I could be the odd one out, but when I play, my identity is more about the the civilization, than the leader. I rarely go back to my leaders page and think "ah yes, I'm Victoria". When I play, I'm playing Russia, not Peter. I'm playing as America, not Teddy. So for me, it would have made more sense to give me agency over choosing a new leader, within that civilization, at the start of a new age, rather than a whole new civilization.
That would be so weird tho, with few exceptions, most civs don't have leaders in every era! For example if youre America you would be George Washington leading the ancient Americans? Would there be any choice or would every civ just have a specific predetermined leader for each age? I get what you're saying, but I think what the team is doing makes A LOT more sense, both historically and from a gameplay standpoint
@@jackmckeown616 Tecumseh was around at the same time as George Washington, so if he's an "ancient" era leader, then... Idk. I think when we talk about Ancient, it's all relative. And Hatshepsut leading the Mongol empire makes more sense?
I'm with you, I never really cared about the leader, it was the civ I was interested in. I'm really excited about the art, unit changes and rivers. But the age's doesn't seem like a civilization game to me. I'll probably just wait for it to come out and see if I'll buy it
My Civ friends and I were just saying the same thing. I even find it annoying in Civ6 that the civ selection is done by leader. I always refer to which country I'm playing instead of the leader. The one exception is if I'm playing Ghandi and I declare a nuclear war.
I never even cared about the civ switching, I just hate the way the leaders look at each other in diplomacy instead of me. That's easily my most hated change with Civ 7. It removes all feeling that I am the leader, and they are insulting me, and declaring war on ME. Now I'm just watching two people put on an awkward stage play. I really wish they would have the leader face the camera again.
Its probably because they'll sell leader cosmetics as micro transactions which kinda sucks. I agree that it should be the leaders that are talking to us
10 civs per age does not seem like nearly enough for this kind of system. Hopefully that number is rapidly increased. With so few civs you're basically forced to follow unnatural paths or follow literally a single path every game and thus invalidate having a choice at all.
Absolutely not, i'm not bashing the game on design choices, but the DLC-reliance is VERY obvious, as long as 2K not make them add some form of MyFaction mode with gacha Civ leader cards, it would be okay.
The whole point of the older Civs was to "create a civilisation which will stand the test of time" - I swear that was the tagline of Civ 5. There were no cultural shifts or changes to your civ, because in the older games, the cultural shifts would have been caused diegetically by another civ invading and taking your city, or in shifting towards a different win condition.
If was on the front of the box of the very first game. It's the first impression of the entire series along with art juxtaposing modern skyscrapers with ancient tombs.
I'm seeing people act as if nobody actually cares about the tagline, but... It's literally the main appeal of the series to me, taking whoever you want through human history.
Imagine, 7th game in franchise doesn't have the same tagline as 5th one. The horror! Like, no way, tagline for Star Wars episode 5 was Empire Strikes Back, that means that episode 4 or 6 are not real SW because Empire isn't striking back in it. By your logic.
@@KasumiRINA A better analogy would be calling a movie Star Wars and then finding out that it's actually a horror movie set in the 19th century. I am all for games and franchises changing and evolving, but absolutely everyone, including influences who have played the game and are incentivised to be positive, has concerns over this decision because it's completely antithetical to the core principles of the franchise.
I don't mind the idea of changing leaders, just doesn't feel right swapping countries. Why not have the leaders develop over time such as if you play as England: Henry V, Elizabeth 1, Churchill etc
There's no way they can find leaders for every civ for all ages, what would Americans have in antiquity? England is one of the very few nations that lasted 1000 years, but they don't have anyone for classical antiquity.
I just wish they make Civ switching optional on settings, so we could Set each AI Civ to either follow their regional historical path (say East Asia, South Asia, Middle East+North Africa, Europe, America, Southern Africa...), or then let all or certain Civs go wild with swapping.
I forgot, also bring back to vanilla version real world map with True Starting Locations (TSL mode on Civ 5), most important feature for alternative reality gamer. And getting to start at any era with older era Civs would be perfect also.
Companies don't care about making games or even other media "fun" anymore. There are too many competing agendas. Fun is a tertiary consideration at best.
@@Deathwing-Y2K Aye, all companies located in the usa are both antifun and most cases also try stuff shitty woke nonsense in it, the problem when you let women start creating their matriarchal structures everywhere. They go nuts with their Denounce Exclude Indoctrinate doctrine. Also, civ7 is 0% a civgame, absolutely nothing makes sense, they say they grab relevant civs for the era but ignore all the most relevant ones as the woke muppets don't like them, one example being the english empire during the age of exploration as they were the most influential civ that affected and changed more others across the world than anyone else. (We've seen already just how much usa loves trying to rewrite history they don't like, instead of learning from it.) Units are all wrong,aesthetics are all wrong,everything's all wrong. Primitive iron armors and swords during age of exploration,ending the age with some handcannons? o.O The only folks that explored the world before handcannons and those armors stopped being used at all were the vikings, the early infantry shown for modern era was the actual baseline infantry for every european country before those countries started their exploration ventures. Bronze soldiers before bronzeworking? rofl Religion unavailable in the ancient era? yeah there definitely was no religion,suuuure. Hell, Rome was so saturated with christianity for such a long time it turned into the holy roman empire.. Not to mention islam and other religions going all out back then. No naval battles in ancient era? Historically it saw more naval battles than any other age basically, naval battles became more and more rare rather swiftly after cannons became a thing. (Possibly because of how much more difficult it became to salvage wrecks and repair or atelast reuse parts for a new vessel, as the cannons heavy weight also required more other weights to stabilize the vessels and you saw vast increase in vessels sinking and staying at the bottom.) And that's just the tip of the iceberg of just how crazy wrong it all is, not to mention how they're forcibly shoehorning you into specific play now instead of the freedom of old games.. Premade scenarios in old games got more freedom of choice in them than civ7. In other words, civ7 you pay for a single lousy premade standalone scenario without access to standardplay, with less content than any scenario in past games. Do yourselves a favor, ignore any game made in usa and you'll have a WAY easier time finding decent ones. It's been literally over a decade since last usa made a decent game. (Pay attention to where devs are, not necessarily the publisher even if the publisher CAN mess with things.) Just starve those us-devs until they learn the hard way their garbage wont be tolerated. I miss the good old times when games were made by players for players, all the good games come from such teams, every single one. Most devteams still have some players on them, and generally avoid having haters that hate players leading them, except for in usa where instead it's standard with haters that hate players steering the development and doing everything while the old playerprogrammers and such get tossed out because they're "disgusting players". (Might want to avoid british products too, as they've been far too muricanized with how much they've been bombarded with murican propaganda and brainwashing, that they're basically as bad as usa themselves nowadays.)
Something feels off about this approach. One of the things I like is the alternative history role-playing element of Civ where I can select a civilization and imagine a new path for them. Like what if Egypt or Rome never fell? Or what if the United States started off in the ancient world? Yes, some of these are more fanciful than others, but that is part of the fun. While I like the idea of civilizations undergoing changes between ages, I feel like the identity of the civilization is going to be lost when it changes into a completely different civilization. Yes, they explained they wanted to spotlight different civilizations and make sure the gameplay is balance, but it will be at the cost of something that I find core to Civilization (as a game series). This is not to say that the game will not be fun. It might end up being my favorite and I might love this mechanic. We will have to wait until the game is out.
I totally agree. That's how I play civ 6 too. When I start a game of civ 6, I spend several minutes before even starting the game choosing my civilization, and before the game even start, I already have in my head almost the scenario already developed. Of course, the plan doesn't always go as designed but it's also what make the charm of civ 6. Changing civs mid way almost feel like a reset and starting a new game for me. It's weird, but I have hope they made the system well and better compared to others (humankind comes to mind), so, let's cross our fingers and hope for the best! EDIT : I also feel that this system will be bad for modding civilizations... I spent dozens and dozens of games in civ 6 playing custom civs....
"What if Rome never fell" And as seen in previous Civ games, the issue is that for one, a Rome that never fell isn't going to have unique units or buildings past it's heyday unless you start getting into alt history (Testudo Landships?)
It's an easy fix too @@EdwardClayMeow. All they have to do is to keep the original civ one picks throughout the ages and v then add "characteristics" of whatever Civ one picks through time. For example, one can pick being America in the beginning of the civ but with Egyptian characteristics for the antiquity age. One goes to the exploration age as America with Egyptian characteristics and then select Mongolian characteristics in Exploration Age (You're still America). Once the actual option of America comes around (I'm assuming in modern age) then the true highlights of your chosen Civ comes around. And now you have this cool mish mosh of cultural characteristics but you're still America throughout the Ages. This really could be an easy fix.
That might be shocking information for you, but the people who founded the United States came from ancient times; they just didn’t call themselves Americans back then. This is exactly how the new game tries to portray it. Eventually, you’ll be able to play as, say, some Germanic tribes, the British Empire, and the United States, all in a way that is as historically accurate as possible within the context of a video game.
It is commonly presented as a mix and match style to games when giving these choices, but when power gamers get their hands on this min/maxing will flatten out that style and things tend to get more homogenous
I don't understand why they couldn't increase the significance of ages with different perks for the same civilization. Say, ancient Egypt gets a bonus for navigable river tiles, exploration age Egypt for science, and modernity Egypt for tourism. Just an example. But with strong enough and distinctive perks the three ages could have been just as significant playing the same civilization from start to finish, as with a civilization change. To me, having the possibility to change from ancient Greece, to the Aztecs, to modern day Japan, or seeing Banjamin Franklin, emperor of Ming China, is immersion breaking.
I agree. The age system would make more sense if it was more historically realistic. For example, you start as Rome, but then you can divert towards France, Spain, Italy, England or even Greece and Egypt during the 2nd age, then let's say you pick England or Spain you could end with the USA or Mexico. Or you could even stay Rome all the way in a rewritting of history where the empire never felt. Also, several base civs could lead towards the same ending, like you could start with Rome or the Apache and still end as the USA. It really makes little sense to start as Egyptians, then switch to Mongols, then end as India or whatever the choices are. The immortal leaders also don't make sense as you said. It would have been better to start as Caesar, then switch to Elizabeth and end playing as Roosevelt or stuff like that. Anyways, let's hope all this doesn't ruin the game and I will be able to invest the same dozens of hundred of hours I spent on civ 6!
Main issue is also culture-specific units and buildings, Egypt would have nothing past the antiquity age specific to it, and would fall behind civs that had special things in later ages. Even if they made new stuff for each individual Civ for every age (which more often than not wouldn’t make sense) that would be a MASSIVE amount of work and wouldn’t be worth it for the company.
@@seriousnesstv7902You claim that's immersion breaking while beeing fine with stone age George Washington leading an ethernal USA. You people are just mad your toy changed up a bit. And cite the maddest civ chains that aren't even confirmed in game. Bunch of Hypocrites
The civ switch is just so weird. If they wanted this strategy changing into each age that they claim, they could have a set of permanent buffs for each civ per each age and more than you can select through a game. Unique units and buildings could be part of this. Maybe you are playing a economic game and don’t want the unique unit. Great! Your choice. You build your civ as you go. Even made up unique units could be fun, especially for ancient civs. You could even have some buffs and unique items that span more than one civ. This just seems really poorly thought out. And this super buff for wonders specific to a civ is just… not Civ.
I liked Rise of Nations system shame they didn't follow it with each nation not being limited to their peak age and having modern Aztec or Mayan infantry. Civ kind of made civs playing outside of their own age boring, if you're USA, you play as genetics until when the game is nearly over, and if you're Egypt or Babylon, you're a generic thing by middle ages. This seems to be better as I ABSOLUTELY want Egyptians to get Ayyubid dynasty units as they evolve.
I think they have it backwards. I'd much prefer to switch leaders than civs. Even if we have to pick completely unrelated leaders to make it work. Tie each leader to an age, *maybe* group them into different regions to tone down the silliness a bit.
For real. It’s not hard to say “I’m playing America” and then people look for that flag as the game plays through instead of going “Oh who’s playing Abe?”
I think there's an easy workaround. Just select the Civ you want to be, select your leader, and then select what civ culture your Civ needs to be in Antiquity, Exploration, and Modern Ages. If you select the Mongols, you would be the Mongol empire with your leader but start with cultural characteristics of an Antiquity Age Civ. Your Civ's particular advantages would not take place until your Civ's age would come to play. What that means is that you would be X leader of Y Civ playing with Z Cultural characteristics in Antiquity Age. Once Antiquity Age ends, you would still be X leader of Y Civ and if your Civ is available in Exploration Age, then you have your own cultural characteristics, if not, you select an Exploration Age Civ's cultural characteristics. And so forth. That would keep your own Civ intact throughout the ages. Easy fix. Let's get it going!
These changes remind me of Command and Conquer 4. Devs be like, "We know how much people hate base building so we removed it from our RTS game." It failed so badly it killed the IP and the studio. Basically anyone who knows the franchise could tell you these are bad ideas. I mean they are basically ripping off a lot of features the knock off Civ game Humandkind did and that game didn't really do well. Yet these devs are like, that seems like a great idea we should copy it. EDIT: Or the terrible idea that was Sim City (The crappy always online one that they could not bother to add a number to so it would screw with search result because more bad ideas). It failed so hard it yet another game that killed a franchise but at least it inspired City Skylines to be made. Hopefully history will repeat itself with the crash and burn Civ 7 seems to be shaping up to be. As just like with the last Sim City game, I won't be buying Civ 7.
I think there should be an option to turn on or off the culture shift per game for those who just want to play one civilisation with transitioning to a completely different civ
You run outmof units, buidings etc… because early history civs Only have early history stuff! So you would fight with swordmans tanks and killer robots… fun? 😂😂😂 So no, it is not possible!
