And a unbalanced game can also be boring when players just always gravitate to the strongest meta resulting in the same few strategies always being used every game.
Yeah, it just depends on what players want in games. Civilization is focusing more on the 'Sandbox' empire builder game rather than a serious 'competitive' 4x strategy game. And that's totally fine! I think more players enjoy a sandbox type experience and want to enjoy a narrative and they want to appeal to a wide audience. Millions of people play chess also, the ultimate 'balanced' game . . . sometimes you want to pit yourself against a competitive player/AI.
This was such a great interview with thoughtful and good questions. Particularly loved the "what makes Civ, Civ?" question. It was certainly a tough one and probably could've had many different answers but he gave a really good one.
Journalism undergrad here: your interviewing skills were perfect! You purposely asked complex questions that could be answered 100 different ways and allowed the devs to share quality insight.
[2:33] Q: What does it mean to "Balance" Civ 7 [4:32] Q: Are there any combos you hope people find? [6:58] Q: How were the age transitions resets designed? [10:06] Q: How do you want Civ players to feel? [13:20] Q: What makes a game feel like Civ? [15:50] Q: Why 12-15 hours for a core gameplay experience? [18:30] Q: Feedback Collection/Implementation [21:52] Q: How is the team at Fireaxis feeling? [24:02] Q: What is your favorite aspect of Civ 7?
Just an advise in case you do another of these interviews, instead of “Civilization developers” it would’ve been better to mention their names and their roles.
I can see the point about finding unbalanced strategies being fun, I just want the AI to be competitive. The AI should be able to exploit the “unbalances” as well so that the game isn’t too easy.
I agree with u. But from what I’ve seen ai only use cultural apropiate civilization to the leader it plays. And it doesn’t get smarter with difficulty it only gains faster production or buffs on gold infuence etc
@ yeah, I guess it’s probably too much to ask for a really “smart” AI…but at least the bonuses the AI gets should scale to make it feel like they are smarter and can keep up with the exploited “unbalances”. The amount of bonuses the AI needs I guess will just need to be adjusted as the game moves forward and we learn more
The should make it an option on how hard the "rubberband"-effect is, similar to disaster intensity in civ 6. That way, one could basically choose for themself on how hard they want the game to be, cause i believe this would indirectly make the AI stronger with its Deity bonusses for instance
@gerlern yeah, thats why giving you the option to lets say go rather "extreme" with the rubber band like mentioned in the Interview by the devs (that this was one idea) feels like a nice way to add more chaos which would benefit the AI
@@christopherg.6282 I agree…I would be one to want more rubber band effect. I really don’t like reaching a point where I feel the game is over because I’m too far ahead
I like that the dev himself said Civ is 90% a single player game. YES. I was happy to hear that. Its ok for some games to be single player only. I have literal YEARS of playtime online, WoW, Dark Age of Camelot, Counter Strike, Command and Conquer, Mortal Online 2, The Call of Duties, etc. I feel very strongly that turn based strategy games are for single player. I want to take my time in those games, I play strategy games with my feet up at my pace. I have a whole host of games to play online. Some things are meant to be single player. I just hope the AI is decent, it was awful in Civ 6.
Great interview, you killed it! And for the people working on civ that are reading this, thank you for all your hard work and for actually caring about community feedback. Awesome video!
Excellent Video thanks for posting. Wondering if there is going to be any scenarios or mini games. CIV 6 iirc had Barbarians, but seems like they focus less on set scenarios or mini quests than other games like Tropico or SimCity. Could be a fun avenue to “teach” the game to users while offering small quests to complete in 1-2hrs.
That was great. Just like one more turn, I wanted more questions. 😁 Were there limits on your interview questions? Could you have asked about the search function? I wonder if the devs ever play a version that is graphicly very simplified just to work out the mechanics or gameplay? Granted districts are not the same but do they plan on having game tacks or "Detailed Map Tacks"? I wonder if they ever purposely left out a feature that they will reserve for mods? Keep up the good work. Thanks
I think Edward made a good point. One of the fun things about the Civ series is it's not perfectly balanced. The challenge is to use your leader's or Civ's unique abilities effectively.
