There are so many good ideas added I'll probably end up buying... But I still hate this civ changing in eras thing. Am having a tough time getting past it
Urban district buildings like granary require production to build while rural districts like farms, plantations and so on only require the population to grow and place down. Specialists are the same as the population growth. Instead of making a rural district, you can place a Specialist in a urban district.
I think the competition makes a lot of sense in more modern wonders and in most wonders gameplay wise in multi-player. I think the answer is more requirements for each wonder, making it much less likely that every other AI in the game spams them early while also making it much more likely that the historically accurate civ has a good advantage at getting that wonder.
New things that sound great. Navigable rivers(My idea long ago), no stealing( but can kill Settlers), Scout strategic abilities, the way cities grow, Military leaders getting the xp and 5 trees for their growth. No more BSing trade options what I've hated about all civ games. You trade via routes now. These are all vast improvements.
It's strange. EVERY youtuber and content creator I watch likes the removal of builders. I don't. And if the number of upvotes on some comments are any indication, a great many other players don't like it either. Roads in particular are a great strategic tool and should not be build automatically (and I hated the fact I couldn't manually build roads in civ 6 til I got to engineers). Them saying they want to reduce micromanagement is kind of ironic, since they released civ 6 without a building queue and, to this day, didn't add a city project that keeps going till you change it manually (like producing extra gold, science, culture etc). Two features EVERY previous civ game had. Anyway, you don't usually see a lot of builders running around in the late game. The most annoying part by far is having to slot city projects every single turn.
One of my favorite low-key moments was when they showed the age transition where you select your legacy benefits. A free card you can play let's you rename one of your cities the historic capital for the new civilization, and it becomes the new capital. While that might not be great if you capital city is a true powerhouse, I like the historic immersion element. Also, I'm not sure I would've liked your proposal to "claim" wonders without building them? While losing a wonder race does suck, it does feel a bit more dynamic and fair?
I do not like the wonder race. The competition feels hidden and therefore rather random. Unless you have enough dip visibility or actually spot someone building the wonder, you don't even know who are competing. It feels bad to lose and mess up your city planning. It doesn't feel good enough to win because you don't really see anyone losing. However, I'm not sure what's the best solution.
@@logixindie I'd be okay with just a little note on the wonder in the production screen telling you how many other civs are currently building that wonder.
the mod "Wonder Reminder Enhanced" is brilliant in Civ6 and allows me to go for wonders as it tells you who is building it and how many turns are left, so you dont feel like youve wasted a load of time even though you do get the production back. I hope they add something like this to civ7.
The UI doesn’t look great but I highly suspect it’ll be one of the last things they refine before launch. The default UI in these games though is usually always a bit lame because it needs to work for both consoles and PC. Almost every 4X or RPG I’ve played has a UI mod on PC to make adjustments
My fave things included 1. more civ specific options. E.g. civics and tech so that as rome you can claim the colleseum earlier than others, which gives you a head start on certain wonders etc. 2. The map looks beautiful and includes new features which allow for more gameplay depth 3. Scout actions makes them a lot more interesting as a unit I dont like 1. Whats going on with religion? Is it a win condition or yield? Undecided 1. Narrative popups. For experienced players i think they will be a hindrance. For new players i think they add a depth of story they might like.
I think they said in the stream that when the time comes to grow your city, instead of picking a new tile for the city to occupy, you can choose to place a specialist instead.
The only way to do world wonders in civ that makes sense is to keep it how it currently is, but if you are not the first person to build that specific wonder, you get a weaker version of that wonder, and then if you want to build it and you start after the original is completed you get an even weaker wonder. 1st: 100% 2nd onwards (started before the 1st was completed): 60% Built after 1st completed: 30% If the wonder isn't number based, then it provides culture/science/amenities etc instead.