Mods are needed that make whole different age civs to early civs… so if you want to play Roma… modders need to make whole middle gaemroma with all units, buildings etc and another mld that makes whole new era roma version with all modern age things… it is big job to do even one age civ!
I don't understand why Civ folks couldn't allow us to stick with our Civ of our choice and then after every age give us the choice of adding cultures of these other civs but keeping our Civ in tact. Like Hatshepsut going from Egyptian to Egyptian with Abbasid characteristics but still being Egyptian. That wouldn't break any of Civ 7 new missions and ideas of other civ influences throughout history but still keep us connected to the civ we chose. Who cares about the leader. It's the civ we chose in the beginning that matters.
@@Daoisticrealism Yeah, I have honestly never cared about the leader, apart from their unique bonuses. For me it's always been about "I'm going to play as Rome", not "I'm going to play as Augustus Ceaser." They say they are listening to fans, but to me it doesn't sound like they even visited one forum. I honestly believe they saw this in Humankind and committed to it as a design feature, before Humankind released and flopped, and now they're putting makeup on a race horse with a broken leg trying to convince us to buy it.
@@VitZ9 Heck, they are not even listening to Sid Meier. He said once, "It’s all in your head. I thought the more realistic you made a game, the more historically accurate, [the more] the player would appreciate it. In reality, I was wrong." The game is turning into a realistic history lesson that a player, as a leader needs to traverse. Though that would be an interesting take in another game, this is not the MO of those who played it for a long time.
They should add the advisers back like civ revolution, nice being able to get hints when you need them. Plus helps rp better, and helps you feel like an actual leader with a cabinet of expert
From what we´ve seen in earlier livestreams there will be 4 advisors for military, finance, science and culture. Each one provides a certain instruction on how to flourish in that specific field. Also it was shown that the military advisor gives hints if one of your cities is defenseless, or an enemy army is closing in etc.
I am South African. I would rather play as Rome, Greace or Egypt... I do not want my country in the game. It is starting to sound more and more like they used a consulting company to do the market research....
Thats because the only historically noteworthy contribution South Africa has done... was apartheid bro. There are plenty of interesting, diverse, and historically significant civilizations from Africa that Firaxis would include before SA.
@serasivad I think you're missing the point. He's saying he rather have civs that are well known and influenced the world in big ways than obscure underrepresented civs for the sake of some corporate diversity quota. Also you don't have to put down South Africa down that was random 😂
The reasons are valid, the sollution its not. Augustus of Spain will never sound right. They literally choose the worse sollution for the problems they, rightly, identified
@@XGD5layer it would not. Actually, Gaius Marius, the man who made the most important reform in the Roman army, was from Spain. And this before Rome even becoming an Empire. That being said, in Civ 7, the transition from Rome to Spain or even worse, to Mongol or other civs make no sense. It would be a lot better if they choose to change bonuses or leaders or special units as time goes by
@@fabianocarbono As you said, some transitions would make sense, like Rome evolving towards Spain/France/Italy/Germany etc would make "sense" given their empire... But Egypt evolving into Mongolia? Wut?
are they really gonna have more leaders at launch than ever? because civ 2 actually had 42 different leaders, even though they only amounted to a different picture on a wall
The high bar of "Civilizations having prominence across all history" is just a ridiculous argument. America (USA) has featured in every civilization game and only been prominent for the last couple of hundred years. Same could be argued for nations like Scandinavian nations, whether as individual states or as the "Vikings". They've each had a period of prominence, but not across all of history. Or from the other perspective, Bronze and Iron Age civilizations that were wiped out, such as Babylon, Carthage or the Celts. While important for their periods, they were not prominent through history. There's only a very few civilizations such as as China and perhaps Egypt that can truly be said to fit that criteria. They have never held civilizations to that high standard, ever. It just sounds like a silly excuse they have thought up for why one has to switch civilizations. So more can be incorporated? Its not like previous titles didn't have Australia or Brazil. Important nations today, sure, but their footprint in history is very recent. They have included practically any civilization they wanted to anyway.
I think you missed the point of them saying that. They weren't saying in general, just specifically if they had gone with the "civ stacking" idea. If they did that, then it would be difficult to implement for lots of civs. It didn't matter in previous civ games because there was no civ stacking.
@@torbk If you've been watching their live streams, it's mostly been focused on how much time and money they spent meeting with cultural consultants for each Civ, learning about their cultures language, music, beliefs dress style, art, etc etc. They promised natural wonders will use their indigenous peoples names, not white colonizer names. There's been very little gameplay shown, and lots of vague statements like "naval combat is 10x better" with no game footage. In other words, I think it's safe to assume very little of the last 8 years of development has been spent on the game, with most time being spent checking their white male privilege, and focusing on increasing their cultural awareness of marginalised victims of evil, white Europeans. It's pretty clear based on all that effort, there aren't going to be many Civs in the game. They've announced 10 each era, but each era has an India's and China for example, so 10 unique Civs each era is highly unlikely.
@VitZ9 per that last statement, 10 unquie bonus and mechanical civs per era or locational civs per era. I would doubt that the Anchient Era India would share bonuses with the Modern Era India. Also it's not checking their white privilege as much as it's being respectful to the cultures they're trying to represent.
@@dylanu7896 I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Nobody is talking about sharing bonuses, a comment you've made on multiple other posts where people aren't talking about bonuses.
I still hate the idea of switching civs multiple times per game. It would've made a lot more sense to switch leaders, while still preserving the original idea of Civilization - taking your infant civilization from ancient times all the way to modern day.
@@KasumiRINA they using america as a bad example. but let me turn it into a good one, the whole switching should be like this: you choose sioux as your start (or an ancient tribe who existed back in that time, sorry im not the bast at ancient north american history, and i use america here as a continent, not as a country) when you switch ages next "logical" step you choose a tribe that survived into that age , next switch you can become the USA . linear logical historical switches. you could have cultural influences, like exploration age you get spanish influenced events or units or buildings, but you still the same old civ you choosen, but evolved. not switched into a totaly different nation
You switch twice. Literally just twice. Once so it makes sense to switch from ancient civs to exploration age civs, and once more for modern civs. You don’t switch from ancient civs to other ancient civs.
@Roxlimn "Just twice?" That's the problem... I don't want to play as 3 different Civilizations in a single game! What do you mean "literally twice" as if that's not the exact problem I'm complaining about? Did you think I was worried that playing as 4 different Civs in a single game was going overboard but 3 was ok? Or maybe just switching once would be fine & playing as 2 Civs was the cutoff? No - switching Civs throughout the game PERIOD is a terrible idea that literally nobody has ever asked for.
@@corey2232 So you hate the idea of switching civs. The fact that it happens more than once is incidental. Good to clear it up. I’m supposing you could just quit a game just before you switch ages.
Amount of civs combined with the age swapping is game breaking, as it will make Civ7 literally 1000x less variable than Civ6 at launch. Why no one is talking about that?! To be clear: I was perfectly fine with the civ swapping; i'm playing my power fantasy, not a Paradox historical game, so same way I dont mind reaching space with Babylonians or raiding early industrial Congo with my Aztec aircraft carriers, I do not mind converting Normans into Japanese. What lost me is the fact, that there will be only 10 civs per age to choose from. This is absurdly low; with them being (I assume) tailored towards specific playstyle / victory condition, this means that de facto it will be, what, 2-3 civs to choose from per victory type? This throws the replayability down the drain. Yes, I know, Civ6 had 18(19) at launch, this has nominally 30, so where's the problem? The problem is, that on an 8p map, in Civ6 you had almost 44K combinations! In Civ7, with 10 civs PER AGE, you will have...45 combinations. Becase also everyone progresses at once, you will always see nearly the same civs on the map. THIS is the real deal breaker for me
Very well put! I honestly expected 17-20 per age at launch considering the niche choices and focus on details. 10 is ridiculous. 3x the leaders was what I estimated and felt reasonable to make this concept work, see "representation"
That's for people who play huge maps, but if you played small or medium maps with no more than 8 civs as it is, it wouldn't be a huge difference. What irks me is having another Civ 5 situation when content will really depend on expansions, with first one likely adding information age and moving last tiers of currently "modern" units there. Also it seems they start on bronze age so another expansion could be adding to antiquity, there are no stone age units right now. And yeah it seems we will have nations patched, for example Japan has Ancient and Meiji Japanese cultures and feudal Exploration Japan added as DLC (just an example), same with Modern Egypt.
Civ IV had 18 civs with 26 leaders on launch. BTS has 34 civs with 52 leaders in total. If we are nice - and only count launch-day - will "Civ" VII have at least 18 civilizations and 26 leaders to choose from when starting a new game? Not likely. If they say only ten starting civs, that is eight fewer than Civ IV on launch-day. Again, the current developers don't know their own game's history. What a mess. And how do you even reach a victory-condition in "Civ" VII? Nobody has explained that as far as I have seen. Will civilizations such as Egypt and Rome never be able to win a game? That is just wrong.
The idea of game systems evolving through Ages is interesting. But I predict people will wind up playing a single Age, then after it ends, they'll find themselves drifting away or restarting a new map. Could be wrong, but nothing they've shown has convinced me this is going to create an enduring hook and keep that "one more turn" flow going.
I see your point, but I think maybe it could *potentially* "refresh" the playthrough a bit and keep the interest going. Instead of stretching the one faction's mechanics out over the whole game, you get to modify it and experience some new mechanics and visuals as you age-up. That could keep the interest up. We'll have to see where it lands, but there *is* potential there.
@TristandeRobillard Agreed, and I wouldn't be surprised if the core idea gets remixed or refined in future games. Something like evolving mechanics or changing civ bonuses through ages, rather than the civs themselves. But part of the fun / fantasy is taking a random culture through history, and I suspect this may be a huge issue when players get their hands on the game
Well, I think there was a crazy stat given that a staggering number of games never get finished so I think this could solve it in 2 ways. Playing the one age, especially the one you are more interested in and being done will probably drive that completion percentage up. The other thing that is key is having unique units and buildings in every age will definitely increase my engagement because on the old system, every game could feel very same-y except for the brief period you have your unique stuff. This should mix it up especially since you can change your path each game.
@@AT1972ASDF Totally valid. I myself had a very strong negative reaction to the idea at first, but I am quickly warming to it now that I see how it's working. That is to say, I know how people might feel this ruins the old Civ formula. I'm hoping that, in execution, on balance, the majority of players can find something to like in it. We'll have to see.
I think you hit it on the nose. another commenter said it could 'refresh' and thats also true, but i think its a big case of 'we'll see', because if it doenst *feel* different, its not gonna make people want to keep on. I'm worried, personally.
Yeah, like... You're telling me you dumbed down how eras work, and THEN gutted the entire concept of the game off of that? I just have no hope for this game's direction. The civ switching thing was a dealbreaker for me with humankind, and this is no exception. It just defeats all the fun of the concept for me, of silly shit like leading the Americans through prehistory or sending the Aztecs to space. They go on and on about "it was more historical this way" but fail to add gameplay elements that would actually immerse you in the historical angle of the game.
@@Americanbadashhso far 4-1 against you in this comment. 5 if you count me. Is it smart business decision to exclude 5 to inculde one? Its going fail.
The more I watch and listen to peeps views, I think this is going to fail. Players like to feel at one with the nation they are playing and don't embrace change to well.
Ah yes, because losing access to all unique units and playing with generic musketeers and modern tanks when I started as Rome was totally better before than an ability to have modern units for related culture.
I hope there will be a mod that lets me play at as any civ for any age including being one civ through the whole game. The option to switch is good, but, I don't think it should be mandatory.
The problem is… that mod needs to make civ to each Civilization to all eras, with all buildings, heroes, units for that era… it is huge job! Even one complete civ for one era takes a huge time to do all things that you need!
They are seemingly not having clear European paths for civs. Rome>HRE>Italy or Gaul>Brittany>France. This is an opportunity to add nations like Prussia, Hungary, Mexico, or any modern south American nation. If the Aztecs, Incans, and Mayans all go into Brazil and have no other choices then it is just insulting. Also I don't count all 3 versions of China or India as 3 separate civs adding to the count
@@dylanu7896 Many people have a poor education and mistakenly think that all these cultures are the same because… CHINA. These are probably the same people who believe modern Egypt has anything to do with ancient Egypt, or that Cleopatra was connected to the actual ancient Egyptian culture, rather than the Hellenistic culture she was part of.
Absolutely DLC bait, especially with pretty large market in Latin America and a good model to make people evolve from Pueblo or Olmec culture into modern states. Good for market, plus they are replacing the muscovites as 2K doesn't sell games to them, notice lack of focus on orks in promotion (they probably will be in but no point advertising as only MAGAturds want to play as medieval putinists).