If Civ 7 have an analyst desk, you'd be my first pick to be the host! (I would have Civlifer and Herson as color commentator because I feel like they would vibe and they're both really funny)
Great interview! Thank you 🙏🏽. I was hoping you would ask some “tough” questions you raised in your last play through, like the gold and production balance or the crises. But I guess we’re gonna find out soon.
I loved the simulation aspect of the first Civ games (I, II, III), where, after playing, I felt I had gained a better understanding of the mechanisms that shaped human history. The later games feel more like a fun board game, with various bonuses. While enjoyable, they are less fulfilling. Could you release a version of CIV VII that focuses more on simulating real human history?
Thoughtful questions and answers. I enjoyed listening to people who obviously love civ discuss the game/experience. Some hometown pride for you as well, VanBradley.
Fantasic interview!! Their answer to what makes Civ, Civ really hit it on the head for me. Civ and Old World have both really fine-tuned the "right" amount of decisions per turn - from turn 1 all the way to the last.
Funny enough, Civ 7 seem fairly balanced. If there is many strong builds/strategies the game is Overall still balanced. I love the age resets too, because it fixes the insane endgame snowball. In Humankind the last age was offen done in a Hand full of turns.
My main balancing concern has to do with all the streamlined mechanics potentially resulting in every playthrough of a given era being too similar. Things like flattened tile yields and static "do X Y times" era trackers could lead to subsequent playthroughs of the same age feeling too similar if the streamlining goes too far. For example, having culture in the exploration age tied so tightly with the religion mechanic seems to indicate that the only viable culture strategy involves spreading religion to achieve relics. Though of course will need to play it to see how the actual mechanics feel in practice and how viable it is to pursue a victory condition without following a cookie cutter path of a single progression tree.
The Deluxe Edition comes with the Crossroads of the World collection, which includes 2 new leaders and 4 new civs, and 2 bonus personas. The Founders editions comes with that plus the Right to Rule collection (2 more leaders and 4 more civs) and another 2 more personas. So the Founder's edition comes with 4 "bonus" personas. These are different versions of existing leaders. There aren't any bonus civs that come with the Founder's Edition (but you'll get 8 more civs as part of the DLC packs). If you buy the Deluxe or Founder's edition, or pre-purchase the base game, you also Tecumseh (leader) and Shawnee Civ as a bonus. You can also get an extra Napolean persona by linking your account. And Deluxe and Founder's allow you to play the game 5 days earlier. Sorry about the long reply.
I love how people instantly read this in an uncharitable way, people are so ready to hate this game and I don't understand why, it looks amazing to me 😍
I prefer unbalanced Civs/Leaders to artificial difficulty levels that awards the AI advantages. The real problem is that trying to make a game where certain civilizations are weak, due to their cultural, or traditional shortcomings, that is both realistic mechanically, and politically correct. It is also tricky writing comments like this so that they make it through the Google filter.
Dude! You were great with the interview. (Everyone, give this man his flowers!) Good questions, very engaging, quick paced and no lagging on any one area. VB the interviewer of the peoples!
Especially games that are predominantly played single player. Balance is really only a concern when a game needs to make sure two opposing teams are both having fun. The way they defined it as "progression and pacing" makes much more sense to me.
I'm sick of (other) games with DLC coming out with brokenly OP stuff that cannot have been seriously play tested by canny players that makes SP a cake walk and has to be banned from MP. It's almost like there's a market for this power escalation and others feel obliged to buy that DLC, while older stuff is nerfed.
Ideally every civ should have potential to be op. They should be op in different ways but all be really good, same with being able to stack bonuses, there should be ways to make culture super op and ways to map science super op etc. But they should kind of be exclusive so there isn’t just a dominant strategy.