My gut feeling about Civ 7 is that the developers are removing the critical aspect that makes decisions meaningful....consequences. Sending your civilian off unprotected outside of your own borders was a gamble that had momentous impacts on both the good and bad side of the pendulum dependent on whether or not you were successful or not in that gamble. Similarly, competing with the other civilizations in the wonder building race was impactful because of both the good and bad consequences. When you were successful, you felt amazing because you won a competition and received a reward that no one else could obtain. When you lost a wonder, you loathed the opponent who built it because you decided to make a trade-off on constructing something else, or multiples of something else, during that lost time span. Along a similar vein, I fear that trying to prevent "snowballing" is a euphemism for "everyone gets a trophy". You should be rewarded for playing the game well and penalized for playing the game poorly. Handicapping a player in the lead by not allowing certain resources to appear or technologies to be unlocked until every player gets to that future age together feels like a punishment for playing well. I'm in favor of allowing trailing players the hope to catch up and still be "in the hunt" for a victory, but that gap closing has to be because of positive actions performed by the trailing player, not slowing down the leading player. For example, being rewarded with a unique "Heroic Age" in Civ 6 if a struggling player was able to claw out of a "Dark Age" and EARN a subsequent "Golden Age".
Thanks VanBradley! Here's mine (thankfully I'm not a streamer, so I can be non-binary). BEST: 1. Really like the removal of builders 2. City growth 3. Happiness >>> Celebrations >>> bonuses 4. Commanders WORST: 1. UI: Aside from the color scheme (great), the UI is really disappointing. As usual, the text is too sparse and too small. When you're looking at text in a menu, the text should be big and the amount of deadspace should be minimal. You can see this at 3:45. Look how tiny the text is and how much unused space there is inside the sidebar. Also, what the hell is that granary icon? It's not just me on my laptop, either. The devs need to think more about streamers. Is ANYBODY going to be able to see that text on a UA-cam/Twitch video? 2. UI: Civ is essentially a spreadsheet with a UI on top. That UI has to be good. 3. UI: Did I mention this already? Sure, nice graphics are great and help players "roleplay" all they like, lol, but there's very little evidence of graphics generating replayability. Conversely, the games with the most emergent narrative / replayability generally have lower quality graphics (Civ I-V, Rimworld, Don't Starve, Boardgames, TTRPGs, etc.). Even big deeloperes like Firaxis don't have enough money and time to do everything, and I feel like they overcommitted to the graphics. Also, I can't really differentiate buildings (although maybe there's an overlay?). Even if you don't know how to play Civ 6 you can see that there are different, color-coded districts, and that's crucial for mp. HMM... 1. Eurekas and Inspirations: Also so so sad to see them go, BUT other mechanics like celebrations seem to hint at optimization strategies AND I was getting a little tired (after like 1000 hours....) of having the bonuses guide my choices instead of the story. 2. Tech Tree / Ages: My assumption is that everyone moves to the next era at the same time, and unless you're really focused on science you won't be able to get each mastery. Thus the masteries give you something to do if you're waiting for the age to tick over.
u know when u need to grow a city u press it and screen pans out on that city now imagine u have like 20 citys later and screen just pans then returns then pans out and returns i can see that as anoying late game stuff
While I didn’t like how repetitive the events were in Humankind across playthroughs I did like that the options had randomized outcomes at times and would effect your government
Age change and loss of builders kind of sucks. I was never bothered by workers/settlers. I also don't want to change into some other civ after choosing one.
Don't agree with my interpretation of your take on wonders. I can just claim all the wonders and build them whenever I want? The competition of creating wonders and accruing great people is one of the best parts of civ imo.
Totally fair, it's a very different strokes for different folks kind of thing. The way it would work, at least in my head conceptually, is that the wonders would still unlock via age. So Pyramids and Great Bath would still be early, and Biosphere would still be later. In the gameplay, you earn the ability to claim a wonder in the culture tree, or science tree, or maybe a combination of both. Possibly a golden age bonus etc... Once you unlock the ability to claim a wonder you're able to view the available wonders and claim one for yourself. Then you can build it whenever it suits. So it's not a situation where you can just claim as many as you'd like, the amount of claims you get is still dependent on the gameplay. Not every wonder is available all the time either, you sill need to progress through the trees to make them available for you to claim. So this just moves the race more into the tech and civic trees to unlock them and claim them, but not at the stage where they are being built. To me it just adds more variety to the more difficult gameplay settings. It'd be nice for example, as Pachacuti in Civ 6 to be able to rush and unlock and claim of Machu Picchu and fully commit to the mountain gameplay. It's nearly impossible on Deity to do that currently as the A.I is just simply too far ahead early on. It also still comes at a cost because the other A.I likely used their claims on the Pyramids, Oracle, etc... Not a perfect system, but one I liked in Humankind and though Civ may try out 😊
@@VanBradley Oh ok, well that is an interesting concept. Maybe a mod exists that will allow you to do that and see if it works well in an actual game. I never actually played Humankind is it good?
