They need to introduce the ability to negotiate borders and claim land. Literally to draw them and then worry about defending them like in real life. Borders don't just happen the way they do in the game. They are done very purposefully through warfare and negotiation. Territory should also be negotiable, the ability to buy or trade for land with another civ. Also going into a foreign civs borders should not automatically force war. It should be a choice by the offended country. Meaning more powerful civs can choose to march through a foreign civ and see what the offended civ chooses to do. It would be a calculated risk. You might get away with it or you might not. It could also effect what other civs think of you so again a calculated risk/reward choice.
I have also always wanted to be able to claim territory with forts and units, basically allowing you to claim land by claiming it and then it naturally becoming "yours" over time.
These features have always existed to some extent. While individual tiles were never up for negotiation, you could capture cities via diplomacy, normally during war. Of course it was difficult for the AI to ever agree, but it is possible. Also, great people could capture territory via culture bombs with artists and forts with great general. But that feature was lacking in civ 6
@@jmfallon450 You should be able to capture territory without capturing a city. And entering another civs territory shouldn't automatically cause war. It should be a decision, not automatic.
@@Bulgs_Alexiev No; he or she is making a different point, one I happen to agree with. I've been playing since Civ III, and every new version of the game has been condemned by fans of the previous version(s) as A Betrayal That Misses The Point Of The Game, because they don't want a new game, just a more souped up version of the game they are already playing.
realy tehy made game simpel for kids to .only positev from tech river travel big minus no workers, super smal maps only 5 players pre map and allot of another things
Immediately a return to the Civ 5 art style but made modern. The thing that stands out more than anything to me is the verticality in the map design. So many of the natural features and buildings seem to be adding depth to the map that Civ 5 and 6 definitely lack. Never though verticality would be a thing in a 4x game. Wild.
I think the ages, dynamic civs, and the "greater events" in the first age are going to really spice up flavor on a play through by play through basis. One issue I have with Civ is once you've played it 1000 hours, the next 1000 feel like Deja Vu. It seems like they noticed this. We will see how it plays out.
Commanders and their unit stacking is going to make War even more viable/dangerous. It's gonna be weird no longer seeing a wall of catapults bearing down on your city. I think there is going to more room for subterfuge with the unit stacking. In a multiplayer game with a ton of people, it's going to be easy to miss a stacked Commander creeping up on you. Very cool, a lot more realistic with how ancient warfare worked too.
And adopt culture at each era instead of changing "civ", which comes with so many national identity and baggage. The dev are utterly stupid in making this decision
I can see why they did this tbh. Civs like Rome have tons of great leaders to choose from, but none of them lasted into the age of exploration, let alone the modern age
Barbarian/City States - Like Three Ages - Like Dynamic Civilizations - Unsure Navigable Rivers - Love Connected Towns - Love Builder Removal - Unsure Upgraded Discoverable Events - Like Commanders - Like Influential Yields - Unsure Eureka Removal - Indifferent Legacy Pathways - Like
People need to just let go of builder units. Yes, they are distinctively Civ, but they were an imperfect mechanic from the beginning. Civ would have been better if it had always been done this way. They even introduced the crutch of stealing them from the AI in high-level play.
@@RabidHobbitstrong disagree. Improving tiles is a core civ mechanic along with the units that do the improving. Supply and logistics are an important part of making war so removing mechanics that help simulate that just dumbs down the game.
@@MisterMick113 Fair point, but I've played 4X games that don't use builder units to improve tiles, and these games were not dumbed down compared to civ. You can have logistics without tedious builder units.
I like the idea of dynamic civilizations but I don't like how they've implemented it. Like it would've been cool if you could start as Anglo-Saxons in Antiquity which splits into Holy Roman Empire or England in the exploration age and then England Splits into UK, America, Canada, in Modern Age and Holy Roman Empire splits into Germany and Italy. Something like that would've alleviated the weirdness of playing an Ancient United States, or other distinctly modern nation at the start of the game. Having any civ turn into mongolia simply by having horses or egypt turn into Somghai is weird af.
@@JWonn this makes the most sense. lets say you started as The Etruscans (a quick google search said they started in present day italy), then the default path would be to evolve into the holy roman empire, and finally italy. but if you were able to meet XYZ science, culture, or military goals then you could shift into a diff regional power. unless that is too convoluted
@@93truewill Greek sure. Alexander then the Ptolemys. But conquered by Rome in 30BCE and then become a province in 27BCE the same year Octavian become Emperor Augustus. Remained part of (eastern) Rome until 641CE
@@RabidHobbit 100%. The same will of leadership that built the great pyramids 2000 years later with concurrent technology. Egypt was great and for a long time. Just a shadow of its former self after the Asyrians and Persians and Greeks. Throw in some sea peoples for good measure. Obviously this is a gross oversimplification.
Because the game is so complex (much more than chess), AI will be poor for as long as humans program every aspect. Maybe it's time to implement a modern "learning model" (like ChatGPT or some-such neural network AI).
These guys simply weren't put into enough situations against the AI in the short 3-hour play time they were given with the game to be able to assess anything useful. It's unrealistic to think we'll find out anything about the AI until there is an Alpha or Beta of the game given to streamers, and that's several months down the road. AI is important, but It's just way too early to be commenting on AI.
Yeah, fancy them copying the worst features of humankind. Perhap we should be happy that they never copied the stupid and badly implemented pollution mechanics, and the stupid limited max turn of just a 2 to 3 hundred turns of humankind. But this game is still already dead to me
@@Jinkypigs Yeah, really hope we can just stick and never changes to other culture as option. I want to play as Viking to the Modern Era and using whole fleet army to conquer modern sea. Let's hope they take what's Humankind bringing to 4X genre and Firaxis making it work on CIV7
@@clainwahyudarmawan7055 Why, you are able to go for the next civ with new units/buildings for that period, until now once you used that one specific unit/buff/building your civ is at best a generic civ for the rest of the game, with some vague modifiers and a leader pic that is completely off for the time period. As someone playing since Civ2 in the 90s this is a great step forward, the fact Humankind fumbled on the idea doesnt mean the idea itself is bad Id love to go Roman empire - Venice- Italy, or Germania - Holy German empire - Germany or Gauls- Bugundy - France . And you can easily have multiple connections and options when transitioning
It's funny to me. I started playing 4x games with human kind. I'm like the minority playing the games in reverse. I played civ 6 after humankind and just kinda went back to humankind. Maybe about 80 hours in civ 6 and almost 600 hours in humankind. These days I play neither and have gotten heavily into ck3. I think humankind got a lot of undeserved hate. It had a terrible start with the pollution crap, the devs made a lot of mistakes as far as prioritizing the wrong type of dlc (civ absolutely nails the way they do dlc). And lastly it almost feels like amplitude has abandoned humankind. Civ feels better in terms of strategy of course, more "ways to play" And aside from all that I still think humankind got shit on way too hard. It's combat, strategically battles, the music, overall vibe is something I felt was unique. I love the game amd maybe because it's the first 4x game I played. It's funny to me that fans of the genre can hate humankind so much and yet the main competitor and king of the genre can respect it enough to take ideas from it.
Independent states are just straightforward logical step, no exterior inspiration was needed. I barely started playing Civ a few days ago, I've tried standard run as well as with option of expanded mechanics for barbarians - where they are already mixed with city-states since they can turn into them... and I immediately thought that this is very flawed, that obviously all that should be combined and polished. Exactly what we see here. As for changing cultures - hard to judge, from what was here presented it seems kinda weird. But idea itself is also just logical, makes more sense that state changes through the ages. Same with limiting numbers of eras to three, I think it can be a step in the right direction - if made well.
Dynamic Civs will be changed after release, that's my prediction. They will either release a "classic" mode which will remove it for a game mode or they will add the ability to stay as the starting nation. Changing leader would have been a better option rather than changing nations. Going from, say, Richard the lionheart to Elizabeth, to Victoria and then Churchill. Something like that.
I will say it even more clearly: while the dynamic civs might be cool once in a while, I will not purchase the game unless there is the ability to play the whole game as only one civ!
Hey I really appreciated how straight forward the video was. Thank you for the chapters as well, I got to skip 1-2 parts I was already familiar with. Overall was a great viewing experience and I hope to consume more of your content
The problem with the "historical options" is they are not historical at all. Egypt never became Songhai or Buganda. Those are different people with different cultures. They are not even direct neighbours and are several 1000km apart. They should have hired an actual historian to come up with something that makes more sense.
who cares? the people who actually have a problem with this will be playing on PC (because they are nerds) and will be able to install mods for every civilization that has ever existed because it is now ridiculously easy to make new civs. EDIT: I was wrong, we all are. Some of these choices are downright ridiculous.