@@matthewhoag9892 that's the same as strategy games which add costs to the largest leading faction. That's anti-snow balling, balance in the strategy context is about avoiding faction feature combos that allow bulldozing all others robbing the player of all suspense. So for example in Stellaris there are events that create overwhelmingly strong enemy, but are balanced by a decadence decay that sets in when that faction conquers territory, or it has the leader who triggered the crisis die. That allows skill and strategy, because you can anticipate and remove or mitigate the danger by acting proactively.
If I may offer some constructive advice on conducting an interview: I think you had good questions, but I would recommend trying to keep your delivery shorter and to resist the temptation to talk about yourself, pre-answer your own questions and repeat the answers. I didn't time it, but it feels like you spent more time talking here than the devs did. Viewers don't come to an interview video to listen to the interviewer, they come to listen to the interviewees.
As a 99.999% percentile top level player, all I care is multiplayer. It sounds like they did not improve it and probably made it worse. So I will probably wait few days first to see if thats even viable option. Price is bad but value per hours spent is definitely worth. But paying that much money for something which is not even playable would be mistake I wouldnt dare to make. Waiting is not big problem tbh because mods will take significant amount of time to be released anyway. They should hashtag this game DIY bc vanilla civ6 is still bad after loads of dlcs.
While I don't play Civ multiplayer much, I do enjoy it and I do think some of the changes do improve the multiplayer experience. For one thing, in a multiplayer game, some players may fall behind and some players may "run away with it". With the age transistions and "soft resets", that's less likely to happen. You won't be able to get an early lead and coast through the rest of the game. You'll need to perform well throughout the game and with changing goals. And with leaders being able to be matched with any Civ you'll get a lot more combinations of special abilities, and variety helps multi-player because it opens up more strategies, and it's harder to defend against.
Also just the fact that you can play a single Age instead of playing the whole game seems to me to be a better option for a quicker game, and thus better for online play.
'Perfectly' is the key word. That's what he means. Each Age in Civ VII is tightly balanced, which makes the game much more playable. That's great news compared to the trash that Civ VI gave us. Unbalanced combat, obsolete units, runaway civs. None of that crap will happen anymore.
Im definitely gonna pre order the regular version I think just cause I wanna play so bad but the fact that even then im missing out on some content is ass.
Yeah and we consumers let them do this crap by supporting them some obviously will just buy the 4 leaders so in their eyes why shouldn't they? Next company to be truly about the people I will totallly support, but this game I will either buy just standard or wait until sale.
I don't think you're going to be missing out on content. Probably be able to buy the extra content later if you want. Some people like to wait for a sale. For some people, $70 is a lot to pay for a game but many of the AAA titles cost this much now. And for those who want more content they can pay more. You won't miss out on any of the game mechanics. And there will probably be player created content later on which is free.
Oh boy I love the idea of leading and being rubber banded close to everyone else for the next 2 ages..... not. Idk about you guys but I get attached to my army when I build it don't want to see the units disappeared.
From what I've seen - that army should be used in service of building up one or more bad ass commander(s) and that bad ass-ness lives on. It's not gone; it's just different.
Yes and he didn't call them out on that. This is obviously terrible so if I want to build a huge army and conquer everyone over 3 ages I have to build 3 seperate armies because I will lose them on age progression? So the units I grown attached to and spent MY TIME building, and moving across the map, just get to disappear without a glorious battle if the age progresses? How lame is that?
@ Sorry I have the gall to complain about something you probably let everyone run over you. If you want to accept everything for what it is fine. But that doesn't stop other people from wanting better.
"All civs in a certain age balanced" Ugh. So it's not like picking an early or late game civ anymore, you have options all game! I know people will love this change but ultra balanced games just draw scripted conclusion.
Civ has always been as hard as you make it. If you try for meta strategies, you can game the system. If you roleplay and make different decisions in each game, you can continue finding new challenges.