At 23:25 you ask if some Civs can be at a further age than others. I think the answer is a definite no. It seems everyone, Human + AI, will change their civs at the same time at a set point (after the crisis period is initiated). But not sure how this affects getting to the end of a certain tech/civic tree. Maybe if you get there early, you then get extra legacy points or bonus stored up science/culture for the next age?
Yeah, is such an critical gameplay decision in the design I’m sure it will be well thought out! It’s just interesting to me you can’t skip ahead in the tech trees any more
1:21:44 they start talking about how everyone moves the crisis meter forward together and that dealing with that brings about the end of the age. They don't explicitly say it as I thought they had.
Seems like they are taking away more small-scale strategy choices in favor of big picture strategy. And.....I dont like that. I like a decent bit of micromanagement. I like having the strategy choice of where to send builders, or how many builders to build over other units. I like having slow growth of my cities cuz I dont play rapid games and enjoy much of the early game expansion, I dont want that part to feel too rushed. I dunno man, I'm just continually feeling Civ VII is going down a road that isn't as appealing to me anymore. I'm actually liking a lot more of what I'm seeing from ARA, especially with its focus on resource management and less rigid win conditions.
Totally agree with you on micromanagement being important to the depth of creative decisions. I want workers, I also want roads to be built when and where I like and even singular military units being able to level up in xp all by themselves.. so I can decide where to put them.. whether that be underneath my General or outside all by themselves.. I want a scenario.. where I can lead my main army underneath my General moving straight up to the front of your army & General.. The Surprise comes that I have leveled up my horsemen units through xp.. No General for the horsemen.. As your attention is drawn towards my general moving straight up towards your General.. while my horsemen move through the forests surrounding you.. and flank you from behind.. while all your attention is on my General coming from the front.. Make sense? Just a thought.. :)
The devs haven't covered the win conditions yet. So, that part was a bit of an odd statement. The micro management is still there, just in a different interface. You are still choosing where to expand to, which tiles to prioritize both for immediate benefit, short term benefit according to where you choose urban vs non urban tiles, and long term in terms of where you plan wonders and towns. It is just much quicker to make those choices if you are playing a more wide playstyle without sacrificing how much time you can choose to spend on it if you want to play a more tall playstyle. This was shown a little in the last dev showcase.
More people in these comments getting tripped up over symatics. Each of the civs have been effectively broken into three historically accurate sections. This does quite a few things: greatly increases each civs depth, improves balancing between civs, and greatly increases historical accuracy. All of that happens before you also consider the immense replayability added by also allowing, not required, the option to dictate that your civ evolve in a different direction other than it is defaulted to. Those options still have to be unlocked in a logical way such as your civ is naturally developing in that direction anyway. This is not manditory. It is a choise. If you dont like the concept, than you can always choose the default option in singleplayer and the AI will also always choose the default option. This means that this split is not harmful in anyway, its all gravy. Because it is all optional and also more historically accurate, getting twisted over just the name of the culture during a specific period is really bizarre.
I like basically all the features they've added. If they don't mess up with the age change, we could finally have a step forward in the series since Civ 4
OMG This game is really silly. They included historical leaders but they decoupled them from their historical nation. So you meet Cleopatra and you assume that you met Egyptians but no. She could be as well Cleopatra the leader of Germany or of Aztecs. Then you find some resource. But you don't build a mine and connect it via road to your cities. No, you need to move (grow) the city toward it first. Like a plant grows its roots. But you settlements are instantly connected to the capital city even if localized on the other side of the map. And why two separate units for building town and cities are needed? Settlers to build a settlement and founders to found a city. And why one scout needs 3 dogs. Do they pull him or does he eat them eventually? Or is he actually a professional dog walker? Or this one. It did make sense when in previous civ games military fought barbarians and took their resources but now some soldiers just left resources and gold unprotected and unguarded for anyone, for some scout to take. And if the camp is destroyed and valuable resources are destroyed it will make your people happy. But why and who are those soldier anyway?