Given the time scale between civs.. 1000 years lol, nah civ 5 2010, civ 6 2016, civ 7 2025, so the gap between civ 6 and 7 is the longest, civ 8... May not happen, if civ 7 does bad
It will definitely happen cause Civ is their flagship game and so far everyone has been successful so will this one despite the doubts even if it fails they have enough money and clouts to make an 8 game if its not fixed in the next 3 expansions
@@ThePetrovics yeah i am not a fan of some of the character designs and all but I remember people having reservations on the cartoon designs of civ 6 as compared to 5 thankfully there was mods
@@curlzncrush yeah. Not a huge fan of the 1 Unit per tile system. It's super easy to abuse. I pissed off one of my friends as he was tired of my dominating our group games so he made an empire set to conquest rush me in Civ 5 with the ability to produce tons of faith and purchase units with faith. He easily out produced me like 2 units for every one that I produced. Yet I swatted his forces away quite easily despite wave after wave because his tactics suck. With the 1 Unit Per Tile it's all about tactics, which if you are not good at you will get owned. The same is true of the AI which is horrible at tactics. I played on Deity and ended up 1 full tech behind the AI but they couldn't take my city because I kept wiping out their wave of units due to superior tactics. The only challenge I feel from the AI in Civ 5-6 is them massively out producing me and thus making me try to have to be super efficient with my cities because combat is not a challenge in the slightest unlike previous games. The sad part is the winning tactics is extremely basic. Pretty much Melee units in front, and range units behind. Don't really attack with melee units unless it's to finish off an enemy, instead they use their turn to heal so they can continue to tank. And the range units who can attack without getting hit back(unlike melee) take out enemy units. I easily go up against equal and large groups taking little to no loses. The AI and most players invest too heavily in melee units are restricted to how much damage they can bring to bear since they have to get adjacent to attack. And even then they take damage themselves when they attack meaning they are vulnerable to counter attacks after they made their attack. As such most of my unit loses are the result of just being so out numbered or over powered for tech disadvantage on higher difficulties that my melee units die before they can heal. But my range units still tend to take out whatever attacked the melee unit and I simply move a new melee unit into the front line. And it gets worst late game with range units that can shoot 3 tiles. It's like your turn you focus range fire on a few enemy units killing a couple while suffering ZERO damage. It's great :). But also makes game feel easy.
I hope there's a system in place where if you ace the "end of era crisis" you have the option to keep the civ you start with, similar rules to the golden and dark ages in Civ 6. Civ games have always been marketed with "Will your civ stand the test of time?" style phrasing and it would be nice to have the option to honour that legacy. Say the Roman Empire survives the Hun style invasion that is their first crisis, maybe keeping the civ as Rome into the next age makes second era crisis twice as hard, where they really struggle against the Black Death.
@@henrywill124 The problem with the "end of era" crisis is it's already confirmed to be always the same, every single game, and it doesn't follow through to the next era. So basically it's a forced military victory at the end of every ancient era, etc, and none of the mechanics you suggested that might make it more fun, will be included in the game.
@@petemagyar1445 Which would be…? What bonuses would exploration age Rome have? Modern age Rome? What unique units, buildings, what civic tree should they continue with? Why did you pick the choices you just imagined after reading this? The general idea has been to borrow from reasonable and identifiable traits of the irl civ in question, so for exploration age Rome that would be…oh wait, there is no exploration age or modern age Rome. The fantasy we imagine about Rome is precisely its antiquity marble building, imperialistic, etc legacy which says nothing about how they’d engage with global exploration or an industrial revolution. So your options are to have Rome outside of its appropriate age be this bland vanilla shell that isn’t too restricted in what it is to give the player some freedom in how they want to portray their civ, go complete sandbox and let the player evolve their civ into any age appropriate civ even if there is no logical causal link between the legacy civ and this new iteration, or give the player a limited list of options based on reasonable parameters and consequences from in game choices to reflect some form of internal consistency and realistic adaptation. The traditional civ approach never made much sense but it’s what people were used to and suspended their disbelief with some handwaive abstraction excuse. That’s neither how civs realistically evolve with time nor is it particularly flavorful gameplay. The complete sandbox option has its problems because it abandons any sense of continuity and narrative by prioritizing absolute freedom of choice.
@@sphaera2520 They are making each era have wildly different game systems so just give them some bonus that interacts with that in a way that feels "roman" it isn't that hard.
I’m hopeful for Civ 7. I think there’s something to be said for mixing things up and improvising so the franchise and genre doesn’t get stale. I know there are expectations set and things that make civ games feel like civ games. But I think the game industry get too insecure and complacent and don’t want to take risks and just make the same game.
Humankind has been out for years, with thousands of public reviews. The fact that devs looked at these, and then speficially implemented the mechanic that people HATED should tell you everything.
I think leadership style represented by leaders and personas changing through history is realistic for any 'civilisation'. Even the several hundred years of the Roman empire went through several shifts, and then there were the people's before and after it's rise and fall. No civ developed in isolation, there were both human and geographical contexts that led them to develop as they did. A randomised world with non-historic competition requires a flexibility. It's a game, inspired by but not limited to history, and looks like it might just be fun! Play the way you want and let me play the way I want, just as I have done since my first game of what we now consider Civ I.
Civ VII, should be called Leaders I. The game in which you would carry a civ through the ages is dead. Now it will be about how you carry a Leader throughout the ages and civs (or cultures). Very different and less interesting focus. I am vey concerned. And don't get me started on the detaching of yourself from the leader by having the leaders interact in the screen instead of with you. Basically, the main focus of the original CIV was how your chosen CIV would do through ages has changed to how this Leader with certain attributes can survive over the cultures and ages. Very disappointed and I will not feel so attached to this game as I have been since CIV 1. Sad.
@@XGD5layer In the real world, indeed, but in Civ, the focus was always to pick one civ and play that civ from A to Z. They changed a CORE mechanic of the game with this new system.. Let's see if it pays off.
@@XGD5layer Civilizations in real life, yes. Civ the game no. The fascinating thing about Civ the franchise for me was that it was a very self-controlled (some would say a self-centered "God mode") experience where the objective was for one to control a Civilization of your choice and carry it through time. It was very satisfying for Shaka's Civ, for example to be able to be roaming around in modern times next to London and New York. The leader was secondary it was one's purpose to lead the Civilization throughout time (just listen to the intro's video). This will no longer be the case. Civ 7 will be focused on your leader going through the changes of ages and cultures to see what type of Civilization carries through. It would have been better if we had the choice of being an Aztec Civ with an option to adopt whatever culture (American for example) but still be an Aztec Civ, than to remove our connection with it.
@@armelior4610 the Franks gave the Norseman invaders a place to live and it became Normandy, then the Normans conquered England, and ran around Italy and stuff. But while they were a part of France and spoke French, you can’t say France came from the Normans
@@armelior4610 the Norman’s were French yes, even in 1066 they weren’t really Vikings anymore. But saying the French developed from the Normans is a little backwards.
@@armelior4610 Normans are Frankified vikings. They're Norsemen who migrated from Scandinavia, nothing to do with Anglo-Saxon aristocracy, and during Plantagenet dynasty, royal family WAS Norman. Ethnically Norse, culturally French, and at this point mixed with locals into what now is English. German royal family (like the one existing to this day) was from later. BUT, that's in England, in other countries, i.e. Sicily or France, Normans mixed with OTHER locals and assimilated. Same story for varangians and rus', viking migrants in Eastern and Southern Europe.
The way that I see this game structure is that it will railroad you into the same play style over & over. You will take whichever civ in whichever age and always do the same things, build things in the same order & always build their unique wonder. Instead of having all wonders available to all players and you HAVING TO DECIDE if you want to prioritize that or not & make adjustments if you don't get said wonder you will just always do it. Balance is another concern here too, some buildings & wonders will always be better then others and it will again just railroad you into picking certain civs over others. Just my thoughts.
Humankind, the first civ-like game to have culture shifts, allowed you to choose the option of keeping your existing culture through multiple eras, or even for the whole game if you wish. It would be nice if Civ7 gave players that same option.
It defeats the purpose because a civ wouldn't have any benefits that are relevant in the next age. That's the whole reason why they're making you switch.
@@jyutzler There's ways around that. Benefits that all civs get in a particular era, or new benefits a civ can inherit if it is used in the next era. I'm sure there are other ways it could work too. If the choice is not there it's because the devs don't want the choice to be there not because they couldn't find relatively easy ways to make it work. Having the option would make the game more enjoyable I think.
@@519garbageman2 Yep. If you've been watching their live streams, it's mostly been focused on how much time and money they spent meeting with cultural consultants for each Civ, learning about their cultures language, music, beliefs, fashion, art, etc etc. They promised natural wonders will use their indigenous peoples names, not white colonizer names. There's been very little gameplay shown, and lots of vague statements like "naval combat is 10x better" with no game footage. In other words, I think it's safe to assume very little of the last 8 years of development has been spent on the game, with most time being spent checking their white male privilege, and focusing on increasing their cultural awareness of marginalised victims of those evil, white Europeans. 🙄
@@519garbageman2 Yep. If you've been watching their live streams, it's mostly been focused on how much time and money they spent meeting with cultural consultants for each Civ, learning about their cultures language, music, beliefs, fashion, art, etc etc. They promised natural wonders will use their indigenous peoples names, not white colonizer names. There's been very little gameplay shown, and lots of vague statements like "naval combat is 10x better" with no game footage. In other words, I think it's safe to assume very little of the last 8 years of development has been spent on the game, with most time being spent checking their white male privilege, and focusing on increasing their cultural awareness of marginalised victims of evil, white Europeans. 🙄
Looking at Ara Story Untold and its unusual choice for using Palmyra (which lasted a very short time), Civ VII seems to be headed into that way, too. Expansions with more leaders could definitely bring "one hit wonders" of civs and leaders.
One thing I'd love, off topic, would be able to move the camera like you see in the trailer. I love "pan across the land" angle. It gives you scope. If not I hop modders do it.
They bang on about how historically accurate they like to be and then implement this change which is absolutely idiotic. It's purely for gameplay banlance/ achieving their goals for gameplay. Completely destroys any accuracy they may be claiming to strive toward. Not to mention the entire design of the game is to destroy any snowballing possibilities, which is literally what makes civ fun. Ok it needed toning down but they're completely annihilating the concept within the game
My biggest concern to this civ switching system is going to be more prone to min maxing. In civ 5 and 6 the bonuses changed play style but not so much that you could achieve any victory maybe not on deity unless you got a really specific start. The civ choices were more flavor then anything but with civ changes I am worried that there could be synergies that will encourage min/maxing. civ 6 district bonuses made city building very monotonous and repetitive. I don’t think the new system will be monotonous because there is only 2 switches spread out but I am worried about it being repetitive
That's the problem that happened with Humankind, while in theory, you could play any combination of civs trough the ages, in practice, you always ended up playing the same civs again and again unless you wanted to make things difficult for yourself on purpose. All my games looked the same.
Really? I found pre-6 city building monotonous and repetitive. You know almost from turn 1 exactly what your build order will be. In 6, the map and your civ have a great impact on city build order.
They are more likely saying that other civilizations had no values to be there , I can’t imagine playing as Kongo and being forced to choose a another civ let say Belgium , it’s really hurtbreaking especially the stuff they did to us so I can’t imagine playing as them
With each civ now having an associated wonder, units and more i would love to see a historical victory conditions built into the game. If you played as Rome you must build the colleseum for example, you would need to kill 20 units with legions etc. There might be 4 or 5 targets you must meet before the age changes so you would have time pressure also. The civ switching thing would really lean into this mechanic to win outright you might need to achieve 12 things across 3 ages with 3 civs. This would be a welcome change from the traditional culture, science, domination victorys and really help with immersion.
The era change mechanic has the potential to be great. Cosmetically it would be really easy for them to allow you to maintain one civ identity all game long without changing this mechanic at all. Which I think is what people are really looking for. So you could take on the attributes of a civ change, but keep a continuous identity. Seems like an obvious and easy solution.
If anyone has been watching their live streams, you would notice it's mostly been focused on how much time and money they spent meeting with cultural consultants, learning about their cultures language, music, beliefs, fashion, art, etc. Which is nice, but based on how many little details they're including, it makes me think their won't be many Civs included at launch. This seems to be confirmed with their announcement of 10 Civs each era. They didn't say unique Civs, just 10 total per era. We already know India and China for example have a Civ varient in each era, and other countries like Japan and Russia could very likely be similar. I don't think we will get more than 10-15 unique Civs at launch. Basically, I'm worried this might be the most bare bones release of a base Civ game ever. I'm almost positive that instead of 30+ unique Civs, we will get limited Civs and instead get countless "leaders" to play with those limited Civ choices.
I don't quite see a world where Japan and Russia have similar bonuses as Civs. We have nearly every antiquity Civ shown already and all of them are pretty unique when compared to each other. I also think you're downplaying how much a leader bonus alters gameplay. Given that they bonuses seem incredibly strong and act as the greatest form of continuity across an entire campaign. Also 30 civs would be larger then civ 6 at launch
@@dylanu7896 You completely missed the point of everything in my post. I didn't say Japan and Russia will have similar bonuses, I said they could have a Civ variation each era. I'm sure the leader bonuses will be significant, but that doesn't mean it's not boring, and not what I want from a Civ game. I want to play as a Civilization, not a leader. I've never really cared about the leader anyway, it's always been about playing as Rome, or Japan, Russia, etc etc. I don't want to play as Confucius, I want to play as China. And yes, Civ6 had 12 Civs at launch, but now has 62. I don't think we'll get that many Civs in 7, maybe 20 total and a bunch of different leaders to use with them. Either way, it's not a Civ game anymore.
I wish they'd spend that money on making a FUN GAME first. If you start a new game project, and the first thing your dev team does is start watching Discovery Channel "for inspiration", then I can assure you I will not be buying the end product.
ive not looked into this at all, but from seeing this, my first impressions are that this is very dumb and i dont like it, and that this will be the very first civ game i will never buy and play. when i want to play as france, i do not want to start as rome, i want to start as france. when i want to play as rome, i do not want to switch to a different civ part way through the game. this system could be a fun thing to do as an optional gameplay mechanic. but it does not seem to be a choice, it seems you will be forced to switch to a different civ.
It's basically how most Civilizations came to be. Everyone is a mishmash of previous civilization's ideas. I think Humankind's mistake, and what I hope Civ 7 learns from, is to give VISIBLE, obvious, indications or representation of the history of your Civs thru the eras. In Humankind, there's almost no indication that my Modern French was previously Han and Sumerian except for some structures and units. Your choices should be reflected mechanically and more importantly VISUALLY . I'm not sure how best to implement it but I think it should be clear that my Civ in Civ 7 is, for example, Roman-Japanese-French. it will be challenging but if you're gonna do it, whole ass it. It should reflect on the name(s) of your Civ, your Leader should have the correspending dress code and accessories maybe, your districts/structures should reflect elements of all your Civs, and your army as well. It's gonna be wierd but IMO they should commit. It's basically character customization - If you're gonna offer me the idea of creating a custom Civ, go HAM and let me turn my Caesar, my armies, and my structures into Roman Samurai Cyborg weeb. It's a LOT of combinations and it's a lot to ask, but IMO if you're gonna do it, fully commit to it or don't implement Civ-swapping at all. Don't half-ass it like Humankind did.