The problem with having the same civ stay until the end is, that it is not historical either. You won't find a single example of a real world antiquity civ still up today. Greece or Egypt of today have absolutely nothing to do with those of old. Not to even speak of something like having Canadian civ 6000 years in the past. It's a game. Yeah, the switch could be made to be historically more precise, but that would also do disjustice to the complexity of history, not to mention how in most cases the Civs would just cease to exist or you'd be forced to be funneled into something that would not be nearly as interesting history- or gameplaywise.
That's why the challenge and narrative on player head is to build a civilization that stood the test of time unlike real life civs. Other than brain-dead NPCs who just consume corporate crap everyone can see this as the bs mechanic it is. @@DaNikkiZ
I'm excited! Enjoyed Civ 6 but I'm ready to try something a bit different. The addition of Commanders and removal of builders sound like a great change to the format. Combat can be quite tedious in long campaigns so this should help alleviate that.
I played civ since the very first one. I adapted to every change including squares to hexes, stacks of doom gone or even district placements. But I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to tolerate that pervert Cesar cartoon.
All I can say is, if I picked a Civ, I intend to run as that Civ to the end, not have it change mid stream. The whole point is to pick one like New England, for instance and rule the world from beginning to end.
I was thinking of that slogan as well! This is a departure from the Civ that I have come to love and I don't know if I'll be getting this game with such a drastic change.
LOL but playing as ganghi, building the manhattan project, and nuking your opponents makes sense too, right? Or how about being George Washington and building the Pyramid first....makes sense right?? Stupid.
@@bigturboweenie Yeah, but they don't promote as more historical that you can build the manhattan project as gandhi, but in the case in the change of civs, they say is "more historical accurate".
You know at one point England had hold of part of a chunk of France ? Turkey is to some extent what was left of the Ottoman Empire which used to include Palestine. Nations / civis have always mutated and changed - which I think is what they wanted to model.
I wouldn't mind the civilization changing if you were somewhat restricted by historical events. Going from Greece to Egypt, or from Rome to the Gauls or the British, for example. I think leaders should begin with their actual civilization, and being able to not change should be an option.
There was a good take which said that, for example, Egypt becoming Mongolia shouldn't be taken literally The identity of Mongolia in Civ is a horse conquest civ. So if Egypt gets a ton of horses in the first era it makes sense that they could evolve into a horse conquest civ in the next era. You can imagine a scenario in the next era where a civ discovers and gets a ton of coal and has several coastal cities. So that civ gets an option to become the British empire.
@@triplecatnip7413 dude no, this sounds like a big dose of cope, that rationalisation is really dumb. You could already do this in Civ VI, or any other civ for that matter, if you acquire Horses as Egypt simply train horseman, slot in policy cards or micromanage bonuses, etc. and roleplay as a horde while also taking advantage of Egypt's other bonuses. The argument you presented is borderline nonsensical.
@@gamer1X12 The whole game is already absurd. Take for example playing the American civilization in the ancient era. If you can make Ghandi take over the world why not make it official and add the option of evolving from India to a militaristic civ?
As self-deprecating as your translation lookup of Hatshepsut was, man, that's great. It's really irritating hearing people say they are just going to butcher the pronunciations instead of taking 10 seconds to look it up like you did.
I really like the change to Barbarians and city states. It makes more sense historically and structurally. Also adds a layer or randomness to the game. Starting the game with friendly city states means you might have a advantage that others around you dont one game while another you might have to enter diplomacy with them or fight them off to stick around/have a smoother start.
Every Civ game has people who had on them for no other reason than it being different. Too many people still cling to Civ4 as the "best" Civ. Meanwhile, the move to Hex has been the single most positive change in the history of the franchise, and I applaud the devs for making bold moves. Anyone who thinks Civ 4 is the best is free to continue playing that game. I want each Civ to be a notable departure from the previous one, and with 7 we see this is going to very much be the case.
agree, the civ games are pretty much timeless. depending on your preferences, one of the civ games will be fun to pal even in decades. i dont like civ 6 myself, and i dont hink i like where 7 is going, especially since many of the things are not the "bold moves" but adding stuff from other games in the genre. people cant differentiate between personal taste and the objective impact. no matter how much i dislike it, single opinions dont make it a bad choice. and even if the choices turns out bad, that will just make the genre better when future games are released, or maybe even a civ 8-10, who knows (assuming we are learning from mistkaes and dont just make the game a cash cow, adding pay 2 win, lottboxes etc.). the good thing is, if every civ is pretty different, its very likely every few games there is one that is perfect for you. and it doesnt really matter if u play the current version or not. its not like the main community revolves around online competitive play or something. the only downside is when ur friends prefer different games than u do, but usually there is a compromise to be found, or u alternate every time u make a new game.
@@funguseaterAIThen play one of the first 6 titles. Seriously, you people want the game to be like madden or something. Can't please everyone, and you should accept that. Just look forward to 8 then.
Rivers as tiles was a thing back in Civ 2, acting as roads for both trade and movement cost reduction. I don't think you could send ships down them though, it's been a while
This looks good! I've wanted the barb/city state change and navigable rivers! The changing Civs in the eras looks well done, and I believe I saw camels!
Happy with the heureka change tbh. Science used to explode in civ 6 and just steamed through the game. Otherwise, remains to be seen. Some things I love, others not so keen on.
I know haven't played yet, but I think the removal of builders is awesome. In the early game when it takes a long time to build stuff in the city, the player had to decide to 1) Build Army 2) Build Districts/Buildings or 3) Build a builder to improve tiles. Now you just have the first two to balance. I'm not mad about that. Do you know if the city is limited to three hexes out or can the city grow further than that?
They are trying to reinvent the game as something completely new. Its not a good change, its just a change. Which normally means its bad because they cannot learn from past mistakes and have to do something completely new. So, it will suck. 100%.
As someone who has spent at least 1,000 hours in every Civ since Civ 2, this is looking like the first Civ game I may not be able to adapt to... Some of these changes just sound so terrible. There's nothing that I'd want less than to switch up my Civ mid way through a game. Dynamic Civs sound AWFUL. Also, being unable to continue researching new technology until the era/age advances? That kills half the fun of trying to get super advanced & ahead of others! Then being required to pick you victory condition up front? What?! That dramatically limits flexibility in game & could make games end way too quickly once you see another player is too far ahead & you have no hope of achieving that specific condition first. Lastly, even more minor things like merging barbarians & city states will be annoying for quick play games, as I like to disable barbarians when I'm just looking to speed through a solo game. Can't do that if they're now part of city states, but oh well, I'll adjust to that one. Anyway, I've disliked changes before, but these are an entirely different thing & seem to be screwing up permanent fixtures of Civ.
Dynamic civs and the "Any Leader, Any Civ" stuff makes this feel like it's no longer a Civilization game. Kills the sense of identity just like in Humankind.
The inability to gain a significant research advantage absolutely kills this for me. Half the enjoyment I get from the series is having tanks while my foes have muskets.
😊a channel in which the author does not impose himself beyond the content he presents. This is what the internet needs, less attention but more content
“Be only vessel for the information I seek, your individualism and right to express yourself does fit in the parameters I would like to see for this video”
I wish they went back to - land units could only traverse the sea when placed into transport ships. It takes the immersion out a little bit when you can just send a tank straight from land over a vast ocean... plus it looked more realistic to gather forces and load them up on your land, making it a target for opposing civs 🤔🤔
Yes, for sure. There was a very pressing need to have a Navy stationed out from your shores to catch a half dozen fully loaded transports on their way to blitzkrieg your lands. Nothing was more satisfying than catching a sneak attack before it happened, and sinking all those transports full of tanks. I love how Civ has evolved but the game lost a large part of everything by making all units amphibious - shipping and transporting military units is a huge logistics problem to this day, let alone back when Ghengis Khan attempted TWICE to invade Japan and both times his ships were wiped out by freak Typhoons and he lost all his expeditionary forces.
Are all rivers navigable? Or just big ones? There's a few in the video that look smaller in size and don't seem to be rendered the same as the big rivers.
If you pause the screen during the civ select menu you can see that the Egyptian unit unique says something like "a special type of great person" so I think that great people are still in the game
The game needs to develop a lot more depth in the domestic decisions you can make. I want to be able to decide what kind of power stations I build, do I go for cheaper but environmentally damaging or do I build expensive green ones? Do I build bullet trains or lots of freeways? And it impacts foreign relations too, if I decide to build lots of hydroelectric dams that leads to civs exporting oil and gas getting annoyed
This is a great video. I think it would be beneficial to new players to talk about how you actually win the game. And then have a video based on how to win/strategy to win based on what ending you would like... (diplomacy, domination, etc..). In so many intro videos we are talking about very detailed units without know how to even win the game. Like beginning with the end in mind. Working backwards in order to move forward
I think this is due, in part, to reviewers only getting access to the first age (and it not having any 'win' condition attached) - so that aspect hasn't really be revealed / demo'd yet...
@@logicalChimp I was looking into CIV 6 as well and I haven't found any videos that begin with the end in mind. In CIV 6 I still don't know how to win based on the victories. You got any recommendations?