Watched some preview stuff and it looks like high end players gonna steam roll diety out of the box despite massive ai bonuses, if you are one of them ... I cant say.
Your interview was good mate, whatever you are doing keep doing it!
And a unbalanced game can also be boring when players just always gravitate to the strongest meta resulting in the same few strategies always being used every game.
@plokoon9619 yes there needs to be more than a few s tier options as well as some good counters
"Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game." - Sid Meier
Yeah, it just depends on what players want in games. Civilization is focusing more on the 'Sandbox' empire builder game rather than a serious 'competitive' 4x strategy game. And that's totally fine! I think more players enjoy a sandbox type experience and want to enjoy a narrative and they want to appeal to a wide audience.
Millions of people play chess also, the ultimate 'balanced' game . . . sometimes you want to pit yourself against a competitive player/AI.
Outstanding interview questions. It’s great to get some different insight into their thought processes than the typical developer interviews yield.
This was such a great interview with thoughtful and good questions. Particularly loved the "what makes Civ, Civ?" question. It was certainly a tough one and probably could've had many different answers but he gave a really good one.
Journalism undergrad here: your interviewing skills were perfect! You purposely asked complex questions that could be answered 100 different ways and allowed the devs to share quality insight.
11:50 THIS. This is the kind of new perspective on VII’s design I was looking for.
[2:33] Q: What does it mean to "Balance" Civ 7
[4:32] Q: Are there any combos you hope people find?
[6:58] Q: How were the age transitions resets designed?
[10:06] Q: How do you want Civ players to feel?
[13:20] Q: What makes a game feel like Civ?
[15:50] Q: Why 12-15 hours for a core gameplay experience?
[18:30] Q: Feedback Collection/Implementation
[21:52] Q: How is the team at Fireaxis feeling?
[24:02] Q: What is your favorite aspect of Civ 7?
Just an advise in case you do another of these interviews, instead of “Civilization developers” it would’ve been better to mention their names and their roles.
I can see the point about finding unbalanced strategies being fun, I just want the AI to be competitive. The AI should be able to exploit the “unbalances” as well so that the game isn’t too easy.
I agree with u. But from what I’ve seen ai only use cultural apropiate civilization to the leader it plays. And it doesn’t get smarter with difficulty it only gains faster production or buffs on gold infuence etc
@ yeah, I guess it’s probably too much to ask for a really “smart” AI…but at least the bonuses the AI gets should scale to make it feel like they are smarter and can keep up with the exploited “unbalances”. The amount of bonuses the AI needs I guess will just need to be adjusted as the game moves forward and we learn more
The should make it an option on how hard the "rubberband"-effect is, similar to disaster intensity in civ 6. That way, one could basically choose for themself on how hard they want the game to be, cause i believe this would indirectly make the AI stronger with its Deity bonusses for instance
I think reducing the rubber band effect would generally hurt the AI competitiveness. AIs tends to snowball less quickly than Player characters.
@gerlern yeah, thats why giving you the option to lets say go rather "extreme" with the rubber band like mentioned in the Interview by the devs (that this was one idea) feels like a nice way to add more chaos which would benefit the AI
@@christopherg.6282 I agree…I would be one to want more rubber band effect. I really don’t like reaching a point where I feel the game is over because I’m too far ahead
I like that the dev himself said Civ is 90% a single player game. YES. I was happy to hear that. Its ok for some games to be single player only. I have literal YEARS of playtime online, WoW, Dark Age of Camelot, Counter Strike, Command and Conquer, Mortal Online 2, The Call of Duties, etc. I feel very strongly that turn based strategy games are for single player. I want to take my time in those games, I play strategy games with my feet up at my pace. I have a whole host of games to play online. Some things are meant to be single player. I just hope the AI is decent, it was awful in Civ 6.
I am glad I discovered this channel. Really liking the CIV 7 approach. Very informative and everything feels well done.
Great interview, you killed it! And for the people working on civ that are reading this, thank you for all your hard work and for actually caring about community feedback. Awesome video!