Yeah really not a fan of the Civ switching. It may be more 'historical', but it's a Civ game, they've never been historical. I'd rather feel a deeper connection to the civ I play rather than have a small feeling of historical immersion in a game where you'll be running around with Giant Death Robots. (A shame considering i quite like a bunch of the new features like river navigation and crisis')
Everything showing Roman millitary triumph gets a thumb up from me. It seems like you could replicate a lot of Roman wars with those good looking units The diplomatic scheme and the leaders awkward facial animations, I can't. Go back to Civ 5 please! Transitions in Ages is just not fitting me, I'm sorry to say.
Denuvo and possible microtransactions in a full priced game = never buying nor playing nor watching anyone play. These greedy corporate executives need to be history and I refuse to give them another inch or penny
Yeah Denuvo really does suck. I’m lucky to have a great PC but for those who don’t it’s just a drag to punish them on performance for being a legit customer. What are the micro-transactions you’re speaking of?
@VanBradley they said in the first talk they were floating the idea about doing microtransactions instead of traditional DLC for features and leaders etc.
@@VanBradley Very few games with Denuvo have performance affected, and of those that do, it tends to be a developer fault of a too aggressive call implementation. There's also nothing greedy about not wanting people to steal your game. I do think Denuvo should be removed at some point, but I dont begrudge developers trying to stop thieves.
@@VanBradley The problem with it was that the tactical optimum would devalue the grand strategy. You semi-randomly get Eurekas and have to throw away your research plan because a hundred percent boost is just too good to pass up. And the other way round: instead of just deciding on a research plan according to your needs and following it, you're now balancing Eurekas first, because of that damn boost. And that was the problem with Civ6: minmaxing hell instead of overarching strategy. If you had played Civ5 you'd know where I'm coming from.
Why would you want to stick with your original civ? It would not have any relevant abilities after the first era. That's kind of the whole point of the game. Everyone hates playing Sumeria because it is useless after war carts are obsolete.
@@Bulgs_Alexiev The point is to build your empire from nothing to victory. Remember that in early versions, there were no real differences between civs. As unique things were introduced, the whole "one civ" model became obsolete because there is no way to make the unique things about historical civs relevant across the whole game. Either you got the edge from your uniqueness and snowballed or you ground it out with a vanilla civ because you are better than the AI.
I understand that people complain saying that it's not Civilization and all that but even if it is a Humankind 2 I think it will be a good game, much better than Humankind. I only found leaders, not look at me
The game isn't even out but yet you are an authority. Just click bait garbage!
"Here is my opinion of what we've been shown so far" Gamers: "OH MY GOD How dare you have an opinion!"
Pete, calm down lad!
The shills are panicking rn
Daddy, chill.
@@sionbarzad5371 real
There are so many good ideas added I'll probably end up buying... But I still hate this civ changing in eras thing. Am having a tough time getting past it
Urban district buildings like granary require production to build while rural districts like farms, plantations and so on only require the population to grow and place down. Specialists are the same as the population growth. Instead of making a rural district, you can place a Specialist in a urban district.
Claiming wonders is kind of weak, embrace the competition
I think getting thunked is lame. I would prefer it if there were at least have a secondary thing you could build that gives you a partial benefit.
@@jyutzler production towards your next build isn’t good enough? 😂 jokes aside I see your point
lotsa lame stuff in this entry so far lol
I think the competition makes a lot of sense in more modern wonders and in most wonders gameplay wise in multi-player. I think the answer is more requirements for each wonder, making it much less likely that every other AI in the game spams them early while also making it much more likely that the historically accurate civ has a good advantage at getting that wonder.
@liberalideas8224 you aren't a gamer so no one should care what you say
New things that sound great. Navigable rivers(My idea long ago), no stealing( but can kill Settlers), Scout strategic abilities, the way cities grow, Military leaders getting the xp and 5 trees for their growth. No more BSing trade options what I've hated about all civ games. You trade via routes now. These are all vast improvements.
