and easy to trade resources with other leaders (if they had a surplus and liked you enough). This new system of trade seems like just a time-wasting unneccessary micro-management add-on that gives no real benefits to the player.
Very fair. I love Civ 6 and will play that, but each Civ I look at as a brand new game and always excited to see what they will do and glad to see an over haul. Otherwise it should be an expansion, my thoughts anyway
Dude. Most importantly - sources are always linked in the description. You can follow the links and watch them for yourself if you like. I also played Civ 7.
"Build an empire to stand the test of time" without workers. LOL. There was so much potential to do this right. They could have given specific attributes to different workers of different nations. I believe in Civ 4, indian workers could build things faster. Workers were a key feature of this game and very fun to have. Workers could speed up your development early on. Protecting workers or taking worker from other Civs could make a great different in the game stopping your A.I opponents from developing too fast in the early game. Civ 5 combat mode was a great improvement from previous versions as it stopped the stacks of doom. The concept of hamlets turning into small villages and then towns worked really well in Civ 4. The distric system in Civ 6 was a mistake. I have played all the games since the early 90s. I tried to like Civ 6 and it just didn't look good enoug. This Civ 7 looks worst. A real Clown world game cheap looking, with cheap mobile phone graphics where buildings suddenly appear, awful voices and childish characters without any realy character. What a shame. I hope they can still sort it out.
And every other 4X has ripped off Civ... There is nothing wrong with taking ideas that work. You hear the same song and dance every time a new civ game is announced. "Civ 4 sucks I'll be sticking with civ 3" I was there people actually said that. Same with 5 & 6. People absolutely hated 5 and now it's held up as some kind of pinical of civ. It's exhausting.
apologies for an awkward cut at 4:20 -ish. Clown-town level edits by me today.
You sure it wasn't a "Clown-city level edit."
"cough"
Cities and Towns and Trade, video reference,
"cough"
Never mind.
Edit - Great video by the way. Thanks for explaining things and keeping me informed otherwise I wouldn't have a clue what was happening with civ7.
I forgive you for your sin
I really like the idea of towns because I often want to secure more land but don’t really want to make more cities. This is mainly an issue in civ 5 with happiness. This means you can go tall on cities but get your desired borders with towns.
Man the fort town will go hard if you settle the town in a pass where units need to funnel.
It will be like placing strategic encampments in civ 6, which is probably the best aspect of districting (other than getting those +12 factories)
Love how the game map looks.
honestly me too. I hoped it'd be a blend of civ 5 and civ 6, and that's what it seemed like to me.
They nailed the map look, kinda hoping for an UI and Character model Redesign tho
@@davidaugustofc2574agreed, the map looks amazing. Hate the UI tho 😢
damn unique bonus per resources, resource management & trade gon get whole lot deeper
Fun Fact - did you know that Civ 4 also had Towns? Different implementation, but they were there.
Cottage growing into a Hamlet, Village and Town, generating more commerce as they grew. Always liked how simple but logical that mechanic was.
Civ 3 had outposts as well
Damn, civ 4 is my 2nd civ and I was playing a hell out of it, but dont remember anything... :(
@@rsWill525 Elegant. The word is elegant, and I completely agree.
I had to remind someone about it also
Civ 7 is my most anticipated game right now. I cant wait to see more of your content on it JumboPixal! I found your channel with Age of Wonders 4 and been enjoying it since then!
Perfect video, right speaker speed, good background music, super content! Thank you. 😄
I wish they made the UI more colorful... the grey looks too unexiting lol
They will most likely improve it at the end of the development
If they make the grey lines look golden or bronze. It be a huge improvement
The UI seems to be very oled friendly! Less burn in oled screens…
I don’t mind, the focus is on the colorful landscapes.
If it was colorful like VI the environmental assets wouldn’t pop as much imo
@@luckyme8723 hopefully, the game is already mentally taxing. I don’t want to be visually depressed while learning, reading or thinking.
I really love it when I get Golden Age in Civ6 because the game and UI just becomes brighter so it feels nice to look at everything.
All this Grey UI looks like a constant forever Dark Age.
This definitely felt like a more concise way to understand things and had me saving this to my wishlist.
Love the info you've been putting out, Jumbo. After skipping Civ 6, I'm starting to get excited for Civ 7.
I would like it if certain natural wonders could be developed. For instance, the Rock of Gibraltar had a Moorish castle built on it, then eventually the Rock was tunneled creating the Great Siege Tunnels and by WWII the Rock was a fortress in it's own right.
im terrified this will by the end just be one giant starwars style city, planet wide
Love the city-town distinction. Feels like a great step towards balancing tall vs wide, where most civ games lean very heavily in one direction. Still can't get over how the UI looks like a mobile game though :(
Am i the only one who is bit confused of augustus +50% gold toward building purchase, im my brain it should be - not+
So does this mean what we used to call "Strategic" resources aren't need to to train units. For example I don't need iron to train swordsmen anymore?