The game Old World already demonstrated how engaging changing leaders over time is. All Civilization had to do was extend that into different era. If anything this makes me want to go back and play more Old World.
I believe they should add Thaddeus Kosciuszko as a leader. My reasoning is quote from Feliks Koneczny, the guy who coined term "Civilization" that we use. "All civilized humanity contributes to the glory of Kościuszko. There is no culture without reverence for his name. Whoever does not bow their head before this name is below the level of the average civilized man. Where the cult of Kościuszko ends, there ends civilization."
It's interesting to see the devs attempting to put a positive spin on the game's weaknesses. Personally, I love Civ 6 because it gives me choice. I can choose from literally dozens of different leaders depending on how I'm feeling that day. Civ 7 takes away choice and forces you down certain paths. That's why I'm waiting until I see what modders can do to bring back choice. I don't have a problem with the ages concept at all. I just want to be able to stick with the same civilization for an entire game.
Why would you want a civ that has no advantages outside its original era? I always found that annoying and it made me only want to play certain civs to knock the achievement off the list, not because they were fun to play.
@@jyutzler Why can't the advantages of civs change with the era rather than having to change civs? Why only a handful of choices? In Civ 6, I have found that I can win pretty much any victory condition with any civ. Some easier than others. Some are better at domination, some better at culture, some at science. I usually choose a civ based on how I'm feeling that day. I'm sure the devs have some reasoning for making it the way they did. It doesn't mean I have to buy in 100%. I will probably buy the game eventually, but not at its current price.
@@jyutzler All but like 3 civs in 6 had bonuses that didn't work the whole game. People like to use America as and example of a civ that doesn't have bonuses outside of its era, which is total bs (wildcard policy slot) and Bull Moose Teddy can start yield porn on turn 1.
@@petemagyar1445 Yes, but most of the bonuses overall are era specific, particularly unique units which are generally the most important and game-changing. And bonuses like free wildcard slot or free district slot (Germany) are really boring.
JumboPixel Sir, you have at least some power and leverage to raise this question: Why did the devs feel that the objective of "Build A CIV that would last the test of time" needed to be changed to "Direct a leader through different ages and civs?" Why?
Culture changes should be consistent. Have some primitive blank culture for the first 5 or 10 turns, then choose your civ, and then through the ages either change it or keep it.
I really think they should’ve gone with historical stacking, the way they did it with India looks good, for the Roman’s they should’ve used the republic of Venice or Florence instead of the Norman’s and instead of France in the modern era use the kingdom of Italy
@@Skeety08 Yes, but that would require more work. This game seems to follow the 2k philosophy of putting in less work and charging the player more for maximum shareholder profits.
I mean, it could just mean we’re likely to get more varied Civ paths as more civilizations are added to the game. ex: Rome -> Byzantine -> Ottoman Rome -> Carolingian -> Germany Gaul -> Carolingian -> France Greece -> Byzantine -> Ottoman Greece -> Kiev -> Russia Dacia -> Walachia -> Romania Achaemenid -> ? -> Iran
The real answer, not the pr one, is they clearly though humankind was going to be bigger than it ended up being, and moved to yoink some of its ideas, much like how they pulled districts from endless legend. Now they are stuck, because humankind almost instantly died due to this exact feature they copied, and are desperately trying to convince marks that this not civ is a proper civ because the name is slapped on it. Save your money kids. And Firaxis? try thinking up your own ideas again vs just stealing whatever amplitude came up with this time ey?
I actully like the idea of change civ in stages, which is present in Humankind. This idea can be very fun and huge in depth content. But the most important thing is that Civ7(as far as the content they have released) avoid most of the defect that present in Humankind: the civ change is a strategy, not a race (which you rush and fight for it in Humankind); the civ identity will continue be in your empire (which you lost mostly everything in Humankind); and indepth for evey stage of the civ (you have 6 stages and nearly 90 civs, but you only have 1 unit, 1 building, and 1 gimmick in each of them in Humankind). With carefull managment and establish, I would anticipate this time, it will be at much better shape to be put in the game.
@@petemagyar1445 it’s called an option nobody says you have to do it everytime. It’s there for people who want to jump into a game with a later age civilization.
@@TheSjuris It is still dumb to say that is you wanted to play a civ they whole time your only option is to play 1/3 of the game. And what happens if the late game is still crap? You are just fucked then.
@@petemagyar1445 there are 6 other versions of the game for you to choose from. But people want new version of the same game because they can’t handle change and wanna cry. Go buy Madden they keep releasing new versions of the same game every year.
First they stop listening to their own shill youtubers. I think personally i think its the no builder as number 1 problem . Then the 3 ages is too few. I'm not buying it for these reasons.
There really is an interesting problem with the southern hemisphere. Most known civilizations are northern hemisphere. There are complex geographical and historical reasons for that. Generally we only get Zulu, Maori and Inca south of the equator. The drivers for that are that the first two beat the British a few times in battle. The Inca gave us lots of gold silver, crops and architecture to work with so it always gets in but the major centers are on the equator. Australia did not develop because of a religious taboo on keeping the property of the dead or naming them. They therefore had no inheritance or accumulation of property. Cities and farms became impossible. However there are historical figures that can be tapped with a little research: Bennelong (Tribal Diplomat), Gringerry Kibba Colebee (Tribal Diplomat), Pemulwuy (War, fought colony at Sydney for 12 years), Gwoya Tjungurrayi NT (Survivor, law maker), David Ngunaitponi 'Unaipon' SA (Pastor, inventor), Douglas Nicholls (Lobbyist, pastor, governor). The question is how you deal with the regions and populations that never developed or were squashed. Other significant cases are the Botswanans, and Mapuche. Technically both are unconquered tribal nations in Africa and Argentina respectively. Over 50% of Argentineans are Mapuche decent. They became the first Gaucho's. It will be interesting to see if we get more southern hemisphere content.
No. The most debated changes are charging for cosmetics, putting in DRM that will affect your ability to mod the game, and having fewer starting civilizations than found on a standard sized map of any of their other games. And the reason for all of these things is simple: money. Why charge for cosmetics? Simple! They want to milk players out of more money Why throw in DRM? Because they likely want to protect the cosmetics they're charging people for. Why are there fewer civilizations starting a game? Because when you add more complexity onto older system requirements you have to make cuts to the game. Yes, you could cut the older consoles, but that means missing out on the money selling to those players. There answered all the questions.
It really just feels like they arbitrarily divided up the expected civilization game progression into three arbitrary portions for no real reason. Was anyone honestly clamouring for Firaxis to change the fact that you could play as George Washington in the bronze age, or that it was inconceivable how Augustus Caesar could end up in the information age? Was there some fan backlash against the idea of the Incans persisting in a what-if scenario of surviving the Spanish, or in bringing Sumeria out of antiquity? The actual mechanics themselves seem interesting, with leaders and civs getting more unique things like you're playing an age of empires game, but the framing for their implementation feels like a hamfisted solution to a problem no one was having.
Honestly think Civ is going down the best path they could've chosen. I think they should allow you to stick with the same Civ all the way through for the sake of player choice but I feel like if they did that people would very quickly realize they don't ever want to do that except for some kind of challenge. I've always felt a fundamental issue with civilizations were the fact that they are at their peak at drastically different parts of the game, which in of itself wouldn't be an issue if all phases of the game offered the same opportunities but they don't. Ancient Civs quickly become obsolete, especially if they're militaristic and war in the early game isn't rewarding enough to balance the cost. Then on the opposite end of the spectrum you have modern civs like America who might never see their unique buildings/units before the game is discarded, especially in online games. Having Eras as a checkpoint to then update the Civs means you always have an opportunity to reap the benefits of your choice, you don't need to feel like you've missed out on your chance to peak, grants more freedom of playstyle as you can shift to different benefits for your needs, and frankly just gives Civ games a second and third wind. I've yet to hear a compelling argument on why its a bad idea, one argument I heard is that Civ should be about having an empire that "stood the test of time" but personally I guess I just see it as one continuous civilization. If you went from the Normans, to English, to British, to me I would feel like you're playing one continuous, evolving civilization. Which both makes more sense and feels like it would be a lot more fun than playing an unchanging faction with outdated units/buildings/benefits by the next era.
This kind of approach is more suitable for a game where the civs and leaders are completely made up. Maybe it's a good idea for gameplay but it completely breaks the immersion for players.
I have played both Civ 6 and Humankind. If Civ 7 has linkage rules for the civilization changes, that is much better than the whatever you want of Humankind.
Going to start my Native American civilization settling The Great Lakes before evolving into Vikings and raiding the shores and then establishing my Shawnee States of America and manifest destiny my way through Canada and nobody can take away my excitement for that.
The more I Hear about Civ 7 the less I like and thus am willing to spend the $ on it. Only 10 Civs per age at launch. Heck my group will fight over about 5 civs to play.
I could be the odd one out, but when I play, my identity is more about the the civilization, than the leader. I rarely go back to my leaders page and think "ah yes, I'm Victoria". When I play, I'm playing Russia, not Peter. I'm playing as America, not Teddy. So for me, it would have made more sense to give me agency over choosing a new leader, within that civilization, at the start of a new age, rather than a whole new civilization.
@n8dizzlle you need to be hired by Fraxis! You hit it on the head. I have a bad feeling about this game
That would be so weird tho, with few exceptions, most civs don't have leaders in every era! For example if youre America you would be George Washington leading the ancient Americans? Would there be any choice or would every civ just have a specific predetermined leader for each age? I get what you're saying, but I think what the team is doing makes A LOT more sense, both historically and from a gameplay standpoint
@@jackmckeown616 Tecumseh was around at the same time as George Washington, so if he's an "ancient" era leader, then... Idk. I think when we talk about Ancient, it's all relative. And Hatshepsut leading the Mongol empire makes more sense?
I'm with you, I never really cared about the leader, it was the civ I was interested in. I'm really excited about the art, unit changes and rivers. But the age's doesn't seem like a civilization game to me. I'll probably just wait for it to come out and see if I'll buy it
My Civ friends and I were just saying the same thing. I even find it annoying in Civ6 that the civ selection is done by leader. I always refer to which country I'm playing instead of the leader. The one exception is if I'm playing Ghandi and I declare a nuclear war.
I never even cared about the civ switching, I just hate the way the leaders look at each other in diplomacy instead of me. That's easily my most hated change with Civ 7. It removes all feeling that I am the leader, and they are insulting me, and declaring war on ME. Now I'm just watching two people put on an awkward stage play. I really wish they would have the leader face the camera again.
Its probably because they'll sell leader cosmetics as micro transactions which kinda sucks. I agree that it should be the leaders that are talking to us
What a bizarre ego 😂
@@BocaoZ I mean it sorta makes sense, you are playing the leader of an empire after all.
@@BocaoZ The ability to self-insert is one of the major aspects of civ games
I would have like how Old World implements leaders. You are a family. Can your descendants last the test of time
10 civs per age does not seem like nearly enough for this kind of system. Hopefully that number is rapidly increased. With so few civs you're basically forced to follow unnatural paths or follow literally a single path every game and thus invalidate having a choice at all.
I can't wait for 3 meta civs per era to arise, and for at least 4 of them per era to be just boring regardless of strength
It's going to be like warhammer total war, you're going to be paying for three leader packs every few months, it's going to be horrific.
Absolutely not, i'm not bashing the game on design choices, but the DLC-reliance is VERY obvious, as long as 2K not make them add some form of MyFaction mode with gacha Civ leader cards, it would be okay.
@@balthus9105 exactly
The whole point of the older Civs was to "create a civilisation which will stand the test of time" - I swear that was the tagline of Civ 5. There were no cultural shifts or changes to your civ, because in the older games, the cultural shifts would have been caused diegetically by another civ invading and taking your city, or in shifting towards a different win condition.
If was on the front of the box of the very first game. It's the first impression of the entire series along with art juxtaposing modern skyscrapers with ancient tombs.
I'm seeing people act as if nobody actually cares about the tagline, but... It's literally the main appeal of the series to me, taking whoever you want through human history.
Imagine, 7th game in franchise doesn't have the same tagline as 5th one. The horror! Like, no way, tagline for Star Wars episode 5 was Empire Strikes Back, that means that episode 4 or 6 are not real SW because Empire isn't striking back in it. By your logic.
@@KasumiRINA A better analogy would be calling a movie Star Wars and then finding out that it's actually a horror movie set in the 19th century. I am all for games and franchises changing and evolving, but absolutely everyone, including influences who have played the game and are incentivised to be positive, has concerns over this decision because it's completely antithetical to the core principles of the franchise.
@@elriano1 Ye ngl your analogy works better.
I don't mind the idea of changing leaders, just doesn't feel right swapping countries. Why not have the leaders develop over time such as if you play as England: Henry V, Elizabeth 1, Churchill etc
There's no way they can find leaders for every civ for all ages, what would Americans have in antiquity? England is one of the very few nations that lasted 1000 years, but they don't have anyone for classical antiquity.
To me, "this could be fun" sounds like a perfect way of deciding on a GAME's features. They really should be doing more of that.
I just wish they make Civ switching optional on settings, so we could Set each AI Civ to either follow their regional historical path (say East Asia, South Asia, Middle East+North Africa, Europe, America, Southern Africa...), or then let all or certain Civs go wild with swapping.