It's strange. EVERY youtuber and content creator I watch likes the removal of builders. I don't. And if the number of upvotes on some comments are any indication, a great many other players don't like it either. Roads in particular are a great strategic tool and should not be build automatically (and I hated the fact I couldn't manually build roads in civ 6 til I got to engineers).
Them saying they want to reduce micromanagement is kind of ironic, since they released civ 6 without a building queue and, to this day, didn't add a city project that keeps going till you change it manually (like producing extra gold, science, culture etc). Two features EVERY previous civ game had. Anyway, you don't usually see a lot of builders running around in the late game. The most annoying part by far is having to slot city projects every single turn.
One of my favorite low-key moments was when they showed the age transition where you select your legacy benefits. A free card you can play let's you rename one of your cities the historic capital for the new civilization, and it becomes the new capital. While that might not be great if you capital city is a true powerhouse, I like the historic immersion element.
Also, I'm not sure I would've liked your proposal to "claim" wonders without building them? While losing a wonder race does suck, it does feel a bit more dynamic and fair?
I do not like the wonder race. The competition feels hidden and therefore rather random. Unless you have enough dip visibility or actually spot someone building the wonder, you don't even know who are competing. It feels bad to lose and mess up your city planning. It doesn't feel good enough to win because you don't really see anyone losing. However, I'm not sure what's the best solution.
@@logixindie I'd be okay with just a little note on the wonder in the production screen telling you how many other civs are currently building that wonder.
the mod "Wonder Reminder Enhanced" is brilliant in Civ6 and allows me to go for wonders as it tells you who is building it and how many turns are left, so you dont feel like youve wasted a load of time even though you do get the production back.
I hope they add something like this to civ7.
I hope the UI is going to be iterated on. There's lots of thin lines, and low contrast, washed out text that makes it all hard to read
The UI doesn’t look great but I highly suspect it’ll be one of the last things they refine before launch.
The default UI in these games though is usually always a bit lame because it needs to work for both consoles and PC. Almost every 4X or RPG I’ve played has a UI mod on PC to make adjustments
The basic texts looks placeholder to me
My fave things included
1. more civ specific options. E.g. civics and tech so that as rome you can claim the colleseum earlier than others, which gives you a head start on certain wonders etc.
2. The map looks beautiful and includes new features which allow for more gameplay depth
3. Scout actions makes them a lot more interesting as a unit
I dont like
1. Whats going on with religion? Is it a win condition or yield?
Undecided
1. Narrative popups. For experienced players i think they will be a hindrance. For new players i think they add a depth of story they might like.
I think they said in the stream that when the time comes to grow your city, instead of picking a new tile for the city to occupy, you can choose to place a specialist instead.
The only way to do world wonders in civ that makes sense is to keep it how it currently is, but if you are not the first person to build that specific wonder, you get a weaker version of that wonder, and then if you want to build it and you start after the original is completed you get an even weaker wonder.
1st: 100%
2nd onwards (started before the 1st was completed): 60%
Built after 1st completed: 30%
If the wonder isn't number based, then it provides culture/science/amenities etc instead.
My gut feeling about Civ 7 is that the developers are removing the critical aspect that makes decisions meaningful....consequences. Sending your civilian off unprotected outside of your own borders was a gamble that had momentous impacts on both the good and bad side of the pendulum dependent on whether or not you were successful or not in that gamble. Similarly, competing with the other civilizations in the wonder building race was impactful because of both the good and bad consequences. When you were successful, you felt amazing because you won a competition and received a reward that no one else could obtain. When you lost a wonder, you loathed the opponent who built it because you decided to make a trade-off on constructing something else, or multiples of something else, during that lost time span.
Along a similar vein, I fear that trying to prevent "snowballing" is a euphemism for "everyone gets a trophy". You should be rewarded for playing the game well and penalized for playing the game poorly. Handicapping a player in the lead by not allowing certain resources to appear or technologies to be unlocked until every player gets to that future age together feels like a punishment for playing well. I'm in favor of allowing trailing players the hope to catch up and still be "in the hunt" for a victory, but that gap closing has to be because of positive actions performed by the trailing player, not slowing down the leading player. For example, being rewarded with a unique "Heroic Age" in Civ 6 if a struggling player was able to claw out of a "Dark Age" and EARN a subsequent "Golden Age".