This is my question too. How exactly will strategic resources work- is iron needed for swordsmen, are horses needed for horsemen/cavalry? What about saltpetre for gunpowder units and coal/oil etc in the late game?
Strategic gives bonus to units now
Loved the video, thanks! Though I'm not really sure about your distinction between bonus and luxury resources 🤔 I thought they made only 2 types of resources (those that are for settlements, and those for the empire). The only thing is that some resources bonus only make sense if they are assigned to a city. Maybe I'm wrong, would love a source for that somewhere if anyone has any.
The official civilization youtube channel sorted resources into three, bonus, luxury, and imperial. So yeah, he's right. Bonus are the ones with just straight forward yields, while luxuries are more like unique bonuses. Luxuries however can only be placed in cities.
Can't wait for this game!!! I LOVE how the map looks, but man that UI looks outdated, haha.... Everything else though, like the rulers and towns and even the concept of "ages" has me psyched.
I am a bit skeptical but I also know I am someone who clings to 'the old ways' being someone with 2K hours on Civ 3 and another 2k+ on civ 5...but did not enjoy 4 or 6.
Fingers crossed this has got towns and right this is more enjoyable than 6 was. Thanks so much for the video, you sure make it look awesome!
Man I have to say as someone who enjoyed both 5 and 6...you really missed out on 6, especially once the Storm expansion came out. What an incredibly fun game.
Reminds me a bit of the hamlet-village-town system of civ4
How does the max capacity of cities work when capturing another player’s city?
As I understand, they do increase your number of settlements (meaning you can go over the limit with happiness penalty) then the captured settlement is automatically a town, even if it already has urban quarters. You will have to pay gold to concert it to a city.
It is not really a cap, you will get a happiness penalty for surpassing it, but if you have excess happiness you can continue to settle or capture as much as you like
Interesting take. I was always looking forward to seeing us being able to create states/provinces each with their own capital. Hopefully one day.
Are colonies back? Though sounds like towns might be similar.
I'll pass this iteration of civ the economy model isn't engaging enough to make me interested
Seems better to me?
@HiLoMusic I'm not gonna persuade you if you like it then by all means enjoy the game but for me it's more of the same so I'll pass
@ I’m more curious what you hoped to see that isn’t there
@HiLoMusic real goods economy with transportation and some basic logistics system involving trains as well as population management for production/military
It was great in civilization colonization
Producing tanks and rifles and TV's would be even better as opposed to cotton sweatshirts:)
Personally I am cautiously optimistic about civ 7. I am worried about some features but I am looking forward to others. To be honest I am glad it will be different because that is one of my favorite things about the civ series compared to many other games. Instead of trying to remake their previous games they try new things and change major things, it makes it feel less like "an upgraded version of the last game" as most game sequels and more like "a different game in the same series". But of course, as many people realized with payday 3 and of course, civ 6. If you don't like the new one you can always play the old one. I respect Firaxis' drive to shake things up even if I am not confident in how some of the changes will play. But I also accept that I have never taken the civ series that seriously, and for someone that has put thousands of hours into each of them maybe you would wish they would just remake civ 4 or civ 5 every time (or whichever other one was your favorite).
By far the spookiest thing I have seen on civ 7 so far was the civ swapping, which I had heard was the most hated feature in humankind, why would you copy the most hated feature of your competitor? I don't know, but maybe it will be good in civ. If not then at least the previous ones aren't going anywhere.
Personally, I found civ switching in Humankind not that great because it didn't really have any connecting logic (any civ could transition to any other civ), and because it felt like choice was taken away from you. Only one person could pick each civ for an era, which meant that if you fell behind in an era, you'd have to pick something you didn't originally want, and you had to hope that your available choices still synergised at least partly with your current game plan, otherwise you were basically screwed for a long time. Civs kind of got reduced to a bunch of bonuses that you tried to stack through the game. They didn't really all that unique either. With your civilisation/faction normally being such a large part of your identity in strategy games, it just didn't work for me.
I'm more optimistic about Civ's approach because the Civ changes are defined by certain choices, which I think will help to preserve a sense of identity through the game. Civ also has fewer, but seemingly more detailed eras than Humankind, and it seems that new mechanics will become available in later eras. I'm hoping this means they can focus on the strengths of each civ for every era and keep them feeling relevant. This is kind of a problem that Civ 6 has - often your civ feels 'vanilla' outside of the specific ages where it's strong.