I forgot, also bring back to vanilla version real world map with True Starting Locations (TSL mode on Civ 5), most important feature for alternative reality gamer. And getting to start at any era with older era Civs would be perfect also.
Companies don't care about making games or even other media "fun" anymore. There are too many competing agendas. Fun is a tertiary consideration at best.
@@Deathwing-Y2K
Aye, all companies located in the usa are both antifun and most cases also try stuff shitty woke nonsense in it, the problem when you let women start creating their matriarchal structures everywhere. They go nuts with their Denounce Exclude Indoctrinate doctrine.
Also, civ7 is 0% a civgame, absolutely nothing makes sense, they say they grab relevant civs for the era but ignore all the most relevant ones as the woke muppets don't like them, one example being the english empire during the age of exploration as they were the most influential civ that affected and changed more others across the world than anyone else. (We've seen already just how much usa loves trying to rewrite history they don't like, instead of learning from it.)
Units are all wrong,aesthetics are all wrong,everything's all wrong.
Primitive iron armors and swords during age of exploration,ending the age with some handcannons? o.O
The only folks that explored the world before handcannons and those armors stopped being used at all were the vikings, the early infantry shown for modern era was the actual baseline infantry for every european country before those countries started their exploration ventures.
Bronze soldiers before bronzeworking? rofl
Religion unavailable in the ancient era? yeah there definitely was no religion,suuuure.
Hell, Rome was so saturated with christianity for such a long time it turned into the holy roman empire..
Not to mention islam and other religions going all out back then.
No naval battles in ancient era? Historically it saw more naval battles than any other age basically, naval battles became more and more rare rather swiftly after cannons became a thing. (Possibly because of how much more difficult it became to salvage wrecks and repair or atelast reuse parts for a new vessel, as the cannons heavy weight also required more other weights to stabilize the vessels and you saw vast increase in vessels sinking and staying at the bottom.)
And that's just the tip of the iceberg of just how crazy wrong it all is, not to mention how they're forcibly shoehorning you into specific play now instead of the freedom of old games.. Premade scenarios in old games got more freedom of choice in them than civ7.
In other words, civ7 you pay for a single lousy premade standalone scenario without access to standardplay, with less content than any scenario in past games.
Do yourselves a favor, ignore any game made in usa and you'll have a WAY easier time finding decent ones. It's been literally over a decade since last usa made a decent game.
(Pay attention to where devs are, not necessarily the publisher even if the publisher CAN mess with things.)
Just starve those us-devs until they learn the hard way their garbage wont be tolerated.
I miss the good old times when games were made by players for players, all the good games come from such teams, every single one.
Most devteams still have some players on them, and generally avoid having haters that hate players leading them, except for in usa where instead it's standard with haters that hate players steering the development and doing everything while the old playerprogrammers and such get tossed out because they're "disgusting players".
(Might want to avoid british products too, as they've been far too muricanized with how much they've been bombarded with murican propaganda and brainwashing, that they're basically as bad as usa themselves nowadays.)
Something feels off about this approach. One of the things I like is the alternative history role-playing element of Civ where I can select a civilization and imagine a new path for them. Like what if Egypt or Rome never fell? Or what if the United States started off in the ancient world? Yes, some of these are more fanciful than others, but that is part of the fun. While I like the idea of civilizations undergoing changes between ages, I feel like the identity of the civilization is going to be lost when it changes into a completely different civilization. Yes, they explained they wanted to spotlight different civilizations and make sure the gameplay is balance, but it will be at the cost of something that I find core to Civilization (as a game series). This is not to say that the game will not be fun. It might end up being my favorite and I might love this mechanic. We will have to wait until the game is out.
I totally agree. That's how I play civ 6 too. When I start a game of civ 6, I spend several minutes before even starting the game choosing my civilization, and before the game even start, I already have in my head almost the scenario already developed. Of course, the plan doesn't always go as designed but it's also what make the charm of civ 6.
Changing civs mid way almost feel like a reset and starting a new game for me. It's weird, but I have hope they made the system well and better compared to others (humankind comes to mind), so, let's cross our fingers and hope for the best!
EDIT : I also feel that this system will be bad for modding civilizations... I spent dozens and dozens of games in civ 6 playing custom civs....
"What if Rome never fell" And as seen in previous Civ games, the issue is that for one, a Rome that never fell isn't going to have unique units or buildings past it's heyday unless you start getting into alt history (Testudo Landships?)
@@EdwardClayMeow
I think it's best to just consider this a spin off like Civ Revolution on the consoles.
Because this sure as fck isn't Civ.
It's an easy fix too @@EdwardClayMeow. All they have to do is to keep the original civ one picks throughout the ages and v then add "characteristics" of whatever Civ one picks through time. For example, one can pick being America in the beginning of the civ but with Egyptian characteristics for the antiquity age. One goes to the exploration age as America with Egyptian characteristics and then select Mongolian characteristics in Exploration Age (You're still America). Once the actual option of America comes around (I'm assuming in modern age) then the true highlights of your chosen Civ comes around. And now you have this cool mish mosh of cultural characteristics but you're still America throughout the Ages. This really could be an easy fix.
That might be shocking information for you, but the people who founded the United States came from ancient times; they just didn’t call themselves Americans back then. This is exactly how the new game tries to portray it. Eventually, you’ll be able to play as, say, some Germanic tribes, the British Empire, and the United States, all in a way that is as historically accurate as possible within the context of a video game.
It is commonly presented as a mix and match style to games when giving these choices, but when power gamers get their hands on this min/maxing will flatten out that style and things tend to get more homogenous
I don't understand why they couldn't increase the significance of ages with different perks for the same civilization. Say, ancient Egypt gets a bonus for navigable river tiles, exploration age Egypt for science, and modernity Egypt for tourism. Just an example. But with strong enough and distinctive perks the three ages could have been just as significant playing the same civilization from start to finish, as with a civilization change. To me, having the possibility to change from ancient Greece, to the Aztecs, to modern day Japan, or seeing Banjamin Franklin, emperor of Ming China, is immersion breaking.
Same. One of reasons Humankind did not suit me.
I agree. The age system would make more sense if it was more historically realistic. For example, you start as Rome, but then you can divert towards France, Spain, Italy, England or even Greece and Egypt during the 2nd age, then let's say you pick England or Spain you could end with the USA or Mexico. Or you could even stay Rome all the way in a rewritting of history where the empire never felt.
Also, several base civs could lead towards the same ending, like you could start with Rome or the Apache and still end as the USA. It really makes little sense to start as Egyptians, then switch to Mongols, then end as India or whatever the choices are.
The immortal leaders also don't make sense as you said. It would have been better to start as Caesar, then switch to Elizabeth and end playing as Roosevelt or stuff like that.
Anyways, let's hope all this doesn't ruin the game and I will be able to invest the same dozens of hundred of hours I spent on civ 6!
@@seriousnesstv7902 If you were a history fan you'd recognize Civ 7's system is more accurate to actual history
Main issue is also culture-specific units and buildings, Egypt would have nothing past the antiquity age specific to it, and would fall behind civs that had special things in later ages. Even if they made new stuff for each individual Civ for every age (which more often than not wouldn’t make sense) that would be a MASSIVE amount of work and wouldn’t be worth it for the company.
@@seriousnesstv7902You claim that's immersion breaking while beeing fine with stone age George Washington leading an ethernal USA. You people are just mad your toy changed up a bit. And cite the maddest civ chains that aren't even confirmed in game. Bunch of Hypocrites
The civ switch is just so weird. If they wanted this strategy changing into each age that they claim, they could have a set of permanent buffs for each civ per each age and more than you can select through a game. Unique units and buildings could be part of this. Maybe you are playing a economic game and don’t want the unique unit. Great! Your choice. You build your civ as you go. Even made up unique units could be fun, especially for ancient civs. You could even have some buffs and unique items that span more than one civ.
This just seems really poorly thought out. And this super buff for wonders specific to a civ is just… not Civ.
I liked Rise of Nations system shame they didn't follow it with each nation not being limited to their peak age and having modern Aztec or Mayan infantry. Civ kind of made civs playing outside of their own age boring, if you're USA, you play as genetics until when the game is nearly over, and if you're Egypt or Babylon, you're a generic thing by middle ages. This seems to be better as I ABSOLUTELY want Egyptians to get Ayyubid dynasty units as they evolve.
how many civ come gone in history so how it weird
I think they have it backwards. I'd much prefer to switch leaders than civs. Even if we have to pick completely unrelated leaders to make it work. Tie each leader to an age, *maybe* group them into different regions to tone down the silliness a bit.
For real. It’s not hard to say “I’m playing America” and then people look for that flag as the game plays through instead of going “Oh who’s playing Abe?”
They play tested it and found people found it confusing. Just because you don't doesn't mean everyone doesn't
I think there's an easy workaround. Just select the Civ you want to be, select your leader, and then select what civ culture your Civ needs to be in Antiquity, Exploration, and Modern Ages. If you select the Mongols, you would be the Mongol empire with your leader but start with cultural characteristics of an Antiquity Age Civ. Your Civ's particular advantages would not take place until your Civ's age would come to play. What that means is that you would be X leader of Y Civ playing with Z Cultural characteristics in Antiquity Age. Once Antiquity Age ends, you would still be X leader of Y Civ and if your Civ is available in Exploration Age, then you have your own cultural characteristics, if not, you select an Exploration Age Civ's cultural characteristics. And so forth. That would keep your own Civ intact throughout the ages. Easy fix. Let's get it going!
@@Americanbadashh almost like switching overall is just a bad friggin idea.
You could easily have an option to pick any leader from any civ as well if people wanted to mix things up.
What if I don't want to change civs?!
Play Civ 6
@@danganrama92 or Ara History Untold
@@danganrama92 Civ 5*
@@olanordmann2743 Agreed
@@olanordmann2743 Or the good one CIV 4.
These changes remind me of Command and Conquer 4. Devs be like, "We know how much people hate base building so we removed it from our RTS game." It failed so badly it killed the IP and the studio.
Basically anyone who knows the franchise could tell you these are bad ideas. I mean they are basically ripping off a lot of features the knock off Civ game Humandkind did and that game didn't really do well. Yet these devs are like, that seems like a great idea we should copy it.
EDIT: Or the terrible idea that was Sim City (The crappy always online one that they could not bother to add a number to so it would screw with search result because more bad ideas). It failed so hard it yet another game that killed a franchise but at least it inspired City Skylines to be made. Hopefully history will repeat itself with the crash and burn Civ 7 seems to be shaping up to be. As just like with the last Sim City game, I won't be buying Civ 7.
I think there should be an option to turn on or off the culture shift per game for those who just want to play one civilisation with transitioning to a completely different civ
Enjoy the steam workshop and try not to complain when the game feels off at times because of your circumventing of the principle design
You run outmof units, buidings etc… because early history civs Only have early history stuff! So you would fight with swordmans tanks and killer robots… fun?
😂😂😂
So no, it is not possible!
Mods are needed that make whole different age civs to early civs… so if you want to play Roma… modders need to make whole middle gaemroma with all units, buildings etc and another mld that makes whole new era roma version with all modern age things… it is big job to do even one age civ!
@@dylanu7896 Well when that principle design is total garbage, not really a bad thing
I don't understand why Civ folks couldn't allow us to stick with our Civ of our choice and then after every age give us the choice of adding cultures of these other civs but keeping our Civ in tact. Like Hatshepsut going from Egyptian to Egyptian with Abbasid characteristics but still being Egyptian. That wouldn't break any of Civ 7 new missions and ideas of other civ influences throughout history but still keep us connected to the civ we chose. Who cares about the leader. It's the civ we chose in the beginning that matters.
@@Daoisticrealism Yeah, I have honestly never cared about the leader, apart from their unique bonuses.
For me it's always been about "I'm going to play as Rome", not "I'm going to play as Augustus Ceaser."
They say they are listening to fans, but to me it doesn't sound like they even visited one forum. I honestly believe they saw this in Humankind and committed to it as a design feature, before Humankind released and flopped, and now they're putting makeup on a race horse with a broken leg trying to convince us to buy it.
@@VitZ9 Heck, they are not even listening to Sid Meier. He said once, "It’s all in your head. I thought the more realistic you made a game, the more historically accurate, [the more] the player would appreciate it. In reality, I was wrong." The game is turning into a realistic history lesson that a player, as a leader needs to traverse. Though that would be an interesting take in another game, this is not the MO of those who played it for a long time.
@@DaoisticrealismI'd rather play EU4, or EU5 for historical accuracy.
They should add the advisers back like civ revolution, nice being able to get hints when you need them. Plus helps rp better, and helps you feel like an actual leader with a cabinet of expert
The leader of a cabinet effect is a great point - and what a good way to describe it!
From what we´ve seen in earlier livestreams there will be 4 advisors for military, finance, science and culture. Each one provides a certain instruction on how to flourish in that specific field. Also it was shown that the military advisor gives hints if one of your cities is defenseless, or an enemy army is closing in etc.
@@grosserjo673 but will the culture advisor be a cheesy Elvis impersonator? Gotta have that
Advisors, palaces and throne rooms for atmosphere are really good!
I am South African. I would rather play as Rome, Greace or Egypt... I do not want my country in the game. It is starting to sound more and more like they used a consulting company to do the market research....
Thats because the only historically noteworthy contribution South Africa has done... was apartheid bro. There are plenty of interesting, diverse, and historically significant civilizations from Africa that Firaxis would include before SA.
@@serasivad like Rhodesia
INCLUSIVE.
Inclusive.