@@crimpandcoconut not sure they're 'recommendations' - but personally in the beginning I focus on production, rather than victory conditions - get 2-3 cities, build walls and a builder, get the fat govenor first (for the research & culture bonus), get at least 2x research quarters, etc... You need both research and culture to unlock stuff, but you need production (and/or gold or faith, depending on your end-of-era picks and govenor upgrades, etc) to actually *use* those unlocks... Once you're productive, you can decide which condition to you want to focus on... and then pick buildings, end-of-era bonuses, govenors, wonders, etc that contribute to that victory. Also, Civ6 doesn't penalise a 'wide' playstyle... and it's a lot easier to build stuff if you have 20x cities rather than 3x :D Thus the 'Ancestral hall' (in the gov. plaza) is probably an essential for early gameplay - 50% faster settlers, and a free builder in each new city. Get the industrial govenor (and unlock the his 'settlers don't consume population' upgrade) to be able to crank out plenty of settlers with no penalty.
Aw man, I can't wait, the map is beautiful and love those battle animations. I particularly like the influence mechanic and the additional diplomatic options it allows
Rivers should be on the edges between tiles. That would allow for armies to defend behind rivers. Navigable rivers could function as a "mini-tile" on the edge between two land tiles.
@@SquidWillis You want land units to stand spread out on different sides of a river? In reality, that would put the land unit at a disadvantage, if it get attacked from only one side of the river, since half of the soldiers will have to defend against the enemy on their own. The soldiers on the other side of the river will be delayed, if not even outright unable to assist their comrades in the battle.
@@Astronenot That could work, but apart from the biggest navigable rivers, perhaps the game would need more and smaller tiles, in order for that to be justified? Also, it would maybe make it a little challenging to justify the developer´s decision, to let units traverse rivers before their Civ have the technology to sail in coastal waters.
@freezingsunset7354 Revisionist history. Civ 5 was not only criticized, but even by today's standards the base game on it's own is much worse without the updates/expansions.
Honestly, we still don't know too much about the game to judge it and it's systems. Lots of hate has been put on previous iteration's changes and yet those games have thrived once people got a feel for it. Unlike a number of people who have commented across videos, I am in a wait and see mode on the whole age-based civilization evolution function. 3 things: 1. You can choose how you move on, so I feel like it will still cater for those who want a more natural, historically accurate progression. 2. For those who don't quite insist on civ being a history simulator - which by the way, it shouldn't be, but I ain't going to judge those who believe it should... I think it's a great way of making games interesting across a playthrough which is the ultimate goal by the developers. 3. You can make your own story, and forget about historical accuracies for the sake of a game experience and instead of trying to emulate real life, you can make an exciting story for yourself by creating unique pathways that makes your civilization different across time. Ultimately, games are generally about fun and engrossing stories, they don't have to be historical pieces, they can also create fiction.
The changes in previous iterations dint receive this much backlash. At worst the fans were divided on the change of like hex-square, loss of unit stacks/doomstacks, district changes in civ 6 etc. this is the first time almost universally civ fans hate the culture changing stuff. This cannot be brushed aside and the proof will be when game releases for a massive flop.
Egypt -songhai-- buganda is historical only for brainless NPC consumers of this dei initiative gone wrong.. For everyone with a brain, it looks ridiculous. After nuking action/rpg/fps genres into the ground with such shitty ideas, dei has now come to strategy games in form of culture shifting under the garb of historicity (again only for brainless NPCs can Egypt becoming songhai -byganda can seem historical). Result of this dei initiative will be no different that what it did to other dei projects
@@pisasupayaniyeah I personally don’t enjoy Civ 6 at all despite my repeated attempts and it even being on iPad. But I don’t think it was objectively a step back, it felt like they were trying to cater to newer/more casual players with the changes and im the opposite. Civ 7 seems like a whole restructuring around multiplayer and casual gamers, gotta get those profits up for struggling take two
When you go back and play civilization beyond earth, it’s very similar in someways to what civ7 will be. You get to pick the city state bonus if it pops near you. And you have influence to deal with the other powers. So those parts of civ7 I’m not worried about.
I am so excited for civ 7!! Everything looks beautiful and some mechanics i am very excited about. However, I kind of wish leaders changed instead of civs. Or some combo of both. Have a mechanic where leaders can die or even become deposed (old age, assassinations, coups, revolutions, etc...) and combine it with the morphing of a civ into a new civ by having a new leader selection based on whenever you are at in that point of history. Rather than some specific unlock paths, it would open up a level of complexity to the civ picks. Definitely a half baked idea, but excited for what's to come regardless!
some years ago when I visited Egypt, the guide said that a way to rememebr and pronounce Hatshepsut is to think at "hot chicken soup". I guess with Civ VII it may become popular
Builders no longer in game does bother me. I'm still holding my on this game, going to wait for more release info and deeper dives before I decide if it's worth pre ordering to me, or if it strayed too far from what I like about Civ games.
I played the hell out of Civ 2, 3, Call to Power, and 4. The change after that to one unit per tile instead of big stacks of units made it more like a board game and a lot less realistic in my opinion. Archers shoot dozens of miles away instead of only having artillery being able to bombard the adjacent tile, throwing the sense of scale completely out of whack. It does make it more tactical instead of rolling in with a doom stack but it still feels super weird.
Agreed, the changes to combat make it feel more like a glorified chess game. I get that doom stacks aren't that enjoyable, but at least with 4 they tried to penalize the people using them. They could add a mechanic where upkeep on a stack is doubled when you exceed a certain number of units. You could have that cap related to tech as well, so armies get larger as time goes on. You could even have wonders or policies that increase the cap so civs like Rome could have larger armies earlier. I've never been a fan of the single unit per tile because it messes with the scale and turns the game into a complex form of chess.
@@MisterMick113 Could be something like a supply capacity or disease spreading in large army camps, with attrition reducing health or combat power. The way the ranged combat works is still silly when archers shoot miles away
the one unit per tile instead of big stack was a huge improvement and adjustment to get used to. instead of steamrolling with just 10x or 30x swordsman now you have to strategically move units around to attack a position or city.
@@ZippstermanTo me civ 6 did it best, it has stacks but it also limits. So you cant just do x30, but with stack not only is it more costly, it is much more valuable making it a targeted unit.
As someone who has only played civ vi, I’m excited for the changes! It looks really interesting and I think will add value to the game. Although I do not like the art for the leaders, they feel very jarring to how beautiful the rest of the game is.
Might still get touched up in the months before release, I remember some of the Civ 6 leader models coming out quite different on launch compared to their first look videos too.
I'm amazed people think the game looks "beautiful". It looks worse than Civ 5 and 6 if you ask me. Just because the graphics are "realistic" doesn't automatically equal good.
I'm starting to get the feeling there's going to be a shedload of changes to this game _after_ it's released. But that's par for the course when it comes to Civ games.
I agree, change the leader and the civ, but only within a historical context, or at least offer the option. For example Boudica : Celts (Antiquity), Elizabeth : English (Exploration), Churchill : British (Modern).
I've played since Civ 2, so I've seen many changes through the years. While the Civ switching is notable and surprising, I don't think that is entirely without precedent within the series. I think the goal is to expand upon the idea of Rise and Fall of civilizations, both as a concept and even as the Civ 6 expansion. So seeing the ebb and flow is a concept they wanted to explore for a while. However, it's how this is done which is the most jarring. Instead of switching, perhaps it should be more like layering where a geographically or culturally related civilization is added to yours in the next era. As others have suggested, changing a new leader with the current one fading out would be welcome as well. A lot of reducing the micromanaging seems aimed at multiplayer and less single player. I think that Firaxis should actually make a public announcement video to explain the thought process and reasons for this. Having the changes come out now via UA-cam creators is a smart move so the actual release will come with less fanfare. Imagine all of this coming out during the final announcement trailer! Also, having three eras seems limiting...for now. I hope they add the medieval age into this game, to make it four eras, but I see them adding in the intermediate eras as DLCs. It's this part of the monetization that alarms me. They still have a lot of work to do before February.
ARA: History Untold is looking much better than Civ 7, and it releases next month too. I love the civ saga but this one has strayed too much from the formula, it almost feels like a spin-off of sorts.
How in the world would you know what's "better"? neither game has even released. Maybe one game SPEAKS to you more than another. but these games aren't even out yet.
I think they really missed the mark with the evolving civs thing. Being able to unlock upgrades for your leader is a great change, I wouldn’t even be opposed to upgrading your leader to a different leader of your civ that offers different buffs based on your choice of play that game. For example, maybe America always starts as one of the founding fathers. Washington has military buffs, Jefferson has culture and diplomacy buffs, Hamilton has gold and luxury resource buffs, etc etc. but once you hit a threshold of culture by a certain turn or science per turn or something you can choose to move to a leader that prioritizes your choice of play thus far while sacrificing some of the advantages the other leaders had, like moving from Jefferson in the early game to FDR later game to handle powerful AI militaries. IDK. But I know most of us like the idea of taking our civ through the various ages, historical accuracy be damned. It’s also really putting most of these civs in a tiny box to be all about historical accuracy. For example, they’re really prioritizing the indigenous North American civs this year…historical accuracy wouldn’t be very kind to those civs, just saying.