Great interview, I’m so exited for for release! Can’t wait to see your videos on Civ 7!
I've watched a handful of these and this was easily one of the better interviews. Great job by all parties.
That was a really good interview with very thoughtful questions. Thanks!
Very good job! Well thought out questions and great engagement with the Devs! Thanks!
Excellent Video thanks for posting. Wondering if there is going to be any scenarios or mini games. CIV 6 iirc had Barbarians, but seems like they focus less on set scenarios or mini quests than other games like Tropico or SimCity. Could be a fun avenue to “teach” the game to users while offering small quests to complete in 1-2hrs.
That was great. Just like one more turn, I wanted more questions. 😁 Were there limits on your interview questions? Could you have asked about the search function? I wonder if the devs ever play a version that is graphicly very simplified just to work out the mechanics or gameplay? Granted districts are not the same but do they plan on having game tacks or "Detailed Map Tacks"? I wonder if they ever purposely left out a feature that they will reserve for mods? Keep up the good work. Thanks
Great interview.
Makes me want to get the game more. The two devs seem legit and sincere. :)
Nice job VB! Good questions and just wets my appetite to get started playing.
I think Edward made a good point. One of the fun things about the Civ series is it's not perfectly balanced. The challenge is to use your leader's or Civ's unique abilities effectively.
If Civ 7 have an analyst desk, you'd be my first pick to be the host! (I would have Civlifer and Herson as color commentator because I feel like they would vibe and they're both really funny)
Nice interview! You did a great job!
Great interview! Thank you 🙏🏽. I was hoping you would ask some “tough” questions you raised in your last play through, like the gold and production balance or the crises. But I guess we’re gonna find out soon.
You did a great job interviewing, keep up the good work! Love your channel!
Im convinced all devs have this Outlook on balancing games. Games will always have a meta
Will there be options to turn off victory conditions? I like to play civilization where the only way to win is complete domination
I loved the simulation aspect of the first Civ games (I, II, III), where, after playing, I felt I had gained a better understanding of the mechanisms that shaped human history. The later games feel more like a fun board game, with various bonuses. While enjoyable, they are less fulfilling.
Could you release a version of CIV VII that focuses more on simulating real human history?
Thoughtful questions and answers. I enjoyed listening to people who obviously love civ discuss the game/experience. Some hometown pride for you as well, VanBradley.
Fantasic interview!! Their answer to what makes Civ, Civ really hit it on the head for me. Civ and Old World have both really fine-tuned the "right" amount of decisions per turn - from turn 1 all the way to the last.
Funny enough, Civ 7 seem fairly balanced.
If there is many strong builds/strategies the game is Overall still balanced.
I love the age resets too, because it fixes the insane endgame snowball.
In Humankind the last age was offen done in a Hand full of turns.
Well done! Congrats on getting recognized by the Civ devs.
Great interview. Can’t wait to get my hands on it
Your channel is really growing these days! You really deserve it, your vidéos are great :)
Appreciate that, it's been a wild ride!
My main balancing concern has to do with all the streamlined mechanics potentially resulting in every playthrough of a given era being too similar. Things like flattened tile yields and static "do X Y times" era trackers could lead to subsequent playthroughs of the same age feeling too similar if the streamlining goes too far. For example, having culture in the exploration age tied so tightly with the religion mechanic seems to indicate that the only viable culture strategy involves spreading religion to achieve relics. Though of course will need to play it to see how the actual mechanics feel in practice and how viable it is to pursue a victory condition without following a cookie cutter path of a single progression tree.
Can anybody tell me who the the 4 Bonus Leaders & Civilizations are coming with The Founders Edition?
Hawk Tuah girl, Mike Tyson, Bruce Jenner and That one crackhead on your local street are the four leaders.