@serasivad I think you're missing the point. He's saying he rather have civs that are well known and influenced the world in big ways than obscure underrepresented civs for the sake of some corporate diversity quota. Also you don't have to put down South Africa down that was random 😂
You already had Shaka and the Zulus
The reasons are valid, the sollution its not. Augustus of Spain will never sound right. They literally choose the worse sollution for the problems they, rightly, identified
Would it shock you to know that the Spanish lead the Roman empire after being integrated into it and gaining power?
@@XGD5layer it would not. Actually, Gaius Marius, the man who made the most important reform in the Roman army, was from Spain. And this before Rome even becoming an Empire. That being said, in Civ 7, the transition from Rome to Spain or even worse, to Mongol or other civs make no sense. It would be a lot better if they choose to change bonuses or leaders or special units as time goes by
@@fabianocarbono As you said, some transitions would make sense, like Rome evolving towards Spain/France/Italy/Germany etc would make "sense" given their empire... But Egypt evolving into Mongolia? Wut?
@@ChristDuque Germany coming from Roma would make no sense.
As opposed to Abraham Lincoln king of Ancient Americans, founding Washington in 3000 B.C. that was really historical!
The game will be released on many platforms at once. I’m concerned about potential optimization issues.
are they really gonna have more leaders at launch than ever? because civ 2 actually had 42 different leaders, even though they only amounted to a different picture on a wall
The high bar of "Civilizations having prominence across all history" is just a ridiculous argument. America (USA) has featured in every civilization game and only been prominent for the last couple of hundred years. Same could be argued for nations like Scandinavian nations, whether as individual states or as the "Vikings". They've each had a period of prominence, but not across all of history. Or from the other perspective, Bronze and Iron Age civilizations that were wiped out, such as Babylon, Carthage or the Celts. While important for their periods, they were not prominent through history. There's only a very few civilizations such as as China and perhaps Egypt that can truly be said to fit that criteria. They have never held civilizations to that high standard, ever. It just sounds like a silly excuse they have thought up for why one has to switch civilizations. So more can be incorporated? Its not like previous titles didn't have Australia or Brazil. Important nations today, sure, but their footprint in history is very recent. They have included practically any civilization they wanted to anyway.
I think you missed the point of them saying that. They weren't saying in general, just specifically if they had gone with the "civ stacking" idea. If they did that, then it would be difficult to implement for lots of civs. It didn't matter in previous civ games because there was no civ stacking.
@@torbk
If you've been watching their live streams, it's mostly been focused on how much time and money they spent meeting with cultural consultants for each Civ, learning about their cultures language, music, beliefs dress style, art, etc etc. They promised natural wonders will use their indigenous peoples names, not white colonizer names. There's been very little gameplay shown, and lots of vague statements like "naval combat is 10x better" with no game footage.
In other words, I think it's safe to assume very little of the last 8 years of development has been spent on the game, with most time being spent checking their white male privilege, and focusing on increasing their cultural awareness of marginalised victims of evil, white Europeans.
It's pretty clear based on all that effort, there aren't going to be many Civs in the game. They've announced 10 each era, but each era has an India's and China for example, so 10 unique Civs each era is highly unlikely.
@VitZ9 per that last statement, 10 unquie bonus and mechanical civs per era or locational civs per era. I would doubt that the Anchient Era India would share bonuses with the Modern Era India. Also it's not checking their white privilege as much as it's being respectful to the cultures they're trying to represent.
@@dylanu7896
I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. Nobody is talking about sharing bonuses, a comment you've made on multiple other posts where people aren't talking about bonuses.
It's always been a bit ridiculous to start in the ancient age with teddy roosevelt in a buttoned up suit and tie. I like this system in a way.
I still hate the idea of switching civs multiple times per game. It would've made a lot more sense to switch leaders, while still preserving the original idea of Civilization - taking your infant civilization from ancient times all the way to modern day.
ITT people crying over removing Ancient Americans lmao.
@@KasumiRINA they using america as a bad example. but let me turn it into a good one, the whole switching should be like this: you choose sioux as your start (or an ancient tribe who existed back in that time, sorry im not the bast at ancient north american history, and i use america here as a continent, not as a country) when you switch ages next "logical" step you choose a tribe that survived into that age , next switch you can become the USA . linear logical historical switches. you could have cultural influences, like exploration age you get spanish influenced events or units or buildings, but you still the same old civ you choosen, but evolved. not switched into a totaly different nation
You switch twice. Literally just twice. Once so it makes sense to switch from ancient civs to exploration age civs, and once more for modern civs. You don’t switch from ancient civs to other ancient civs.
@Roxlimn "Just twice?" That's the problem... I don't want to play as 3 different Civilizations in a single game! What do you mean "literally twice" as if that's not the exact problem I'm complaining about?
Did you think I was worried that playing as 4 different Civs in a single game was going overboard but 3 was ok? Or maybe just switching once would be fine & playing as 2 Civs was the cutoff? No - switching Civs throughout the game PERIOD is a terrible idea that literally nobody has ever asked for.
@@corey2232 So you hate the idea of switching civs. The fact that it happens more than once is incidental. Good to clear it up. I’m supposing you could just quit a game just before you switch ages.
Amount of civs combined with the age swapping is game breaking, as it will make Civ7 literally 1000x less variable than Civ6 at launch. Why no one is talking about that?! To be clear: I was perfectly fine with the civ swapping; i'm playing my power fantasy, not a Paradox historical game, so same way I dont mind reaching space with Babylonians or raiding early industrial Congo with my Aztec aircraft carriers, I do not mind converting Normans into Japanese. What lost me is the fact, that there will be only 10 civs per age to choose from. This is absurdly low; with them being (I assume) tailored towards specific playstyle / victory condition, this means that de facto it will be, what, 2-3 civs to choose from per victory type? This throws the replayability down the drain. Yes, I know, Civ6 had 18(19) at launch, this has nominally 30, so where's the problem? The problem is, that on an 8p map, in Civ6 you had almost 44K combinations! In Civ7, with 10 civs PER AGE, you will have...45 combinations. Becase also everyone progresses at once, you will always see nearly the same civs on the map. THIS is the real deal breaker for me
Very well put! I honestly expected 17-20 per age at launch considering the niche choices and focus on details. 10 is ridiculous. 3x the leaders was what I estimated and felt reasonable to make this concept work, see "representation"
That's for people who play huge maps, but if you played small or medium maps with no more than 8 civs as it is, it wouldn't be a huge difference. What irks me is having another Civ 5 situation when content will really depend on expansions, with first one likely adding information age and moving last tiers of currently "modern" units there. Also it seems they start on bronze age so another expansion could be adding to antiquity, there are no stone age units right now. And yeah it seems we will have nations patched, for example Japan has Ancient and Meiji Japanese cultures and feudal Exploration Japan added as DLC (just an example), same with Modern Egypt.
Civ IV had 18 civs with 26 leaders on launch. BTS has 34 civs with 52 leaders in total. If we are nice - and only count launch-day - will "Civ" VII have at least 18 civilizations and 26 leaders to choose from when starting a new game? Not likely. If they say only ten starting civs, that is eight fewer than Civ IV on launch-day.
Again, the current developers don't know their own game's history. What a mess.
And how do you even reach a victory-condition in "Civ" VII? Nobody has explained that as far as I have seen. Will civilizations such as Egypt and Rome never be able to win a game? That is just wrong.
I’m stoked for this new approach!
The idea of game systems evolving through Ages is interesting. But I predict people will wind up playing a single Age, then after it ends, they'll find themselves drifting away or restarting a new map. Could be wrong, but nothing they've shown has convinced me this is going to create an enduring hook and keep that "one more turn" flow going.
I see your point, but I think maybe it could *potentially* "refresh" the playthrough a bit and keep the interest going. Instead of stretching the one faction's mechanics out over the whole game, you get to modify it and experience some new mechanics and visuals as you age-up. That could keep the interest up. We'll have to see where it lands, but there *is* potential there.
@TristandeRobillard Agreed, and I wouldn't be surprised if the core idea gets remixed or refined in future games. Something like evolving mechanics or changing civ bonuses through ages, rather than the civs themselves. But part of the fun / fantasy is taking a random culture through history, and I suspect this may be a huge issue when players get their hands on the game
Well, I think there was a crazy stat given that a staggering number of games never get finished so I think this could solve it in 2 ways. Playing the one age, especially the one you are more interested in and being done will probably drive that completion percentage up. The other thing that is key is having unique units and buildings in every age will definitely increase my engagement because on the old system, every game could feel very same-y except for the brief period you have your unique stuff. This should mix it up especially since you can change your path each game.
@@AT1972ASDF Totally valid. I myself had a very strong negative reaction to the idea at first, but I am quickly warming to it now that I see how it's working. That is to say, I know how people might feel this ruins the old Civ formula. I'm hoping that, in execution, on balance, the majority of players can find something to like in it. We'll have to see.
I think you hit it on the nose. another commenter said it could 'refresh' and thats also true, but i think its a big case of 'we'll see', because if it doenst *feel* different, its not gonna make people want to keep on. I'm worried, personally.
Its rly sad but i hate what this game has become.
Unfortunately my excitement for this game just keeps getting lower and lower.
Mines getting higher and higher
@@Americanbadashhwhat’s your bmi
@@seriousnesstv7902 They took the weakest feature from Humankind and copied it. Just dumb.
Yeah, like... You're telling me you dumbed down how eras work, and THEN gutted the entire concept of the game off of that? I just have no hope for this game's direction. The civ switching thing was a dealbreaker for me with humankind, and this is no exception. It just defeats all the fun of the concept for me, of silly shit like leading the Americans through prehistory or sending the Aztecs to space. They go on and on about "it was more historical this way" but fail to add gameplay elements that would actually immerse you in the historical angle of the game.
@@Americanbadashhso far 4-1 against you in this comment. 5 if you count me. Is it smart business decision to exclude 5 to inculde one? Its going fail.
1:24 Okay Firaxis, where is representation for 30 million South Slavs? SImeon, Tomislav, Dušan, Tvrtko, Tito? Where are they?
Mods…
Slazem se
The more I watch and listen to peeps views, I think this is going to fail. Players like to feel at one with the nation they are playing and don't embrace change to well.
Ah yes, because losing access to all unique units and playing with generic musketeers and modern tanks when I started as Rome was totally better before than an ability to have modern units for related culture.
@@KasumiRINA the fact taht a lot of you only see a civs uniqueness in their units is sad
@@KasumiRINA "related culture" please explain what connects Mongolia to Egypt
I hope there will be a mod that lets me play at as any civ for any age including being one civ through the whole game. The option to switch is good, but, I don't think it should be mandatory.
The problem is… that mod needs to make civ to each Civilization to all eras, with all buildings, heroes, units for that era… it is huge job!
Even one complete civ for one era takes a huge time to do all things that you need!
@@haukionkannel lets face it, there will be some crazy people who make mods to do it xD
@@haukionkannelModder here for Civ V and VI. It actually isn’t that time consuming or difficult at all.
Military unit skill tree is the one feature i was hoping the most for, so hyped. Hopefully combat will be as complex strategy-wise as in Old World
They are seemingly not having clear European paths for civs. Rome>HRE>Italy or Gaul>Brittany>France. This is an opportunity to add nations like Prussia, Hungary, Mexico, or any modern south American nation. If the Aztecs, Incans, and Mayans all go into Brazil and have no other choices then it is just insulting. Also I don't count all 3 versions of China or India as 3 separate civs adding to the count
Why not count three version of India and China if each era has all the unique elements of a civ?
@@dylanu7896 Many people have a poor education and mistakenly think that all these cultures are the same because… CHINA. These are probably the same people who believe modern Egypt has anything to do with ancient Egypt, or that Cleopatra was connected to the actual ancient Egyptian culture, rather than the Hellenistic culture she was part of.
Absolutely DLC bait, especially with pretty large market in Latin America and a good model to make people evolve from Pueblo or Olmec culture into modern states. Good for market, plus they are replacing the muscovites as 2K doesn't sell games to them, notice lack of focus on orks in promotion (they probably will be in but no point advertising as only MAGAturds want to play as medieval putinists).
When is Civ 8 coming out?
Given the time scale between civs.. 1000 years lol, nah civ 5 2010, civ 6 2016, civ 7 2025, so the gap between civ 6 and 7 is the longest, civ 8... May not happen, if civ 7 does bad
It will definitely happen cause Civ is their flagship game and so far everyone has been successful so will this one despite the doubts even if it fails they have enough money and clouts to make an 8 game if its not fixed in the next 3 expansions
@@shyamsundarrajan2469 this might be their flop, i dont want to, but form what we see, it can be.
yeap, "skip turn" button for this game for me as well :D
@@ThePetrovics yeah i am not a fan of some of the character designs and all but I remember people having reservations on the cartoon designs of civ 6 as compared to 5 thankfully there was mods
This is still going to be the first civ game I am not buying, because of the civ switching.
Same here. It reminds me of Humankind which did the same thing and it sucked there too.
I have noticed an overall decline in game quality since IV and I cannot stop noticing this pattern.
@@curlzncrush yeah. Not a huge fan of the 1 Unit per tile system. It's super easy to abuse. I pissed off one of my friends as he was tired of my dominating our group games so he made an empire set to conquest rush me in Civ 5 with the ability to produce tons of faith and purchase units with faith.
He easily out produced me like 2 units for every one that I produced. Yet I swatted his forces away quite easily despite wave after wave because his tactics suck. With the 1 Unit Per Tile it's all about tactics, which if you are not good at you will get owned.
The same is true of the AI which is horrible at tactics. I played on Deity and ended up 1 full tech behind the AI but they couldn't take my city because I kept wiping out their wave of units due to superior tactics.
The only challenge I feel from the AI in Civ 5-6 is them massively out producing me and thus making me try to have to be super efficient with my cities because combat is not a challenge in the slightest unlike previous games.