I feel every game will feel the same. The choices don't look important enough.
Exactly...a lack of consequences
To utilize resources in tile 4 or 5 for your city, isn't towns the way to do it?
Thanks VanBradley!
Here's mine (thankfully I'm not a streamer, so I can be non-binary).
BEST:
1. Really like the removal of builders
2. City growth
3. Happiness >>> Celebrations >>> bonuses
4. Commanders
WORST:
1. UI: Aside from the color scheme (great), the UI is really disappointing. As usual, the text is too sparse and too small. When you're looking at text in a menu, the text should be big and the amount of deadspace should be minimal. You can see this at 3:45. Look how tiny the text is and how much unused space there is inside the sidebar. Also, what the hell is that granary icon? It's not just me on my laptop, either. The devs need to think more about streamers. Is ANYBODY going to be able to see that text on a UA-cam/Twitch video?
2. UI: Civ is essentially a spreadsheet with a UI on top. That UI has to be good.
3. UI: Did I mention this already? Sure, nice graphics are great and help players "roleplay" all they like, lol, but there's very little evidence of graphics generating replayability. Conversely, the games with the most emergent narrative / replayability generally have lower quality graphics (Civ I-V, Rimworld, Don't Starve, Boardgames, TTRPGs, etc.). Even big deeloperes like Firaxis don't have enough money and time to do everything, and I feel like they overcommitted to the graphics. Also, I can't really differentiate buildings (although maybe there's an overlay?). Even if you don't know how to play Civ 6 you can see that there are different, color-coded districts, and that's crucial for mp.
HMM...
1. Eurekas and Inspirations: Also so so sad to see them go, BUT other mechanics like celebrations seem to hint at optimization strategies AND I was getting a little tired (after like 1000 hours....) of having the bonuses guide my choices instead of the story.
2. Tech Tree / Ages: My assumption is that everyone moves to the next era at the same time, and unless you're really focused on science you won't be able to get each mastery. Thus the masteries give you something to do if you're waiting for the age to tick over.
When a tile is used by a city, you get a yield, with the science unlock you get additional yield.
26:07 look at the top right they left something,SHOW FACTORIES
u know when u need to grow a city u press it and screen pans out on that city now imagine u have like 20 citys later and screen just pans then returns then pans out and returns i can see that as anoying late game stuff
Lol you won't have 20 cities, this is a dumbed down civ man
While I didn’t like how repetitive the events were in Humankind across playthroughs I did like that the options had randomized outcomes at times and would effect your government
Age change and loss of builders kind of sucks. I was never bothered by workers/settlers.
I also don't want to change into some other civ after choosing one.
Don't agree with my interpretation of your take on wonders. I can just claim all the wonders and build them whenever I want? The competition of creating wonders and accruing great people is one of the best parts of civ imo.
Totally fair, it's a very different strokes for different folks kind of thing.
The way it would work, at least in my head conceptually, is that the wonders would still unlock via age. So Pyramids and Great Bath would still be early, and Biosphere would still be later.
In the gameplay, you earn the ability to claim a wonder in the culture tree, or science tree, or maybe a combination of both. Possibly a golden age bonus etc...
Once you unlock the ability to claim a wonder you're able to view the available wonders and claim one for yourself. Then you can build it whenever it suits. So it's not a situation where you can just claim as many as you'd like, the amount of claims you get is still dependent on the gameplay. Not every wonder is available all the time either, you sill need to progress through the trees to make them available for you to claim. So this just moves the race more into the tech and civic trees to unlock them and claim them, but not at the stage where they are being built.
To me it just adds more variety to the more difficult gameplay settings. It'd be nice for example, as Pachacuti in Civ 6 to be able to rush and unlock and claim of Machu Picchu and fully commit to the mountain gameplay. It's nearly impossible on Deity to do that currently as the A.I is just simply too far ahead early on. It also still comes at a cost because the other A.I likely used their claims on the Pyramids, Oracle, etc...
Not a perfect system, but one I liked in Humankind and though Civ may try out 😊
@@VanBradley Oh ok, well that is an interesting concept. Maybe a mod exists that will allow you to do that and see if it works well in an actual game. I never actually played Humankind is it good?