The big question is if there will be a world builder at launch. I wish someone would talk about that
I played CIV III all day everyday growing up and since then none of the games have been as fun as that
Civ 5 is really good in it's final form. Also, the mod community has some awesome upgrades for steam/PC. Better UI, more info in more logical places for starters. Some even have extra units, buildings, mechanics, resources, etc..
ok? this video is about something else
Milennia does the towns also.
Reminds me of some Civ 6 mods
Nice video, have a nice day
I just hope they add a "NPC Combat Aggressiveness" setting that is independent of the game's difficulty.
so the colony system from civ 3 about time that comes back
Pls make a guide on civ 7, i am new to this genre.
How can we sign up to test the game like you?
keep them coming :D
This just makes me want to play Humankind more…
i always hated how subs are usless be nice if you could raid a trade route with subs where the route is not 100% cut off but you steal a bit based on how many subs are raiding the trade route
hope you get to 100k till civ vii
Honest question here. Ive never played a Civ game and I am a casual console player. Will the game be decent on ps5? Please no troll answers, just be honest.
Probably you won't be able to play smoothly in larger maps when you reach late game. At least this was the case with civ6 on PS4.
@CrimsonKingThe oof. I was thinking of getting this for my Wife on her Switch as well since she loves those town builder games. Damn. Just another cash grab from a gaming company. Ty for being honest.
@PxNxWxGxW I play civ 6 on xbox series X and it runs pretty well, occasional crashes but no big issues. They seem to be really determined to have a simultaneous smooth launch on all platforms so hopefully it will work well. Not sure how good it will be on switch, if I were you I'd wait for some reviews before purchasing but have some hope, there's a decent chance it's good.
@@ClaspedDragor tyvm
The only thing about this game that bugs me is it's price; too high for a 4x.
The more I see, the more hype I get for this game.
I can't wait to play this new style Sid Meier , too bored to play Humankind anymore.
It's a console game.
It is an interesting relationship between cities and towns. But I'm not sure it will be a net positive for the game. It seems like a more micro-heavy way of playing with cottages/hamlets/villages/towns as we know them from Civ IV.
Trade is also made cumbersome in later Civ-games. I like the automated way trade happened in Civ IV. You automatically got the most lucrative trade-routes with no need for time-consuming gameplay just to set up one route. And it was quick and easy to trade resources with other leaders (if they had a surplus and liked you enough).
This new system of trade seems like just a time-wasting unneccessary micro-management add-on that gives no real benefits to the player.
You can't play as a nation or a continuing civilization. This ruins it for me
honestly not very excited about Civ7
I want to play civ 1
Happy to see the game is not like civ vi which was cartoonish clown game cocomelon graphics
Seems like they took a lot from humankind
Woould it be the civ killer? 🤭
Too much change to a game that didn’t need it
Very fair. I love Civ 6 and will play that, but each Civ I look at as a brand new game and always excited to see what they will do and glad to see an over haul. Otherwise it should be an expansion, my thoughts anyway
I want to live in that city with Jumbo and together we will be married and make lots of babies
How do you know this? Like where is this information coming from. Feels like your just saying things.
Dude.
Most importantly - sources are always linked in the description. You can follow the links and watch them for yourself if you like.
I also played Civ 7.
This guy has the most annoying delivery on UA-cam. Exaggerated speech patterns and undue and out-of-place pseudo-enthusiasm. I can’t listen.
"Build an empire to stand the test of time" without workers. LOL. There was so much potential to do this right. They could have given specific attributes to different workers of different nations. I believe in Civ 4, indian workers could build things faster. Workers were a key feature of this game and very fun to have. Workers could speed up your development early on. Protecting workers or taking worker from other Civs could make a great different in the game stopping your A.I opponents from developing too fast in the early game.
Civ 5 combat mode was a great improvement from previous versions as it stopped the stacks of doom. The concept of hamlets turning into small villages and then towns worked really well in Civ 4. The distric system in Civ 6 was a mistake. I have played all the games since the early 90s. I tried to like Civ 6 and it just didn't look good enoug. This Civ 7 looks worst. A real Clown world game cheap looking, with cheap mobile phone graphics where buildings suddenly appear, awful voices and childish characters without any realy character. What a shame. I hope they can still sort it out.
Cities skylines 2 still sucks, nothing has changed
this is a civ 7 vid babes
@@unicornic5235 i laughed out loud
Civ 7 here, but you’re not wrong about CS2. What an unfortunate misfire
@@unicornic5235 It also has an entirely different dev, and publisher
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
they have ripped off every other 4x game made this is just sad i think i will not buy this garbage and stick to the other civ games
And every other 4X has ripped off Civ... There is nothing wrong with taking ideas that work. You hear the same song and dance every time a new civ game is announced. "Civ 4 sucks I'll be sticking with civ 3" I was there people actually said that. Same with 5 & 6. People absolutely hated 5 and now it's held up as some kind of pinical of civ. It's exhausting.