The sad part is the winning tactics is extremely basic. Pretty much Melee units in front, and range units behind. Don't really attack with melee units unless it's to finish off an enemy, instead they use their turn to heal so they can continue to tank. And the range units who can attack without getting hit back(unlike melee) take out enemy units. I easily go up against equal and large groups taking little to no loses.
The AI and most players invest too heavily in melee units are restricted to how much damage they can bring to bear since they have to get adjacent to attack. And even then they take damage themselves when they attack meaning they are vulnerable to counter attacks after they made their attack.
As such most of my unit loses are the result of just being so out numbered or over powered for tech disadvantage on higher difficulties that my melee units die before they can heal. But my range units still tend to take out whatever attacked the melee unit and I simply move a new melee unit into the front line.
And it gets worst late game with range units that can shoot 3 tiles. It's like your turn you focus range fire on a few enemy units killing a couple while suffering ZERO damage. It's great :). But also makes game feel easy.
@@PyroMancer2k That's a whole ass essay bro. I'm not reading all that but I'm either happy for you or sorry that happened.
I hope there's a system in place where if you ace the "end of era crisis" you have the option to keep the civ you start with, similar rules to the golden and dark ages in Civ 6. Civ games have always been marketed with "Will your civ stand the test of time?" style phrasing and it would be nice to have the option to honour that legacy. Say the Roman Empire survives the Hun style invasion that is their first crisis, maybe keeping the civ as Rome into the next age makes second era crisis twice as hard, where they really struggle against the Black Death.
But the rome civ would not have any relevant traits in exploration era
@@henrywill124
The problem with the "end of era" crisis is it's already confirmed to be always the same, every single game, and it doesn't follow through to the next era.
So basically it's a forced military victory at the end of every ancient era, etc, and none of the mechanics you suggested that might make it more fun, will be included in the game.
@@xelohi4686 Then give them relevant bonuses
@@petemagyar1445 Which would be…? What bonuses would exploration age Rome have? Modern age Rome? What unique units, buildings, what civic tree should they continue with? Why did you pick the choices you just imagined after reading this?
The general idea has been to borrow from reasonable and identifiable traits of the irl civ in question, so for exploration age Rome that would be…oh wait, there is no exploration age or modern age Rome. The fantasy we imagine about Rome is precisely its antiquity marble building, imperialistic, etc legacy which says nothing about how they’d engage with global exploration or an industrial revolution. So your options are to have Rome outside of its appropriate age be this bland vanilla shell that isn’t too restricted in what it is to give the player some freedom in how they want to portray their civ, go complete sandbox and let the player evolve their civ into any age appropriate civ even if there is no logical causal link between the legacy civ and this new iteration, or give the player a limited list of options based on reasonable parameters and consequences from in game choices to reflect some form of internal consistency and realistic adaptation.
The traditional civ approach never made much sense but it’s what people were used to and suspended their disbelief with some handwaive abstraction excuse. That’s neither how civs realistically evolve with time nor is it particularly flavorful gameplay. The complete sandbox option has its problems because it abandons any sense of continuity and narrative by prioritizing absolute freedom of choice.
@@sphaera2520 They are making each era have wildly different game systems so just give them some bonus that interacts with that in a way that feels "roman" it isn't that hard.
I’m hopeful for Civ 7. I think there’s something to be said for mixing things up and improvising so the franchise and genre doesn’t get stale. I know there are expectations set and things that make civ games feel like civ games. But I think the game industry get too insecure and complacent and don’t want to take risks and just make the same game.
Nothing about this feels like Civ.
yea. 33 years is now getting gutted
Humankind has been out for years, with thousands of public reviews. The fact that devs looked at these, and then speficially implemented the mechanic that people HATED should tell you everything.
I think its fair to say Firaxis Games dont understand what made CIV games good.
Just another gaming company where the passionate and the innovators (the soul of the company) has been replaced by the managerial class.
I think leadership style represented by leaders and personas changing through history is realistic for any 'civilisation'. Even the several hundred years of the Roman empire went through several shifts, and then there were the people's before and after it's rise and fall. No civ developed in isolation, there were both human and geographical contexts that led them to develop as they did. A randomised world with non-historic competition requires a flexibility. It's a game, inspired by but not limited to history, and looks like it might just be fun! Play the way you want and let me play the way I want, just as I have done since my first game of what we now consider Civ I.
The leaders don't change just the civs in each era.
I'm just curious if they will learn from HUMANKIND's mistakes or repeat the exact same mistakes but with a Civ coating...
Civ VII, should be called Leaders I. The game in which you would carry a civ through the ages is dead. Now it will be about how you carry a Leader throughout the ages and civs (or cultures). Very different and less interesting focus. I am vey concerned. And don't get me started on the detaching of yourself from the leader by having the leaders interact in the screen instead of with you. Basically, the main focus of the original CIV was how your chosen CIV would do through ages has changed to how this Leader with certain attributes can survive over the cultures and ages. Very disappointed and I will not feel so attached to this game as I have been since CIV 1. Sad.
Civilizations have always changed and evolved. The history we're taught is heavily simplified to keep things manageable for the layman
@@XGD5layer In the real world, indeed, but in Civ, the focus was always to pick one civ and play that civ from A to Z. They changed a CORE mechanic of the game with this new system.. Let's see if it pays off.
@@XGD5layer Civilizations in real life, yes. Civ the game no. The fascinating thing about Civ the franchise for me was that it was a very self-controlled (some would say a self-centered "God mode") experience where the objective was for one to control a Civilization of your choice and carry it through time. It was very satisfying for Shaka's Civ, for example to be able to be roaming around in modern times next to London and New York. The leader was secondary it was one's purpose to lead the Civilization throughout time (just listen to the intro's video). This will no longer be the case. Civ 7 will be focused on your leader going through the changes of ages and cultures to see what type of Civilization carries through. It would have been better if we had the choice of being an Aztec Civ with an option to adopt whatever culture (American for example) but still be an Aztec Civ, than to remove our connection with it.
Civilizations change, that's part of what makes them civilizations.
This just makes it more civilization.
@@tutkarz You haven't even play it.
I’m not sure you know who the Normans were. They aren’t the Franks.
Yes they're the English aristocracy - except the royal family, which is German 😄
@@armelior4610 the Franks gave the Norseman invaders a place to live and it became Normandy, then the Normans conquered England, and ran around Italy and stuff. But while they were a part of France and spoke French, you can’t say France came from the Normans
@@TheCsel technically today Normans are French since Normandy is still a thing, but you're right, not Franks at all
@@armelior4610 the Norman’s were French yes, even in 1066 they weren’t really Vikings anymore. But saying the French developed from the Normans is a little backwards.
@@armelior4610 Normans are Frankified vikings. They're Norsemen who migrated from Scandinavia, nothing to do with Anglo-Saxon aristocracy, and during Plantagenet dynasty, royal family WAS Norman. Ethnically Norse, culturally French, and at this point mixed with locals into what now is English. German royal family (like the one existing to this day) was from later. BUT, that's in England, in other countries, i.e. Sicily or France, Normans mixed with OTHER locals and assimilated. Same story for varangians and rus', viking migrants in Eastern and Southern Europe.
With every new piece of info about Civ VII I hate it more. This is just not Civ, this is a mess.
I REALLY doubt that Civ 7 is going to stand the test of time
Hoping it goes the route of BE and gets canned early so we can cut to Civ 8 and bring the core gameplay back
@Keygentlemen "Cut to Civ 8" and we wait another 9 years 😂 then what?
The way that I see this game structure is that it will railroad you into the same play style over & over. You will take whichever civ in whichever age and always do the same things, build things in the same order & always build their unique wonder. Instead of having all wonders available to all players and you HAVING TO DECIDE if you want to prioritize that or not & make adjustments if you don't get said wonder you will just always do it. Balance is another concern here too, some buildings & wonders will always be better then others and it will again just railroad you into picking certain civs over others. Just my thoughts.
This game is going to be so small, if we have a maximum of ten civs then I guess the maps aren't going to be that big.
and player number is cut back as well.
Humankind, the first civ-like game to have culture shifts, allowed you to choose the option of keeping your existing culture through multiple eras, or even for the whole game if you wish. It would be nice if Civ7 gave players that same option.
It defeats the purpose because a civ wouldn't have any benefits that are relevant in the next age. That's the whole reason why they're making you switch.
@@jyutzler There's ways around that. Benefits that all civs get in a particular era, or new benefits a civ can inherit if it is used in the next era. I'm sure there are other ways it could work too. If the choice is not there it's because the devs don't want the choice to be there not because they couldn't find relatively easy ways to make it work. Having the option would make the game more enjoyable I think.
@@jyutzler They had a solution for that before, it was giving civs bonuses that were always in effect instead of forcing them to change
"player representation"
....oh boy, I know where this is heading...
Self inserts! 😆
Towards the toilet. They say, "representation and inclusion"; I hear, "blatant racism and idiocy".
@@519garbageman2
Yep.
If you've been watching their live streams, it's mostly been focused on how much time and money they spent meeting with cultural consultants for each Civ, learning about their cultures language, music, beliefs, fashion, art, etc etc. They promised natural wonders will use their indigenous peoples names, not white colonizer names. There's been very little gameplay shown, and lots of vague statements like "naval combat is 10x better" with no game footage.
In other words, I think it's safe to assume very little of the last 8 years of development has been spent on the game, with most time being spent checking their white male privilege, and focusing on increasing their cultural awareness of marginalised victims of those evil, white Europeans. 🙄
@@519garbageman2
Yep.
If you've been watching their live streams, it's mostly been focused on how much time and money they spent meeting with cultural consultants for each Civ, learning about their cultures language, music, beliefs, fashion, art, etc etc. They promised natural wonders will use their indigenous peoples names, not white colonizer names. There's been very little gameplay shown, and lots of vague statements like "naval combat is 10x better" with no game footage.
In other words, I think it's safe to assume very little of the last 8 years of development has been spent on the game, with most time being spent checking their white male privilege, and focusing on increasing their cultural awareness of marginalised victims of evil, white Europeans. 🙄
Let's be honest, it is boring to have too many European Civs that basically look and play the same.
Looking at Ara Story Untold and its unusual choice for using Palmyra (which lasted a very short time), Civ VII seems to be headed into that way, too. Expansions with more leaders could definitely bring "one hit wonders" of civs and leaders.
One thing I'd love, off topic, would be able to move the camera like you see in the trailer. I love "pan across the land" angle. It gives you scope. If not I hop modders do it.
I understand issues with this system, but I think it'll at least be interesting to see how it plays out.
at start horribly, but they might be fix it and change it after feedback
They bang on about how historically accurate they like to be and then implement this change which is absolutely idiotic. It's purely for gameplay banlance/ achieving their goals for gameplay. Completely destroys any accuracy they may be claiming to strive toward.
Not to mention the entire design of the game is to destroy any snowballing possibilities, which is literally what makes civ fun. Ok it needed toning down but they're completely annihilating the concept within the game
My biggest concern to this civ switching system is going to be more prone to min maxing. In civ 5 and 6 the bonuses changed play style but not so much that you could achieve any victory maybe not on deity unless you got a really specific start. The civ choices were more flavor then anything but with civ changes I am worried that there could be synergies that will encourage min/maxing. civ 6 district bonuses made city building very monotonous and repetitive. I don’t think the new system will be monotonous because there is only 2 switches spread out but I am worried about it being repetitive
That's the problem that happened with Humankind, while in theory, you could play any combination of civs trough the ages, in practice, you always ended up playing the same civs again and again unless you wanted to make things difficult for yourself on purpose. All my games looked the same.
Really? I found pre-6 city building monotonous and repetitive. You know almost from turn 1 exactly what your build order will be. In 6, the map and your civ have a great impact on city build order.
@@jyutzler no me, after 700 hours in 5 I still play by ear. I always build a farm first but that’s about it.
They are more likely saying that other civilizations had no values to be there , I can’t imagine playing as Kongo and being forced to choose a another civ let say Belgium , it’s really hurtbreaking especially the stuff they did to us so I can’t imagine playing as them
didnt realize i wasnt even subbed. hope you get to 100k!
With each civ now having an associated wonder, units and more i would love to see a historical victory conditions built into the game. If you played as Rome you must build the colleseum for example, you would need to kill 20 units with legions etc. There might be 4 or 5 targets you must meet before the age changes so you would have time pressure also. The civ switching thing would really lean into this mechanic to win outright you might need to achieve 12 things across 3 ages with 3 civs. This would be a welcome change from the traditional culture, science, domination victorys and really help with immersion.
The era change mechanic has the potential to be great. Cosmetically it would be really easy for them to allow you to maintain one civ identity all game long without changing this mechanic at all. Which I think is what people are really looking for. So you could take on the attributes of a civ change, but keep a continuous identity. Seems like an obvious and easy solution.
It really feels like they are betting the farm on these ideas and I think it is gonna back fire on them in a big way
The design doesn't matter when they are putting malware in it.
2021: oh no humankind is copying civ
2024: oh no civ is copying humankind
ouch...sad but true
Who could've guessed that Civilization would be the real Civ Killer
@@TheGrayFox3012 did you ever heard the tale of sid meiers civ the 7th? ....ironic, he could save other games from failure, but not himself.
Not going to lie but after ARA. Not touching for at least 1 year if ever
If anyone has been watching their live streams, you would notice it's mostly been focused on how much time and money they spent meeting with cultural consultants, learning about their cultures language, music, beliefs, fashion, art, etc.
Which is nice, but based on how many little details they're including, it makes me think their won't be many Civs included at launch.
This seems to be confirmed with their announcement of 10 Civs each era. They didn't say unique Civs, just 10 total per era. We already know India and China for example have a Civ varient in each era, and other countries like Japan and Russia could very likely be similar. I don't think we will get more than 10-15 unique Civs at launch.