It would be far too easy to abuse a claim the wonder system.
I would have liked a spherical world.
At 23:25 you ask if some Civs can be at a further age than others. I think the answer is a definite no. It seems everyone, Human + AI, will change their civs at the same time at a set point (after the crisis period is initiated). But not sure how this affects getting to the end of a certain tech/civic tree. Maybe if you get there early, you then get extra legacy points or bonus stored up science/culture for the next age?
Yeah, is such an critical gameplay decision in the design I’m sure it will be well thought out! It’s just interesting to me you can’t skip ahead in the tech trees any more
They confirmed this is how it works in the few minutes when they did the age transition.
1:21:44 they start talking about how everyone moves the crisis meter forward together and that dealing with that brings about the end of the age. They don't explicitly say it as I thought they had.
Hyped 💥
Seems like they are taking away more small-scale strategy choices in favor of big picture strategy. And.....I dont like that. I like a decent bit of micromanagement. I like having the strategy choice of where to send builders, or how many builders to build over other units. I like having slow growth of my cities cuz I dont play rapid games and enjoy much of the early game expansion, I dont want that part to feel too rushed. I dunno man, I'm just continually feeling Civ VII is going down a road that isn't as appealing to me anymore. I'm actually liking a lot more of what I'm seeing from ARA, especially with its focus on resource management and less rigid win conditions.
Totally agree with you on micromanagement being important to the depth of creative decisions. I want workers, I also want roads to be built when and where I like and even singular military units being able to level up in xp all by themselves.. so I can decide where to put them.. whether that be underneath my General or outside all by themselves..
I want a scenario.. where I can lead my main army underneath my General moving straight up to the front of your army & General.. The Surprise comes that I have leveled up my horsemen units through xp.. No General for the horsemen.. As your attention is drawn towards my general moving straight up towards your General.. while my horsemen move through the forests surrounding you.. and flank you from behind.. while all your attention is on my General coming from the front..
Make sense?
Just a thought.. :)
The devs haven't covered the win conditions yet. So, that part was a bit of an odd statement.
The micro management is still there, just in a different interface. You are still choosing where to expand to, which tiles to prioritize both for immediate benefit, short term benefit according to where you choose urban vs non urban tiles, and long term in terms of where you plan wonders and towns. It is just much quicker to make those choices if you are playing a more wide playstyle without sacrificing how much time you can choose to spend on it if you want to play a more tall playstyle. This was shown a little in the last dev showcase.
More people in these comments getting tripped up over symatics. Each of the civs have been effectively broken into three historically accurate sections. This does quite a few things: greatly increases each civs depth, improves balancing between civs, and greatly increases historical accuracy. All of that happens before you also consider the immense replayability added by also allowing, not required, the option to dictate that your civ evolve in a different direction other than it is defaulted to. Those options still have to be unlocked in a logical way such as your civ is naturally developing in that direction anyway.
This is not manditory. It is a choise. If you dont like the concept, than you can always choose the default option in singleplayer and the AI will also always choose the default option. This means that this split is not harmful in anyway, its all gravy.
Because it is all optional and also more historically accurate, getting twisted over just the name of the culture during a specific period is really bizarre.
I like basically all the features they've added. If they don't mess up with the age change, we could finally have a step forward in the series since Civ 4
Play Crusader Kings instead. It's better because you can marry your sister?
Not interested in civ 7 instead of playing as a epic civ in history i now play as a concord designed immortal leader... just no.
Glad I'm not buying fake civ clone. End of the civ series .
OMG This game is really silly. They included historical leaders but they decoupled them from their historical nation. So you meet Cleopatra and you assume that you met Egyptians but no. She could be as well Cleopatra the leader of Germany or of Aztecs. Then you find some resource. But you don't build a mine and connect it via road to your cities. No, you need to move (grow) the city toward it first. Like a plant grows its roots. But you settlements are instantly connected to the capital city even if localized on the other side of the map. And why two separate units for building town and cities are needed? Settlers to build a settlement and founders to found a city. And why one scout needs 3 dogs. Do they pull him or does he eat them eventually? Or is he actually a professional dog walker? Or this one. It did make sense when in previous civ games military fought barbarians and took their resources but now some soldiers just left resources and gold unprotected and unguarded for anyone, for some scout to take. And if the camp is destroyed and valuable resources are destroyed it will make your people happy. But why and who are those soldier anyway?