I think the civ change makes more sense and easier to pull off than changing leaders for the base game. The vast majority of civs in the game dont have enough leaders to make the leader change happen accurately or giving it the buzz word im hearing a lot "authenticity". What would be amazing is if there were game modes to allow historical routes and same civ for all the game. Classic civ if you like. I would love to see more ages and a dynasty mode added for a single civ allowing up to 6 changes in leaders (any leader in the game). Just imagine what modders could do with that. It would be awesome. You could have any civ with heaps of leaders added from steam mods. America, Britain, France, Spain, China, India, Romans would have heaps. I really like the progression that was used for London. You could have Celts then Normans/Vikings then British in the modern age. This really works if executed well. I do understand the concerns people have about accuracy but mods could fix all that if the template exists 😊
Honestly the main thing I’m looking at here is the potential with mods. I know games shouldn’t be carried by mods but it’s undeniable how mods affect a game and I’m thinking about how to make modded steampunk civs or synthetic ascension cus I really like robots. I think the ages system would really best allow that for those designs at least. All in all it’s much too early to say if it’ll be good or bad. It’s going to be a very different game from V and VI, but there is potential for it to stand out so I’ll keep an eye on it.
So, long story short they aren't improving civ by making it more complex, but by changing gameplay mechanics. Civ 5 was the start of this trend, by removing unit stacks and putting the hex grid in as opposed to square tiles. Six made even more alterations, such as making workers limited to 3 improvements. Civ 7, I don't think I have much interest in playing. Civ 5 was tolerable, but Civ 4 was the last true civ game.
Micromanagement is not the same as complexity. Having to micromanage a bunch of pre-defined individual units is really becoming an old-fashioned concept in gaming. We have enough computer power now to make a game simulation more complex and more out of the box then one unit representing a fixed size group waiting for commands and having no AI. I think the game devs are being too conservative by even keeping this concept for armies. It should be removed the same way builders are removed.
There are so many changes because Civ now has stiff competition, particularly in Milennia (I actually played the game to the end, it needs quite a bit of polish, but it is actually pretty good) and Endless Legend, when it didn't before. People need to remember that Civ had a monopoly in this sort of thing for the better part of two decades. Then again, I remember the flame wars when Civ dared to go from squares to... HEXES. *_HEXES._* Something that those who are used to V and VI take for granted. Hell, I'm working on a 'what I would do for SMAC(X) II' essay right now, which outright states that I'll be pillaging the good ideas to modernize the game.
I played every Civ game and this is the first one that I am not sure if I will buy or not. Visually, it looks really good. Navigable Rivers is a nice addition. "The loss of Builders" I am not sure, i should play and see. Dynamic Civilizations is a "No" for me. The whole point of "Civilization" games is to see if your culture could stand the test of time or not. So if it changes twice, and some changes seem ridiculous (Egypt to Mongolia, I mean come on) City Cap is also a "No". The new points make this game a "Humankind 2"
I'm looking forward to the game. Some of the changes sound and look a little eh but imma play the hell out of it and see how the changes effects the game as a whole. I'm excited. First game in a while that I've looked forward to
It's another Civ game, I'll be buying and trying it like all the others. But from what I've seen I'm probably going to end up going back to Civ 5 again, that was peak Civ for me.
Because it's a game, and the game will allow you to choose any civ as long as you meet the requirements and they are actually in game. Like the three horse tiles Mongolia. Because the game doesn't force you to stay historically accurate and allows players to play according to how they choose to play.
I hope there's more than one crisis per era. It'll probably get repetitive if *every* Early-Exploration transition is the city-state rush. I hope they switch it up.
Why does the end of an age have to be marked by disaster? Ages can end with positive results as well. For example, the end of the Middle Ages heralded in new interest in classical learning, not to mention some wins for peasants. Also, are the events at the end of the age the same in every game? It would be far more exciting to make end of ages have a random event drawn from a list, some positive, some negative.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
They need to introduce the ability to negotiate borders and claim land. Literally to draw them and then worry about defending them like in real life. Borders don't just happen the way they do in the game. They are done very purposefully through warfare and negotiation. Territory should also be negotiable, the ability to buy or trade for land with another civ. Also going into a foreign civs borders should not automatically force war. It should be a choice by the offended country. Meaning more powerful civs can choose to march through a foreign civ and see what the offended civ chooses to do. It would be a calculated risk. You might get away with it or you might not. It could also effect what other civs think of you so again a calculated risk/reward choice.
I love this idea!!!!!! Definitely would be a game changer for negotiations also creating some unique borders would be cool
I have also always wanted to be able to claim territory with forts and units, basically allowing you to claim land by claiming it and then it naturally becoming "yours" over time.
These features have always existed to some extent. While individual tiles were never up for negotiation, you could capture cities via diplomacy, normally during war. Of course it was difficult for the AI to ever agree, but it is possible. Also, great people could capture territory via culture bombs with artists and forts with great general. But that feature was lacking in civ 6
the Civ 5 RED WW2 mod does a great job of borders, units occupying an area take over that land. and its becomes a game of borders. I agree.
@@jmfallon450 You should be able to capture territory without capturing a city. And entering another civs territory shouldn't automatically cause war. It should be a decision, not automatic.
I’m glad that they don’t just copy and paste the same game over and over. Each civ game is unique and I appreciate that.
You're missing the point
@@Bulgs_Alexiev No; he or she is making a different point, one I happen to agree with. I've been playing since Civ III, and every new version of the game has been condemned by fans of the previous version(s) as A Betrayal That Misses The Point Of The Game, because they don't want a new game, just a more souped up version of the game they are already playing.
@@Scipio488Exactly this. I’ve been playing since Civ 1, and I’ve seen the same reaction everytime.
@@Scipio488Remember when everyone was furious when military stacks of doom were taken out of the game and hex tiles introduced? 😂
realy tehy made game simpel for kids to .only positev from tech river travel big minus no workers, super smal maps only 5 players pre map and allot of another things
Immediately a return to the Civ 5 art style but made modern. The thing that stands out more than anything to me is the verticality in the map design. So many of the natural features and buildings seem to be adding depth to the map that Civ 5 and 6 definitely lack. Never though verticality would be a thing in a 4x game. Wild.
Thank you for the Hatshepsut pronunciation lmao. Definitely helpful.
I am very happy about builders being gone. No love lost for every fucking barbarian that stole my builder.
I think the ages, dynamic civs, and the "greater events" in the first age are going to really spice up flavor on a play through by play through basis. One issue I have with Civ is once you've played it 1000 hours, the next 1000 feel like Deja Vu. It seems like they noticed this. We will see how it plays out.
Commanders and their unit stacking is going to make War even more viable/dangerous. It's gonna be weird no longer seeing a wall of catapults bearing down on your city. I think there is going to more room for subterfuge with the unit stacking. In a multiplayer game with a ton of people, it's going to be easy to miss a stacked Commander creeping up on you. Very cool, a lot more realistic with how ancient warfare worked too.
I must be missing something; this art style looks more like Civ 6 to me, cartoony.
Dynamic Civilizations should be an optional mode
I feel you on that 1
Wonder why they didn't go the obvious other route: keep civ and change leaders...
Not woke and culturally relativistic enough.
And adopt culture at each era instead of changing "civ", which comes with so many national identity and baggage. The dev are utterly stupid in making this decision
Or the option to choose to keep your leader.
I can see why they did this tbh. Civs like Rome have tons of great leaders to choose from, but none of them lasted into the age of exploration, let alone the modern age
That would have been the best option in my opinion.
Barbarian/City States - Like
Three Ages - Like
Dynamic Civilizations - Unsure
Navigable Rivers - Love
Connected Towns - Love
Builder Removal - Unsure
Upgraded Discoverable Events - Like
Commanders - Like
Influential Yields - Unsure
Eureka Removal - Indifferent
Legacy Pathways - Like
People need to just let go of builder units. Yes, they are distinctively Civ, but they were an imperfect mechanic from the beginning. Civ would have been better if it had always been done this way. They even introduced the crutch of stealing them from the AI in high-level play.
@@RabidHobbitstrong disagree. Improving tiles is a core civ mechanic along with the units that do the improving. Supply and logistics are an important part of making war so removing mechanics that help simulate that just dumbs down the game.
@@MisterMick113 Fair point, but I've played 4X games that don't use builder units to improve tiles, and these games were not dumbed down compared to civ. You can have logistics without tedious builder units.
I like the idea of dynamic civilizations but I don't like how they've implemented it. Like it would've been cool if you could start as Anglo-Saxons in Antiquity which splits into Holy Roman Empire or England in the exploration age and then England Splits into UK, America, Canada, in Modern Age and Holy Roman Empire splits into Germany and Italy.