Basically, I'm worried this might be the most bare bones release of a base Civ game ever. I'm almost positive that instead of 30+ unique Civs, we will get limited Civs and instead get countless "leaders" to play with those limited Civ choices.
I don't quite see a world where Japan and Russia have similar bonuses as Civs. We have nearly every antiquity Civ shown already and all of them are pretty unique when compared to each other.
I also think you're downplaying how much a leader bonus alters gameplay. Given that they bonuses seem incredibly strong and act as the greatest form of continuity across an entire campaign.
Also 30 civs would be larger then civ 6 at launch
@@dylanu7896
You completely missed the point of everything in my post.
I didn't say Japan and Russia will have similar bonuses, I said they could have a Civ variation each era.
I'm sure the leader bonuses will be significant, but that doesn't mean it's not boring, and not what I want from a Civ game. I want to play as a Civilization, not a leader. I've never really cared about the leader anyway, it's always been about playing as Rome, or Japan, Russia, etc etc. I don't want to play as Confucius, I want to play as China.
And yes, Civ6 had 12 Civs at launch, but now has 62. I don't think we'll get that many Civs in 7, maybe 20 total and a bunch of different leaders to use with them.
Either way, it's not a Civ game anymore.
@@VitZ9 I can hear Ara: History Untold breathing a sigh of relief after Civ 7 mechanics announcement, also the game has 39 civs on release.
Its the cultural phenomenon of today, too much focus on the exterior and not enough on the interior
I wish they'd spend that money on making a FUN GAME first. If you start a new game project, and the first thing your dev team does is start watching Discovery Channel "for inspiration", then I can assure you I will not be buying the end product.
ive not looked into this at all, but from seeing this, my first impressions are that this is very dumb and i dont like it, and that this will be the very first civ game i will never buy and play.
when i want to play as france, i do not want to start as rome, i want to start as france.
when i want to play as rome, i do not want to switch to a different civ part way through the game.
this system could be a fun thing to do as an optional gameplay mechanic. but it does not seem to be a choice, it seems you will be forced to switch to a different civ.
It's basically how most Civilizations came to be. Everyone is a mishmash of previous civilization's ideas.
I think Humankind's mistake, and what I hope Civ 7 learns from, is to give VISIBLE, obvious, indications or representation of the history of your Civs thru the eras. In Humankind, there's almost no indication that my Modern French was previously Han and Sumerian except for some structures and units.
Your choices should be reflected mechanically and more importantly VISUALLY . I'm not sure how best to implement it but I think it should be clear that my Civ in Civ 7 is, for example, Roman-Japanese-French. it will be challenging but if you're gonna do it, whole ass it. It should reflect on the name(s) of your Civ, your Leader should have the correspending dress code and accessories maybe, your districts/structures should reflect elements of all your Civs, and your army as well. It's gonna be wierd but IMO they should commit. It's basically character customization - If you're gonna offer me the idea of creating a custom Civ, go HAM and let me turn my Caesar, my armies, and my structures into Roman Samurai Cyborg weeb.
It's a LOT of combinations and it's a lot to ask, but IMO if you're gonna do it, fully commit to it or don't implement Civ-swapping at all. Don't half-ass it like Humankind did.
The game Old World already demonstrated how engaging changing leaders over time is. All Civilization had to do was extend that into different era. If anything this makes me want to go back and play more Old World.
Except Old World was a market failure. It never got over the hump of being an extremely niche game.
I believe they should add Thaddeus Kosciuszko as a leader.
My reasoning is quote from Feliks Koneczny, the guy who coined term "Civilization" that we use.
"All civilized humanity contributes to the glory of Kościuszko. There is no culture without reverence for his name. Whoever does not bow their head before this name is below the level of the average civilized man. Where the cult of Kościuszko ends, there ends civilization."
It's interesting to see the devs attempting to put a positive spin on the game's weaknesses. Personally, I love Civ 6 because it gives me choice. I can choose from literally dozens of different leaders depending on how I'm feeling that day. Civ 7 takes away choice and forces you down certain paths. That's why I'm waiting until I see what modders can do to bring back choice. I don't have a problem with the ages concept at all. I just want to be able to stick with the same civilization for an entire game.
Why would you want a civ that has no advantages outside its original era? I always found that annoying and it made me only want to play certain civs to knock the achievement off the list, not because they were fun to play.
@@jyutzler Why can't the advantages of civs change with the era rather than having to change civs? Why only a handful of choices? In Civ 6, I have found that I can win pretty much any victory condition with any civ. Some easier than others. Some are better at domination, some better at culture, some at science. I usually choose a civ based on how I'm feeling that day. I'm sure the devs have some reasoning for making it the way they did. It doesn't mean I have to buy in 100%. I will probably buy the game eventually, but not at its current price.
@@jyutzler All but like 3 civs in 6 had bonuses that didn't work the whole game. People like to use America as and example of a civ that doesn't have bonuses outside of its era, which is total bs (wildcard policy slot) and Bull Moose Teddy can start yield porn on turn 1.
@@petemagyar1445 Yes, but most of the bonuses overall are era specific, particularly unique units which are generally the most important and game-changing. And bonuses like free wildcard slot or free district slot (Germany) are really boring.
@@jyutzler Maybe it is just my play style, but I barely pay attention to UUs, the ai is just so bad at war that they never really matter to me
Ah yes, DEI
JumboPixel Sir, you have at least some power and leverage to raise this question: Why did the devs feel that the objective of "Build A CIV that would last the test of time" needed to be changed to "Direct a leader through different ages and civs?" Why?
Culture changes should be consistent. Have some primitive blank culture for the first 5 or 10 turns, then choose your civ, and then through the ages either change it or keep it.
cant wait
There has to be a wall covered by Venn diagrams of leaders & civilizations somewhere in Firaxis HQ.
I really think they should’ve gone with historical stacking, the way they did it with India looks good, for the Roman’s they should’ve used the republic of Venice or Florence instead of the Norman’s and instead of France in the modern era use the kingdom of Italy
Or make it into Byzantium, the same Roman empire, which lasted until 1453
I bet the idea was scrapped specifically because of the USA. They would need to replace Native Americans, and that's a no-no.
@@Skeety08 Yes, but that would require more work.
This game seems to follow the 2k philosophy of putting in less work and charging the player more for maximum shareholder profits.
I'm in on the Normans
@@VitZ9 tfw fog of war cosmetic DLC
do you think theyll add tsl earth?
Arguably, the Normans became the English. They didn't become the French, that was the Carolingians.
I mean, it could just mean we’re likely to get more varied Civ paths as more civilizations are added to the game.
ex:
Rome -> Byzantine -> Ottoman
Rome -> Carolingian -> Germany
Gaul -> Carolingian -> France
Greece -> Byzantine -> Ottoman
Greece -> Kiev -> Russia
Dacia -> Walachia -> Romania
Achaemenid -> ? -> Iran
@@GreenKnight343 This would be acceptable and a cool feature, to me at least. Watch it not happen.
@@anarchy_79 yeah, I might be getting my hopes up a bit much
The real answer, not the pr one, is they clearly though humankind was going to be bigger than it ended up being, and moved to yoink some of its ideas, much like how they pulled districts from endless legend.
Now they are stuck, because humankind almost instantly died due to this exact feature they copied, and are desperately trying to convince marks that this not civ is a proper civ because the name is slapped on it.
Save your money kids.
And Firaxis? try thinking up your own ideas again vs just stealing whatever amplitude came up with this time ey?
I actully like the idea of change civ in stages, which is present in Humankind. This idea can be very fun and huge in depth content. But the most important thing is that Civ7(as far as the content they have released) avoid most of the defect that present in Humankind: the civ change is a strategy, not a race (which you rush and fight for it in Humankind); the civ identity will continue be in your empire (which you lost mostly everything in Humankind); and indepth for evey stage of the civ (you have 6 stages and nearly 90 civs, but you only have 1 unit, 1 building, and 1 gimmick in each of them in Humankind). With carefull managment and establish, I would anticipate this time, it will be at much better shape to be put in the game.
It's nice to see that firaxis still has a serious commitment to their flagship title. Would love to see them bring back Brian Reynolds
I thought it was Denuvo.
Same but I think they will completely ignore that (including content creators)
Oh. So this game has only 10 Civs on launch (who cares about next eras? Only antique Civilizations are start options for full game).
You can start is a different age if you choose so.
@@TheSjuris And who is realistically going to do that every game?
@@petemagyar1445 it’s called an option nobody says you have to do it everytime. It’s there for people who want to jump into a game with a later age civilization.
@@TheSjuris It is still dumb to say that is you wanted to play a civ they whole time your only option is to play 1/3 of the game. And what happens if the late game is still crap? You are just fucked then.
@@petemagyar1445 there are 6 other versions of the game for you to choose from. But people want new version of the same game because they can’t handle change and wanna cry. Go buy Madden they keep releasing new versions of the same game every year.
First they stop listening to their own shill youtubers. I think personally i think its the no builder as number 1 problem . Then the 3 ages is too few. I'm not buying it for these reasons.
There really is an interesting problem with the southern hemisphere. Most known civilizations are northern hemisphere. There are complex geographical and historical reasons for that. Generally we only get Zulu, Maori and Inca south of the equator. The drivers for that are that the first two beat the British a few times in battle. The Inca gave us lots of gold silver, crops and architecture to work with so it always gets in but the major centers are on the equator.
Australia did not develop because of a religious taboo on keeping the property of the dead or naming them. They therefore had no inheritance or accumulation of property. Cities and farms became impossible. However there are historical figures that can be tapped with a little research: Bennelong (Tribal Diplomat), Gringerry Kibba Colebee (Tribal Diplomat), Pemulwuy (War, fought colony at Sydney for 12 years), Gwoya Tjungurrayi NT (Survivor, law maker), David Ngunaitponi 'Unaipon' SA (Pastor, inventor), Douglas Nicholls (Lobbyist, pastor, governor).
The question is how you deal with the regions and populations that never developed or were squashed. Other significant cases are the Botswanans, and Mapuche. Technically both are unconquered tribal nations in Africa and Argentina respectively. Over 50% of Argentineans are Mapuche decent. They became the first Gaucho's. It will be interesting to see if we get more southern hemisphere content.
@Jumbo What do you think of Civ copying Humankinds home work?
No. The most debated changes are charging for cosmetics, putting in DRM that will affect your ability to mod the game, and having fewer starting civilizations than found on a standard sized map of any of their other games. And the reason for all of these things is simple: money.
Why charge for cosmetics? Simple! They want to milk players out of more money
Why throw in DRM? Because they likely want to protect the cosmetics they're charging people for.
Why are there fewer civilizations starting a game? Because when you add more complexity onto older system requirements you have to make cuts to the game. Yes, you could cut the older consoles, but that means missing out on the money selling to those players.
There answered all the questions.
It really just feels like they arbitrarily divided up the expected civilization game progression into three arbitrary portions for no real reason. Was anyone honestly clamouring for Firaxis to change the fact that you could play as George Washington in the bronze age, or that it was inconceivable how Augustus Caesar could end up in the information age? Was there some fan backlash against the idea of the Incans persisting in a what-if scenario of surviving the Spanish, or in bringing Sumeria out of antiquity?
The actual mechanics themselves seem interesting, with leaders and civs getting more unique things like you're playing an age of empires game, but the framing for their implementation feels like a hamfisted solution to a problem no one was having.
You still can play bronze age 100 dollar guy here tho.
Thanks for awsome coverage of Civ 7 news 😁
Honestly think Civ is going down the best path they could've chosen. I think they should allow you to stick with the same Civ all the way through for the sake of player choice but I feel like if they did that people would very quickly realize they don't ever want to do that except for some kind of challenge.
I've always felt a fundamental issue with civilizations were the fact that they are at their peak at drastically different parts of the game, which in of itself wouldn't be an issue if all phases of the game offered the same opportunities but they don't. Ancient Civs quickly become obsolete, especially if they're militaristic and war in the early game isn't rewarding enough to balance the cost. Then on the opposite end of the spectrum you have modern civs like America who might never see their unique buildings/units before the game is discarded, especially in online games.
Having Eras as a checkpoint to then update the Civs means you always have an opportunity to reap the benefits of your choice, you don't need to feel like you've missed out on your chance to peak, grants more freedom of playstyle as you can shift to different benefits for your needs, and frankly just gives Civ games a second and third wind.
I've yet to hear a compelling argument on why its a bad idea, one argument I heard is that Civ should be about having an empire that "stood the test of time" but personally I guess I just see it as one continuous civilization. If you went from the Normans, to English, to British, to me I would feel like you're playing one continuous, evolving civilization. Which both makes more sense and feels like it would be a lot more fun than playing an unchanging faction with outdated units/buildings/benefits by the next era.
This kind of approach is more suitable for a game where the civs and leaders are completely made up. Maybe it's a good idea for gameplay but it completely breaks the immersion for players.
I have played both Civ 6 and Humankind. If Civ 7 has linkage rules for the civilization changes, that is much better than the whatever you want of Humankind.
Part of the Civ experience is figuring out how to play and win. Civ 7 will be a different game puzzle from Civ 6.
What about map size ? It is very important.
Should be optional
Going to start my Native American civilization settling The Great Lakes before evolving into Vikings and raiding the shores and then establishing my Shawnee States of America and manifest destiny my way through Canada and nobody can take away my excitement for that.
So for all intense and purposes, Civilization 7 is launching with 10 civs.
But will it have a strong female lead?
If they give an option to turn off Civ switching. Make the dialogue camera first person and fix the art. They’ll have my money.
The more I Hear about Civ 7 the less I like and thus am willing to spend the $ on it. Only 10 Civs per age at launch. Heck my group will fight over about 5 civs to play.
There should be a game mode where you can switch leaders. You turn it on you can do so. You don’t you stay the civ you picked to start the game.