Civkind is going do ok for the console players for Pc gamers best wait for Civ 8
I dont think I am even going to buy humankind 2.
I can't imagine they'll make humankind 2 - original flopped
@@matthewhoag9892 You're missing the joke - many people are calling Civ VII 'Humankind 2' since it's definitely taking from that game's ideas.
Alternative is that I'm not missing the joke and I think it's a dumb joke @maynardburger
I'm just going to stick with civ 3.
I'll go with civ 4 please
Yeah really not a fan of the Civ switching. It may be more 'historical', but it's a Civ game, they've never been historical. I'd rather feel a deeper connection to the civ I play rather than have a small feeling of historical immersion in a game where you'll be running around with Giant Death Robots. (A shame considering i quite like a bunch of the new features like river navigation and crisis')
Everything showing Roman millitary triumph gets a thumb up from me. It seems like you could replicate a lot of Roman wars with those good looking units
The diplomatic scheme and the leaders awkward facial animations, I can't. Go back to Civ 5 please!
Transitions in Ages is just not fitting me, I'm sorry to say.
Denuvo and possible microtransactions in a full priced game = never buying nor playing nor watching anyone play.
These greedy corporate executives need to be history and I refuse to give them another inch or penny
Yeah Denuvo really does suck. I’m lucky to have a great PC but for those who don’t it’s just a drag to punish them on performance for being a legit customer.
What are the micro-transactions you’re speaking of?
@VanBradley they said in the first talk they were floating the idea about doing microtransactions instead of traditional DLC for features and leaders etc.
@@VanBradley Very few games with Denuvo have performance affected, and of those that do, it tends to be a developer fault of a too aggressive call implementation. There's also nothing greedy about not wanting people to steal your game. I do think Denuvo should be removed at some point, but I dont begrudge developers trying to stop thieves.
Not really a complaint but this looks a lot like millenia with better graphics.
No workers
Buildings take a hex
Age change...
All those things look really terrible yes
Eurekas were the most atrocious game design I had seen to date.
Interesting! I don’t feel that way at all. Cool to have people play the game and wind up with different opinions though
@@VanBradley The problem with it was that the tactical optimum would devalue the grand strategy.
You semi-randomly get Eurekas and have to throw away your research plan because a hundred percent boost is just too good to pass up. And the other way round: instead of just deciding on a research plan according to your needs and following it, you're now balancing Eurekas first, because of that damn boost.
And that was the problem with Civ6: minmaxing hell instead of overarching strategy.
If you had played Civ5 you'd know where I'm coming from.
@@heinzriemann3213what 100% boost? It is a 40% boost (50% for China, or if you're in a relevant golden age dedication)
@@matthewhoag9892 Doesn't it half the time needed for the science? That's double as fast, alas 100%.
No it's a fixed amount, 40% of the tech. 50% if you are in the free inquiry golden age @heinzriemann3213
Your overuse of the word immersion is going in the worst category for me
Lmao, so fair and valid!
I don't want to change Civs midgame, I hope it's an option, but not forced. I will not buy if it's forced.
Why would you want to stick with your original civ? It would not have any relevant abilities after the first era. That's kind of the whole point of the game. Everyone hates playing Sumeria because it is useless after war carts are obsolete.
@@jyutzler the whole point is to take a civ and alter the course of history with it
@@Bulgs_Alexiev The point is to build your empire from nothing to victory. Remember that in early versions, there were no real differences between civs. As unique things were introduced, the whole "one civ" model became obsolete because there is no way to make the unique things about historical civs relevant across the whole game. Either you got the edge from your uniqueness and snowballed or you ground it out with a vanilla civ because you are better than the AI.
You know you’re gonna buy regardless.
I actually am optimistic about the civ changing thing. Feels more like real history to me. I hope it works out well
I understand that people complain saying that it's not Civilization and all that but even if it is a Humankind 2 I think it will be a good game, much better than Humankind. I only found leaders, not look at me
So many of your questions have already been awensered... the fact you are making money from this yet don't know is profounding to me