Something like that would've alleviated the weirdness of playing an Ancient United States, or other distinctly modern nation at the start of the game. Having any civ turn into mongolia simply by having horses or egypt turn into Somghai is weird af.
@@JWonn this makes the most sense. lets say you started as The Etruscans (a quick google search said they started in present day italy), then the default path would be to evolve into the holy roman empire, and finally italy. but if you were able to meet XYZ science, culture, or military goals then you could shift into a diff regional power. unless that is too convoluted
Being the Egyptian leader of a Roman civilisation isn't very accurate. However, being the Roman leader of an Egyptian civilisation...
*greek
@@93truewill Greek sure. Alexander then the Ptolemys. But conquered by Rome in 30BCE and then become a province in 27BCE the same year Octavian become Emperor Augustus. Remained part of (eastern) Rome until 641CE
It's not realistic, but it's imaginable. If Egypt had become great in the way that Rome did, instead of Rome, for example.
Ceaserion anyone...
@@RabidHobbit 100%. The same will of leadership that built the great pyramids 2000 years later with concurrent technology. Egypt was great and for a long time. Just a shadow of its former self after the Asyrians and Persians and Greeks. Throw in some sea peoples for good measure. Obviously this is a gross oversimplification.
No mention of how AI in Civ has evolved. This is the single biggest opportunity to improving the player experience in Civ titles IMO.
so true. All these changes without AI improvemenr would be less exciting to me than only AI improvement on its own.
So is it using AI to enhance leaders?
Because the game is so complex (much more than chess), AI will be poor for as long as humans program every aspect. Maybe it's time to implement a modern "learning model" (like ChatGPT or some-such neural network AI).
@@kgknutsenThat's an excuse. The civ 6 and 5 have laughably bad AI
These guys simply weren't put into enough situations against the AI in the short 3-hour play time they were given with the game to be able to assess anything useful. It's unrealistic to think we'll find out anything about the AI until there is an Alpha or Beta of the game given to streamers, and that's several months down the road. AI is important, but It's just way too early to be commenting on AI.
Both changing culture and independent states/people is what Humankind used, it really unexpected that Firaxis following what Humankind do
Yeah, fancy them copying the worst features of humankind. Perhap we should be happy that they never copied the stupid and badly implemented pollution mechanics, and the stupid limited max turn of just a 2 to 3 hundred turns of humankind.
But this game is still already dead to me
@@Jinkypigs Yeah, really hope we can just stick and never changes to other culture as option. I want to play as Viking to the Modern Era and using whole fleet army to conquer modern sea. Let's hope they take what's Humankind bringing to 4X genre and Firaxis making it work on CIV7
@@clainwahyudarmawan7055 Why, you are able to go for the next civ with new units/buildings for that period, until now once you used that one specific unit/buff/building your civ is at best a generic civ for the rest of the game, with some vague modifiers and a leader pic that is completely off for the time period.
As someone playing since Civ2 in the 90s this is a great step forward, the fact Humankind fumbled on the idea doesnt mean the idea itself is bad
Id love to go Roman empire - Venice- Italy, or Germania - Holy German empire - Germany or Gauls- Bugundy - France . And you can easily have multiple connections and options when transitioning
It's funny to me. I started playing 4x games with human kind. I'm like the minority playing the games in reverse. I played civ 6 after humankind and just kinda went back to humankind. Maybe about 80 hours in civ 6 and almost 600 hours in humankind.
These days I play neither and have gotten heavily into ck3.
I think humankind got a lot of undeserved hate. It had a terrible start with the pollution crap, the devs made a lot of mistakes as far as prioritizing the wrong type of dlc (civ absolutely nails the way they do dlc). And lastly it almost feels like amplitude has abandoned humankind.
Civ feels better in terms of strategy of course, more "ways to play"
And aside from all that I still think humankind got shit on way too hard. It's combat, strategically battles, the music, overall vibe is something I felt was unique. I love the game amd maybe because it's the first 4x game I played.
It's funny to me that fans of the genre can hate humankind so much and yet the main competitor and king of the genre can respect it enough to take ideas from it.
Independent states are just straightforward logical step, no exterior inspiration was needed. I barely started playing Civ a few days ago, I've tried standard run as well as with option of expanded mechanics for barbarians - where they are already mixed with city-states since they can turn into them... and I immediately thought that this is very flawed, that obviously all that should be combined and polished. Exactly what we see here. As for changing cultures - hard to judge, from what was here presented it seems kinda weird. But idea itself is also just logical, makes more sense that state changes through the ages. Same with limiting numbers of eras to three, I think it can be a step in the right direction - if made well.
Dynamic Civs will be changed after release, that's my prediction. They will either release a "classic" mode which will remove it for a game mode or they will add the ability to stay as the starting nation. Changing leader would have been a better option rather than changing nations. Going from, say, Richard the lionheart to Elizabeth, to Victoria and then Churchill. Something like that.
Haha, as if they would put Churchill in the game
Howabout changing strategy set of civilization via changing great person? Not both of culture and Leader.
@TheBaCoNzzzz It was an example. He was terrible peace time leader but it's just an example
@TheBaCoNzzzz he was in civ 4 but maybe the woke police have cancelled him when I wasn't paying attention
I will say it even more clearly: while the dynamic civs might be cool once in a while, I will not purchase the game unless there is the ability to play the whole game as only one civ!
Hey I really appreciated how straight forward the video was. Thank you for the chapters as well, I got to skip 1-2 parts I was already familiar with. Overall was a great viewing experience and I hope to consume more of your content
Building towns over entirely new cities is the most realistic and obvious move forward! A good change!
Yea I love this change
The problem with the "historical options" is they are not historical at all. Egypt never became Songhai or Buganda. Those are different people with different cultures. They are not even direct neighbours and are several 1000km apart. They should have hired an actual historian to come up with something that makes more sense.
who cares? the people who actually have a problem with this will be playing on PC (because they are nerds) and will be able to install mods for every civilization that has ever existed because it is now ridiculously easy to make new civs.
EDIT: I was wrong, we all are. Some of these choices are downright ridiculous.
Exactly, ignoring stupid first reply because it’s stupid.
The problem with having the same civ stay until the end is, that it is not historical either. You won't find a single example of a real world antiquity civ still up today. Greece or Egypt of today have absolutely nothing to do with those of old. Not to even speak of something like having Canadian civ 6000 years in the past. It's a game.
Yeah, the switch could be made to be historically more precise, but that would also do disjustice to the complexity of history, not to mention how in most cases the Civs would just cease to exist or you'd be forced to be funneled into something that would not be nearly as interesting history- or gameplaywise.
That's why the challenge and narrative on player head is to build a civilization that stood the test of time unlike real life civs. Other than brain-dead NPCs who just consume corporate crap everyone can see this as the bs mechanic it is. @@DaNikkiZ
@@jackturner3867or you know they could get it right in the base game
I'm excited! Enjoyed Civ 6 but I'm ready to try something a bit different.
The addition of Commanders and removal of builders sound like a great change to the format. Combat can be quite tedious in long campaigns so this should help alleviate that.
I played civ since the very first one. I adapted to every change including squares to hexes, stacks of doom gone or even district placements. But I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to tolerate that pervert Cesar cartoon.
All I can say is, if I picked a Civ, I intend to run as that Civ to the end, not have it change mid stream. The whole point is to pick one like New England, for instance and rule the world from beginning to end.
You still have that option which is great, you can also create a super unique one too.
Yes, and while playing human kind the whole mid to late game always feels the same. There aren't enough options for it to feel unique.
tell me more about the civ known as New England, is their favorite food clam chowder or a lobster roll?
@@josephvalerio6665if I can get Tom Brady as my leader I’m in
it's now more of "Will your leader stand the test of time ?" than Civilization
I was thinking of that slogan as well! This is a departure from the Civ that I have come to love and I don't know if I'll be getting this game with such a drastic change.
Egypt becoming Songhai makes as much sense as Arabia becoming India, or Turkey becoming France.
LOL but playing as ganghi, building the manhattan project, and nuking your opponents makes sense too, right? Or how about being George Washington and building the Pyramid first....makes sense right?? Stupid.
@@bigturboweenie Yeah, but they don't promote as more historical that you can build the manhattan project as gandhi, but in the case in the change of civs, they say is "more historical accurate".
You know at one point England had hold of part of a chunk of France ? Turkey is to some extent what was left of the Ottoman Empire which used to include Palestine. Nations / civis have always mutated and changed - which I think is what they wanted to model.
They should have simply let people choose anything lol
I wouldn't mind the civilization changing if you were somewhat restricted by historical events. Going from Greece to Egypt, or from Rome to the Gauls or the British, for example. I think leaders should begin with their actual civilization, and being able to not change should be an option.