The Deluxe Edition comes with the Crossroads of the World collection, which includes 2 new leaders and 4 new civs, and 2 bonus personas. The Founders editions comes with that plus the Right to Rule collection (2 more leaders and 4 more civs) and another 2 more personas. So the Founder's edition comes with 4 "bonus" personas. These are different versions of existing leaders. There aren't any bonus civs that come with the Founder's Edition (but you'll get 8 more civs as part of the DLC packs). If you buy the Deluxe or Founder's edition, or pre-purchase the base game, you also Tecumseh (leader) and Shawnee Civ as a bonus. You can also get an extra Napolean persona by linking your account. And Deluxe and Founder's allow you to play the game 5 days earlier. Sorry about the long reply.
@@Deep_Sorcery Appreciate the info
Thanks VanBradley and the CIV 7 devs. Great interview!
15 days. Excited!
I love how people instantly read this in an uncharitable way, people are so ready to hate this game and I don't understand why, it looks amazing to me 😍
I prefer unbalanced Civs/Leaders to artificial difficulty levels that awards the AI advantages. The real problem is that trying to make a game where certain civilizations are weak, due to their cultural, or traditional shortcomings, that is both realistic mechanically, and politically correct. It is also tricky writing comments like this so that they make it through the Google filter.
Dude! You were great with the interview. (Everyone, give this man his flowers!) Good questions, very engaging, quick paced and no lagging on any one area. VB the interviewer of the peoples!
Yes i am sick of 'balanced' games
Especially games that are predominantly played single player. Balance is really only a concern when a game needs to make sure two opposing teams are both having fun. The way they defined it as "progression and pacing" makes much more sense to me.
I'm sick of (other) games with DLC coming out with brokenly OP stuff that cannot have been seriously play tested by canny players that makes SP a cake walk and has to be banned from MP.
It's almost like there's a market for this power escalation and others feel obliged to buy that DLC, while older stuff is nerfed.
Ideally every civ should have potential to be op. They should be op in different ways but all be really good, same with being able to stack bonuses, there should be ways to make culture super op and ways to map science super op etc. But they should kind of be exclusive so there isn’t just a dominant strategy.
Mario Kart is really fun. Also, the players who are losing get better power ups. It's unbalanced and much more fun as a result.
@@matthewhoag9892 that's the same as strategy games which add costs to the largest leading faction.
That's anti-snow balling, balance in the strategy context is about avoiding faction feature combos that allow bulldozing all others robbing the player of all suspense.
So for example in Stellaris there are events that create overwhelmingly strong enemy, but are balanced by a decadence decay that sets in when that faction conquers territory, or it has the leader who triggered the crisis die.
That allows skill and strategy, because you can anticipate and remove or mitigate the danger by acting proactively.
Games are most fun when there are a lot of overpowered strategies you can use
Agreed. But this is a 2025 game so I guarantee they will try to balance the game completely. Hopefully it won't be too boring and need to refund.
this was really cool. great interview.
I hope you asked about the ports, like how does the switch game plays...
Leaders should feel viable. But viable certainly isn't best in slot
Well done!
If I may offer some constructive advice on conducting an interview: I think you had good questions, but I would recommend trying to keep your delivery shorter and to resist the temptation to talk about yourself, pre-answer your own questions and repeat the answers. I didn't time it, but it feels like you spent more time talking here than the devs did. Viewers don't come to an interview video to listen to the interviewer, they come to listen to the interviewees.
Why they feel like Civ games to me: they clearly have a huge budget 😅
well deserved interview
Great interview!
As a 99.999% percentile top level player, all I care is multiplayer. It sounds like they did not improve it and probably made it worse. So I will probably wait few days first to see if thats even viable option. Price is bad but value per hours spent is definitely worth. But paying that much money for something which is not even playable would be mistake I wouldnt dare to make.
Waiting is not big problem tbh because mods will take significant amount of time to be released anyway. They should hashtag this game DIY bc vanilla civ6 is still bad after loads of dlcs.
Wow dude you’re so cool. You know how good you are down to the 3rd decimal point.