There was a good take which said that, for example, Egypt becoming Mongolia shouldn't be taken literally
The identity of Mongolia in Civ is a horse conquest civ. So if Egypt gets a ton of horses in the first era it makes sense that they could evolve into a horse conquest civ in the next era.
You can imagine a scenario in the next era where a civ discovers and gets a ton of coal and has several coastal cities. So that civ gets an option to become the British empire.
Yea i mean civ hasnt been a historical or historicaly accurate game so idk
@@triplecatnip7413 dude no, this sounds like a big dose of cope, that rationalisation is really dumb. You could already do this in Civ VI, or any other civ for that matter, if you acquire Horses as Egypt simply train horseman, slot in policy cards or micromanage bonuses, etc. and roleplay as a horde while also taking advantage of Egypt's other bonuses. The argument you presented is borderline nonsensical.
@@gamer1X12 The whole game is already absurd. Take for example playing the American civilization in the ancient era.
If you can make Ghandi take over the world why not make it official and add the option of evolving from India to a militaristic civ?
Good take? LOL.@@triplecatnip7413 no that is a stupid coping take
As self-deprecating as your translation lookup of Hatshepsut was, man, that's great. It's really irritating hearing people say they are just going to butcher the pronunciations instead of taking 10 seconds to look it up like you did.
Literally didn't hear a word of this first time while wrapping xmas presents, just love your voice and accent. Guess I'll need to watch again :)
I really like the change to Barbarians and city states. It makes more sense historically and structurally. Also adds a layer or randomness to the game. Starting the game with friendly city states means you might have a advantage that others around you dont one game while another you might have to enter diplomacy with them or fight them off to stick around/have a smoother start.
Every Civ game has people who had on them for no other reason than it being different. Too many people still cling to Civ4 as the "best" Civ. Meanwhile, the move to Hex has been the single most positive change in the history of the franchise, and I applaud the devs for making bold moves.
Anyone who thinks Civ 4 is the best is free to continue playing that game. I want each Civ to be a notable departure from the previous one, and with 7 we see this is going to very much be the case.
agree, the civ games are pretty much timeless. depending on your preferences, one of the civ games will be fun to pal even in decades.
i dont like civ 6 myself, and i dont hink i like where 7 is going, especially since many of the things are not the "bold moves" but adding stuff from other games in the genre.
people cant differentiate between personal taste and the objective impact.
no matter how much i dislike it, single opinions dont make it a bad choice.
and even if the choices turns out bad, that will just make the genre better when future games are released, or maybe even a civ 8-10, who knows (assuming we are learning from mistkaes and dont just make the game a cash cow, adding pay 2 win, lottboxes etc.).
the good thing is, if every civ is pretty different, its very likely every few games there is one that is perfect for you.
and it doesnt really matter if u play the current version or not. its not like the main community revolves around online competitive play or something.
the only downside is when ur friends prefer different games than u do, but usually there is a compromise to be found, or u alternate every time u make a new game.
@@funguseaterAIThen play one of the first 6 titles. Seriously, you people want the game to be like madden or something. Can't please everyone, and you should accept that. Just look forward to 8 then.
@9898Hawk how is this madden this game only releases every 5+ years. The changes made it more like humankind 2 not Civilization
@@Kasuar-s6v You want it to be madden. A game that doesnt change. Saying its humankind 2 is reductive and lazy.
@9898Hawk I've seen your other comments yeh you're just trolling have a good one
Rivers as tiles was a thing back in Civ 2, acting as roads for both trade and movement cost reduction. I don't think you could send ships down them though, it's been a while
You couldn’t but they counted as roads and so you moved faster down them
This looks good! I've wanted the barb/city state change and navigable rivers! The changing Civs in the eras looks well done, and I believe I saw camels!
Cant wait to download a mod to keep my civ.
Happy with the heureka change tbh. Science used to explode in civ 6 and just steamed through the game. Otherwise, remains to be seen. Some things I love, others not so keen on.
Good to see Gandhi is still part of the game (2:04)
Nuclear Ghandi 🙌🏼
As long as there's nukes, Gandhi will be there. :D
I know haven't played yet, but I think the removal of builders is awesome. In the early game when it takes a long time to build stuff in the city, the player had to decide to 1) Build Army 2) Build Districts/Buildings or 3) Build a builder to improve tiles. Now you just have the first two to balance. I'm not mad about that. Do you know if the city is limited to three hexes out or can the city grow further than that?
They are trying to reinvent the game as something completely new. Its not a good change, its just a change. Which normally means its bad because they cannot learn from past mistakes and have to do something completely new. So, it will suck. 100%.
As someone who has spent at least 1,000 hours in every Civ since Civ 2, this is looking like the first Civ game I may not be able to adapt to...
Some of these changes just sound so terrible. There's nothing that I'd want less than to switch up my Civ mid way through a game. Dynamic Civs sound AWFUL.
Also, being unable to continue researching new technology until the era/age advances? That kills half the fun of trying to get super advanced & ahead of others!
Then being required to pick you victory condition up front? What?! That dramatically limits flexibility in game & could make games end way too quickly once you see another player is too far ahead & you have no hope of achieving that specific condition first.
Lastly, even more minor things like merging barbarians & city states will be annoying for quick play games, as I like to disable barbarians when I'm just looking to speed through a solo game. Can't do that if they're now part of city states, but oh well, I'll adjust to that one.
Anyway, I've disliked changes before, but these are an entirely different thing & seem to be screwing up permanent fixtures of Civ.
Agree 100%
Dynamic civs and the "Any Leader, Any Civ" stuff makes this feel like it's no longer a Civilization game. Kills the sense of identity just like in Humankind.
Agreed, wont be getting civ 7 for sure. It sucks, being sold as this awesome thing, but nothing actually sounds good or looks good about it.
The inability to gain a significant research advantage absolutely kills this for me. Half the enjoyment I get from the series is having tanks while my foes have muskets.
I love the general arty syle in 7, think most of it looks great, but am I the only one who thinks the leader art, design and animations look terrible?
Agreed, leaders should look more elaborate and less like a caricature.
The ships are what stuck out as bad to me, everything else is decent
The leaders look like they came from a game 15 years old. awful
😊a channel in which the author does not impose himself beyond the content he presents. This is what the internet needs, less attention but more content
“Be only vessel for the information I seek, your individualism and right to express yourself does fit in the parameters I would like to see for this video”
I wish they went back to - land units could only traverse the sea when placed into transport ships. It takes the immersion out a little bit when you can just send a tank straight from land over a vast ocean... plus it looked more realistic to gather forces and load them up on your land, making it a target for opposing civs 🤔🤔
Maybe that's what i miss the most from civ IV
@@sam73194 Loved destroying transports to deny them their invasion
Yes, for sure. There was a very pressing need to have a Navy stationed out from your shores to catch a half dozen fully loaded transports on their way to blitzkrieg your lands. Nothing was more satisfying than catching a sneak attack before it happened, and sinking all those transports full of tanks. I love how Civ has evolved but the game lost a large part of everything by making all units amphibious - shipping and transporting military units is a huge logistics problem to this day, let alone back when Ghengis Khan attempted TWICE to invade Japan and both times his ships were wiped out by freak Typhoons and he lost all his expeditionary forces.
10:12 You can stack units under a general and create armies. If I recall correctly that is in CIV4. So, it is not new to CIV7.
So, is this better than civ 6 or not? Is it better than civ 5 (which is better than civ 6). Or better than civ 4 (which may be better than 6 also).
I prefer civ 6 over civ 5 so idk what you're talking abt. Civ 7 is too early to tell. Why do you not like civ 6 over 5?
@@lloydlim1055 Cuz he is 40
What about the original capital mechanic? Is it still a thing or did they change it?
Are all rivers navigable? Or just big ones? There's a few in the video that look smaller in size and don't seem to be rendered the same as the big rivers.
I mean the egpyt ability description thingy does specify "navigable rivers" so there should be normal rivers as well.
Are great people still part of the game?
If you pause the screen during the civ select menu you can see that the Egyptian unit unique says something like "a special type of great person" so I think that great people are still in the game
So far we know Great Generals have been replaced by "Commanders", we'll have to wait and see about the rest.
The game needs to develop a lot more depth in the domestic decisions you can make. I want to be able to decide what kind of power stations I build, do I go for cheaper but environmentally damaging or do I build expensive green ones? Do I build bullet trains or lots of freeways? And it impacts foreign relations too, if I decide to build lots of hydroelectric dams that leads to civs exporting oil and gas getting annoyed
This is a great video. I think it would be beneficial to new players to talk about how you actually win the game. And then have a video based on how to win/strategy to win based on what ending you would like... (diplomacy, domination, etc..). In so many intro videos we are talking about very detailed units without know how to even win the game. Like beginning with the end in mind. Working backwards in order to move forward
I think this is due, in part, to reviewers only getting access to the first age (and it not having any 'win' condition attached) - so that aspect hasn't really be revealed / demo'd yet...
@@logicalChimp I was looking into CIV 6 as well and I haven't found any videos that begin with the end in mind. In CIV 6 I still don't know how to win based on the victories. You got any recommendations?
@@crimpandcoconut not sure they're 'recommendations' - but personally in the beginning I focus on production, rather than victory conditions - get 2-3 cities, build walls and a builder, get the fat govenor first (for the research & culture bonus), get at least 2x research quarters, etc...
You need both research and culture to unlock stuff, but you need production (and/or gold or faith, depending on your end-of-era picks and govenor upgrades, etc) to actually *use* those unlocks...
Once you're productive, you can decide which condition to you want to focus on... and then pick buildings, end-of-era bonuses, govenors, wonders, etc that contribute to that victory.
Also, Civ6 doesn't penalise a 'wide' playstyle... and it's a lot easier to build stuff if you have 20x cities rather than 3x :D Thus the 'Ancestral hall' (in the gov. plaza) is probably an essential for early gameplay - 50% faster settlers, and a free builder in each new city. Get the industrial govenor (and unlock the his 'settlers don't consume population' upgrade) to be able to crank out plenty of settlers with no penalty.
Aw man, I can't wait, the map is beautiful and love those battle animations. I particularly like the influence mechanic and the additional diplomatic options it allows
Rivers should be on the edges between tiles. That would allow for armies to defend behind rivers. Navigable rivers could function as a "mini-tile" on the edge between two land tiles.
no
no, navigable river should be a tile
@@SquidWillis You want land units to stand spread out on different sides of a river?
In reality, that would put the land unit at a disadvantage, if it get attacked from only one side of the river, since half of the soldiers will have to defend against the enemy on their own.
The soldiers on the other side of the river will be delayed, if not even outright unable to assist their comrades in the battle.
@@Astronenot That could work, but apart from the biggest navigable rivers, perhaps the game would need more and smaller tiles, in order for that to be justified? Also, it would maybe make it a little challenging to justify the developer´s decision, to let units traverse rivers before their Civ have the technology to sail in coastal waters.
Why rivers wouldn't be at the edge in some tiles, and in center of others, both options can be used
13:43 I couldn’t help but notice that religion is missing from the legacy pathways. Any ideas as to why?
To be fair, I’ve seen the same criticisms every time a new Civ comes out and I’ve been playing since the very first one.
I have played it a long time too but this is different man. This change is too much of a dealbreaker.
Nope, civ 5 was very well received at the time
@@freezingsunset7354 Not really? Civ V was a bit of a mess when it first came out too. It's reputation really started shooting up with its expansions.
@freezingsunset7354 Revisionist history. Civ 5 was not only criticized, but even by today's standards the base game on it's own is much worse without the updates/expansions.
You dont know what you're talking about
Honestly, we still don't know too much about the game to judge it and it's systems. Lots of hate has been put on previous iteration's changes and yet those games have thrived once people got a feel for it. Unlike a number of people who have commented across videos, I am in a wait and see mode on the whole age-based civilization evolution function.
3 things:
1. You can choose how you move on, so I feel like it will still cater for those who want a more natural, historically accurate progression.
2. For those who don't quite insist on civ being a history simulator - which by the way, it shouldn't be, but I ain't going to judge those who believe it should... I think it's a great way of making games interesting across a playthrough which is the ultimate goal by the developers.
3. You can make your own story, and forget about historical accuracies for the sake of a game experience and instead of trying to emulate real life, you can make an exciting story for yourself by creating unique pathways that makes your civilization different across time.
Ultimately, games are generally about fun and engrossing stories, they don't have to be historical pieces, they can also create fiction.
The changes in previous iterations dint receive this much backlash. At worst the fans were divided on the change of like hex-square, loss of unit stacks/doomstacks, district changes in civ 6 etc. this is the first time almost universally civ fans hate the culture changing stuff.
This cannot be brushed aside and the proof will be when game releases for a massive flop.
Egypt -songhai-- buganda is historical only for brainless NPC consumers of this dei initiative gone wrong.. For everyone with a brain, it looks ridiculous. After nuking action/rpg/fps genres into the ground with such shitty ideas, dei has now come to strategy games in form of culture shifting under the garb of historicity (again only for brainless NPCs can Egypt becoming songhai -byganda can seem historical). Result of this dei initiative will be no different that what it did to other dei projects
Lmao firaxis employeee ah statement “just pretend the history and units make sense!” SpongeBob imagination episode ah comment
@@pisasupayaniyeah I personally don’t enjoy Civ 6 at all despite my repeated attempts and it even being on iPad. But I don’t think it was objectively a step back, it felt like they were trying to cater to newer/more casual players with the changes and im the opposite.
Civ 7 seems like a whole restructuring around multiplayer and casual gamers, gotta get those profits up for struggling take two
I can't change that ai Egypt will change to mongolia in the next era.
When you go back and play civilization beyond earth, it’s very similar in someways to what civ7 will be. You get to pick the city state bonus if it pops near you. And you have influence to deal with the other powers. So those parts of civ7 I’m not worried about.
Thank you for going over the differences without imparting your opinion. The whining from the content creators has been obnoxious.
I am so excited for civ 7!! Everything looks beautiful and some mechanics i am very excited about. However, I kind of wish leaders changed instead of civs. Or some combo of both. Have a mechanic where leaders can die or even become deposed (old age, assassinations, coups, revolutions, etc...) and combine it with the morphing of a civ into a new civ by having a new leader selection based on whenever you are at in that point of history. Rather than some specific unlock paths, it would open up a level of complexity to the civ picks. Definitely a half baked idea, but excited for what's to come regardless!
Great summary, awesome work
some years ago when I visited Egypt, the guide said that a way to rememebr and pronounce Hatshepsut is to think at "hot chicken soup". I guess with Civ VII it may become popular
Hot shit soup
Maybe they could change the constant from being a leader to being a god? Then it could be more ”logical” to change cultures per era.
Since 2k flew you out to play, do you know if you will be getting early access to the game?
He will get early access so long as he doesn't jeapordise his access by criticising brain-dead ideas like civ swapping 😂😂😂
correct, he works for them essentially...say the right things and we will continue to give you access
Builders no longer in game does bother me. I'm still holding my on this game, going to wait for more release info and deeper dives before I decide if it's worth pre ordering to me, or if it strayed too far from what I like about Civ games.
Using builders in the mid to late game was a nuisance imo. Having the way tiles work themselves when they're built on is nice
I might’ve missed it, but do the civs still have unique units? Redcoats, uboat, etc?
I mean yeah I think that's kind of a basic in every civ based games
I played the hell out of Civ 2, 3, Call to Power, and 4. The change after that to one unit per tile instead of big stacks of units made it more like a board game and a lot less realistic in my opinion. Archers shoot dozens of miles away instead of only having artillery being able to bombard the adjacent tile, throwing the sense of scale completely out of whack. It does make it more tactical instead of rolling in with a doom stack but it still feels super weird.
Agreed, the changes to combat make it feel more like a glorified chess game. I get that doom stacks aren't that enjoyable, but at least with 4 they tried to penalize the people using them. They could add a mechanic where upkeep on a stack is doubled when you exceed a certain number of units. You could have that cap related to tech as well, so armies get larger as time goes on. You could even have wonders or policies that increase the cap so civs like Rome could have larger armies earlier. I've never been a fan of the single unit per tile because it messes with the scale and turns the game into a complex form of chess.
@@MisterMick113 Could be something like a supply capacity or disease spreading in large army camps, with attrition reducing health or combat power.
The way the ranged combat works is still silly when archers shoot miles away
the one unit per tile instead of big stack was a huge improvement and adjustment to get used to. instead of steamrolling with just 10x or 30x swordsman now you have to strategically move units around to attack a position or city.
@@iplayfoofee3547 I understand it's more fun gameplay wise, but as a simulation it makes no sense. The scale and the ranges things fire is way off
@@ZippstermanTo me civ 6 did it best, it has stacks but it also limits. So you cant just do x30, but with stack not only is it more costly, it is much more valuable making it a targeted unit.
Comanders is such a big impactful change that looks amazing!
As someone who has only played civ vi, I’m excited for the changes! It looks really interesting and I think will add value to the game. Although I do not like the art for the leaders, they feel very jarring to how beautiful the rest of the game is.
Might still get touched up in the months before release, I remember some of the Civ 6 leader models coming out quite different on launch compared to their first look videos too.
I'm amazed people think the game looks "beautiful".
It looks worse than Civ 5 and 6 if you ask me. Just because the graphics are "realistic" doesn't automatically equal good.
@@VitZ9lmfao the graphics don't look realistic to me they look absolutely stunning
11:34 I'm sorry. Did you say "city cap"? Does that mean you can only have 3 cities in the first age?
Not a good change, if so.
Was hoping for a create your own leader type option, then you choose a civ to lead. Looks like it's not happening
Can you disable the city states 🤔
I'm starting to get the feeling there's going to be a shedload of changes to this game _after_ it's released. But that's par for the course when it comes to Civ games.