Holy crap, i cant believe I'm in the same comment section as vaidast5713 the civ god
@@lichh4054 You're not worthy, but I will allow.
While I don't play Civ multiplayer much, I do enjoy it and I do think some of the changes do improve the multiplayer experience. For one thing, in a multiplayer game, some players may fall behind and some players may "run away with it". With the age transistions and "soft resets", that's less likely to happen. You won't be able to get an early lead and coast through the rest of the game. You'll need to perform well throughout the game and with changing goals. And with leaders being able to be matched with any Civ you'll get a lot more combinations of special abilities, and variety helps multi-player because it opens up more strategies, and it's harder to defend against.
Also just the fact that you can play a single Age instead of playing the whole game seems to me to be a better option for a quicker game, and thus better for online play.
He's right.
Great video. Thanks
'Perfectly' is the key word. That's what he means. Each Age in Civ VII is tightly balanced, which makes the game much more playable. That's great news compared to the trash that Civ VI gave us. Unbalanced combat, obsolete units, runaway civs. None of that crap will happen anymore.
6 was an improvement on 5 for this too... 5 diudnt give any of this and the bonus were never as good as others...
Yeah it will
Im definitely gonna pre order the regular version I think just cause I wanna play so bad but the fact that even then im missing out on some content is ass.
Yeah and we consumers let them do this crap by supporting them some obviously will just buy the 4 leaders so in their eyes why shouldn't they? Next company to be truly about the people I will totallly support, but this game I will either buy just standard or wait until sale.
I don't think you're going to be missing out on content. Probably be able to buy the extra content later if you want. Some people like to wait for a sale. For some people, $70 is a lot to pay for a game but many of the AAA titles cost this much now. And for those who want more content they can pay more. You won't miss out on any of the game mechanics. And there will probably be player created content later on which is free.
@@Deep_Sorcery yeah thats what i was thinking. as long as i got the new shit
Meh thats a cheap cop-out for not working enough on game balance.
Is Trump available as a leader?
Oh boy I love the idea of leading and being rubber banded close to everyone else for the next 2 ages..... not. Idk about you guys but I get attached to my army when I build it don't want to see the units disappeared.
From what I've seen - that army should be used in service of building up one or more bad ass commander(s) and that bad ass-ness lives on. It's not gone; it's just different.
@@matthewhoag9892 If I build 20 units and lose them to 6 I will be disappointed no matter how bad ass my commander is.
Im sorry but civ devs are complete shit. How can you limit games only to 5 players
A perfectly balanced game isn't a boring game. That statement is just a lazy excuse not to balance your game at all.
Um didnt they completey rework the core game mechanics in the name of 'balance' which makes boring games?
Yes and he didn't call them out on that. This is obviously terrible so if I want to build a huge army and conquer everyone over 3 ages I have to build 3 seperate armies because I will lose them on age progression? So the units I grown attached to and spent MY TIME building, and moving across the map, just get to disappear without a glorious battle if the age progresses? How lame is that?
@@jho4977god you sound like such a whiny little baby lol
@ Sorry I have the gall to complain about something you probably let everyone run over you. If you want to accept everything for what it is fine. But that doesn't stop other people from wanting better.
@@CarterCandH And you add nothing to the argument.
😮
"All civs in a certain age balanced" Ugh. So it's not like picking an early or late game civ anymore, you have options all game! I know people will love this change but ultra balanced games just draw scripted conclusion.
Is the game really easy?
I hope not. I want it to be rock hard.
Civ has always been as hard as you make it. If you try for meta strategies, you can game the system. If you roleplay and make different decisions in each game, you can continue finding new challenges.
Watched some preview stuff and it looks like high end players gonna steam roll diety out of the box despite massive ai bonuses, if you are one of them ... I cant say.
It's like they get people who have never played Civ to playtest Civ.
boooring questions af, you could do better and ask about game instead of asking how to "be a dev in game..." waste of time 🤦🏻
rude