I guarantee this game is going to flop, HARD. It is terrible lol.
Do u know when we can expect more gameplay videos?
Is there any straight up farming?
Do we get same mechanic for ships? I mean commanders
Staying with civ 5
FINALLY NAVIGABLE RIVERS!!!!! I'm so excited for this
Good overview - thanks ---
Will i be able to lock myself to an age in a save?
Im not always interested in playing modern age
Ara looking more like a civilization game will civilization looks like humankind jr.
I heard that a number of Civ 5 developers are on the Ara team, which makes sense. Ara is looking like the more attractive game to me than Civ 7.
Ara doesnt have a combat system...which sucks
I’ll miss builders largely because I loved building roads & forts offensively. This is a niche use for them though, so… I’ll survive their absence
I agree, change the leader and the civ, but only within a historical context, or at least offer the option. For example Boudica : Celts (Antiquity), Elizabeth : English (Exploration), Churchill : British (Modern).
I've played since Civ 2, so I've seen many changes through the years. While the Civ switching is notable and surprising, I don't think that is entirely without precedent within the series. I think the goal is to expand upon the idea of Rise and Fall of civilizations, both as a concept and even as the Civ 6 expansion. So seeing the ebb and flow is a concept they wanted to explore for a while. However, it's how this is done which is the most jarring. Instead of switching, perhaps it should be more like layering where a geographically or culturally related civilization is added to yours in the next era. As others have suggested, changing a new leader with the current one fading out would be welcome as well.
A lot of reducing the micromanaging seems aimed at multiplayer and less single player. I think that Firaxis should actually make a public announcement video to explain the thought process and reasons for this. Having the changes come out now via UA-cam creators is a smart move so the actual release will come with less fanfare. Imagine all of this coming out during the final announcement trailer!
Also, having three eras seems limiting...for now. I hope they add the medieval age into this game, to make it four eras, but I see them adding in the intermediate eras as DLCs. It's this part of the monetization that alarms me. They still have a lot of work to do before February.
ARA: History Untold is looking much better than Civ 7, and it releases next month too.
I love the civ saga but this one has strayed too much from the formula, it almost feels like a spin-off of sorts.
for me the reward is the wonderful building's and glorious graphics, ARA looks very good.
Ara History Untold kinda snuck up on me but its what I'd hoped Civ VII would be. Instead Civ VII reminds me of a cross between Civ Rev and Humankind.
How in the world would you know what's "better"? neither game has even released.
Maybe one game SPEAKS to you more than another. but these games aren't even out yet.
@@paulszki True, let's hope i'm wrong about civ
Which will be the game to go to. Civ 7 or ARA Untold story. Im going ARA at the moment.
i really hate they left CIV 5 way of Civingt in the dust....
Civ 6 was just eeeh...
I think they really missed the mark with the evolving civs thing. Being able to unlock upgrades for your leader is a great change, I wouldn’t even be opposed to upgrading your leader to a different leader of your civ that offers different buffs based on your choice of play that game. For example, maybe America always starts as one of the founding fathers. Washington has military buffs, Jefferson has culture and diplomacy buffs, Hamilton has gold and luxury resource buffs, etc etc. but once you hit a threshold of culture by a certain turn or science per turn or something you can choose to move to a leader that prioritizes your choice of play thus far while sacrificing some of the advantages the other leaders had, like moving from Jefferson in the early game to FDR later game to handle powerful AI militaries. IDK. But I know most of us like the idea of taking our civ through the various ages, historical accuracy be damned. It’s also really putting most of these civs in a tiny box to be all about historical accuracy. For example, they’re really prioritizing the indigenous North American civs this year…historical accuracy wouldn’t be very kind to those civs, just saying.
When i was visiting Egpyt doing a Nile Cruise, went to the Temple of Hatshepsut and was told how to pronounce it as Hat-Cheap-Suit.
I think the civ change makes more sense and easier to pull off than changing leaders for the base game. The vast majority of civs in the game dont have enough leaders to make the leader change happen accurately or giving it the buzz word im hearing a lot "authenticity".
What would be amazing is if there were game modes to allow historical routes and same civ for all the game. Classic civ if you like.
I would love to see more ages and a dynasty mode added for a single civ allowing up to 6 changes in leaders (any leader in the game). Just imagine what modders could do with that. It would be awesome.
You could have any civ with heaps of leaders added from steam mods. America, Britain, France, Spain, China, India, Romans would have heaps. I really like the progression that was used for London. You could have Celts then Normans/Vikings then British in the modern age. This really works if executed well. I do understand the concerns people have about accuracy but mods could fix all that if the template exists 😊
I really liked the builders and eurekas from civ 6, sad to see those go. The rest of the changes we'll just have to wait and see.
Honestly the main thing I’m looking at here is the potential with mods. I know games shouldn’t be carried by mods but it’s undeniable how mods affect a game and I’m thinking about how to make modded steampunk civs or synthetic ascension cus I really like robots. I think the ages system would really best allow that for those designs at least.
All in all it’s much too early to say if it’ll be good or bad. It’s going to be a very different game from V and VI, but there is potential for it to stand out so I’ll keep an eye on it.
I have over 4,000 hours on Civ 6, I CAN'T WAIT FOR CIV 7!!!
I'm really looking forward to this next generation in Civilization
So, long story short they aren't improving civ by making it more complex, but by changing gameplay mechanics.
Civ 5 was the start of this trend, by removing unit stacks and putting the hex grid in as opposed to square tiles.
Six made even more alterations, such as making workers limited to 3 improvements.
Civ 7, I don't think I have much interest in playing. Civ 5 was tolerable, but Civ 4 was the last true civ game.
Micromanagement is not the same as complexity. Having to micromanage a bunch of pre-defined individual units is really becoming an old-fashioned concept in gaming. We have enough computer power now to make a game simulation more complex and more out of the box then one unit representing a fixed size group waiting for commands and having no AI. I think the game devs are being too conservative by even keeping this concept for armies. It should be removed the same way builders are removed.
@YTAG33 You mean actually looking at what your cities need of the land and developing accordingly, actually thinking ahead, isn't complexity? Lol, ok.
There are so many changes because Civ now has stiff competition, particularly in Milennia (I actually played the game to the end, it needs quite a bit of polish, but it is actually pretty good) and Endless Legend, when it didn't before.
People need to remember that Civ had a monopoly in this sort of thing for the better part of two decades.
Then again, I remember the flame wars when Civ dared to go from squares to... HEXES. *_HEXES._* Something that those who are used to V and VI take for granted.
Hell, I'm working on a 'what I would do for SMAC(X) II' essay right now, which outright states that I'll be pillaging the good ideas to modernize the game.
I played every Civ game and this is the first one that I am not sure if I will buy or not.
Visually, it looks really good. Navigable Rivers is a nice addition. "The loss of Builders" I am not sure, i should play and see.
Dynamic Civilizations is a "No" for me. The whole point of "Civilization" games is to see if your culture could stand the test of time or not. So if it changes twice, and some changes seem ridiculous (Egypt to Mongolia, I mean come on) City Cap is also a "No". The new points make this game a "Humankind 2"
Is global happiness back?
getting alot of humankind vibes from this one, love humankind. be interesting how this plays out tbh
I just hope they still have the options for quick movement and quick combat.
What part of Egypt transforming into Mongolia makes any sense?
The material conditions presented lead to a shift in the society
I'm looking forward to the game. Some of the changes sound and look a little eh but imma play the hell out of it and see how the changes effects the game as a whole. I'm excited. First game in a while that I've looked forward to
I like most of the changes I see, the only one I am not sure about is the one about changing civilization during the game
Civ VI with Civ V graphical mod is the ultimate Civ experience.
It's another Civ game, I'll be buying and trying it like all the others. But from what I've seen I'm probably going to end up going back to Civ 5 again, that was peak Civ for me.
How Egypt goes into Mongolia? And not... Israel, Sudan, or... whatever else?!
Were Isreal or Sudan big horse-attack cultures?
Because it's a game, and the game will allow you to choose any civ as long as you meet the requirements and they are actually in game. Like the three horse tiles Mongolia. Because the game doesn't force you to stay historically accurate and allows players to play according to how they choose to play.
Guess I'll be sticking with Civ V still. : /
I hope there's more than one crisis per era. It'll probably get repetitive if *every* Early-Exploration transition is the city-state rush. I hope they switch it up.
I want economic victory path.
Why does the end of an age have to be marked by disaster? Ages can end with positive results as well. For example, the end of the Middle Ages heralded in new interest in classical learning, not to mention some wins for peasants. Also, are the events at the end of the age the same in every game? It would be far more exciting to make end of ages have a random event drawn from a list, some positive, some negative.
What’s crazy is the will be the civ game for 5-10 years meaning civ 8 is like 2030-2034 ☠️
It would make way more sense for leaders to change and Civs stay the same.