CIV 7: LEADERS, AGES & CIVS - The Controversial Changes of Civilization 7

[@sattm8230]

A very large part of what makes Civ fun to play is the narrative you create as a player playing a nation. I would have preferred, if anything, the nation stays the same and the leader changes.

[@Blandge]

That doesn't disappear here at all, it's just different

[@Harris2bro9]

"sorry dude thats not inclusiive enough" - Larry Fink -Blackrock CEO

[@ladahieno2382]

Yeah, that would have been great

[@Jaapst]

@@Harris2bro9yeah every civilization is equal to the other right? It’s all the same it just looks different..

[@khatack]

Or here's a radical idea: nothing needs to change. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

[@AT1972ASDF]

I've been playing since Civ 2. My excitement at the Gameplay Reveal was a straight upward trajectory (Brienne! Army commanders! Navigable Rivers!) Then they announced Civ switching. Like a punctured balloon, my excitement vanished, even as they explained the thought process behind it. I'm not going to write it off (a good implementation *might* save it). But this went from a "Day 1 buy" to a "Probably not" in about 30s. Crazy

[@Charles_Anthony]

Been playing since Civ3 here. I must echo everything you said but it was a day one buy to a hard no... maybe, just maybe I'll buy it when it's $10 in a few years.

[@bushmonster1702]

I'm more bothered about how good the AI is. I hope they have taken it seriously this time.

[@bushmonster1702]

@@Charles_Anthony will be quite a few years then lol

[@Charles_Anthony]

@@bushmonster1702 : I waited a long time before I got 6 and it was a good game but I'm glad I waited. 7 doesn't even feel like a Civ game to me unlike 6...

[@khatack]

Yeah. Quite frankly though, Civ VI was such a massive disappointment already that my expectations weren't that high to begin with. Once the downhill begins, it usually goes all the way to the bottom. This happens all the time in the gaming industry to beloved franchises. The talent that made the franchise great gets smoked out by the corporate types who want to squeeze the product for as much profit as possible and the mediocre talentless people start to run the show. This ends the same way every single time, either the franchise just dies or it retains a dedicated but slowly dwindling base of addicts who can stomach any amount of excrement thrown their way.

[@idlehands1238]

I could understand a civilization getting a very different leader - people die, but a leader living 4,000 years and leading a different civ just seems odd

[@ultimate9056]

At least with humankind your leader wore different atire based on the culture they chose to adopt for that era

[@mythicdawn9574]

@@ultimate9056 And was an anonymous figure, not historical too. But don't you want to see Mao Zedong the 1st president of the USA ? Or Leopold II the king of Congo-... wait a second let me check my notes... xD

[@M24071]

That's why i love old world so much you can just pass on your empire to your kids

[@josdelijster4505]

Agreed

[@davidjohnson-rj7op]

But that is exactly how it was before. The leader went from the beginning of the game to the end. Non of it ever made any sense. No civ in history has reminded the same with the same name, same boarders and culture. The only ones even close might be china or Egypt and even they have different boarder and different cultures from their historical counter parts. I wish everyone would stop trying to make it all make sense because non of it ever did. It will all come down to execution of the game play concept: are my decisions meaning, do I understand who the other civs are I am playing against. Or does the new game play mechanic make them generic like humankind. The thing that worked in previous civ games was that you understand how the players will generally behave, even when you where playing multiple player because people chose the civs to play a certain game: aggressive, sceince etc. If the identity of the civs is lost or retained will determine if changing civs will works or not.

[@superfamilyallosauridae6505]

Benjamin Franklin of the Aztecs

[@felipepereira214]

hahahahahahaha

[@fearmetoo-le8dw]

i hope they give us the option to lock leaders to their respective civilization. I would hate it if the AI were to pick Ghandi as leader of sweden and Queen Elizabeth as the queen of Aztec, etc.

[@rajeshgajwelly9035]

dude thats so racist... so you're saying an indian cant be the leader of sweden??

[@shyamsundarrajan2469]

I think thats the idea they are going for

[@aeliusdawn]

Considering how leaders in Civ 6 ALWAYS choose their respective historical religion, I don't see why not

[@thomaswhite7527]

That's my main concern too.

[@TheElvisJamboree]

Oh come on, everyone know Abraham Lincoln caused the first World War, he was the leader of Germany. 😂If that's the case, then CIV really did mess up.

[@citizencalmar]

I've been a devoted Civ fan since 1991, and while some entries in the series have been less impressive than others, I never thought they'd make an entire Civ game that I just don't want to play. But here it is. The tagline of the series was "Build a civilization to stand the test of time", and now they're giving us a game where you abandon your civ and just straight up play as somebody else--but somehow with the same leader, who has nothing to do with which civ they're leading? How did this game become about leaders at the expense of the, you know, *civilizations* that it's named after? Comparisons with Humankind are inevitable, but fitting. Unless the backlash is so great that they have to patch in a "classic" mode where you can be any civ for the whole game and the leader matches the civ, I can't see myself buying this at all. Suddenly I'm looking forward to Ara: History Untold all the more; I might be spending more time with it than I had anticipated until it's time for Civ VIII.

[@Riker1370]

I echo these sentiments as a man of a certain age I was there for Civ 1 and I fell in Love, so came 2-6 and I enjoyed them all but here we are with 7 and I am most disappointed I want to play my Civilization that I choose to the very end I don't want Humankind 2.0. I just hope they make an option to change that or Civ 6 would be where my Love affair ends. 😩

[@TheJrcattle]

Agree 100%

[@TheJrcattle]

@@Riker1370they don’t understand their customers at all

[@TheJrcattle]

@@Riker1370if the focused on navigable rivers & dramatically improving steam online compatibility, they would have had a best seller with the updated graphics. Instead they choose to flip the table over and destroy what made the game great.

[@gotrek13]

Fingers crossed for Ara!

[@khatack]

Well, another decade of Civ V it is then.

[@googoofeesmithersmits4536]

Literally same

[@googoofeesmithersmits4536]

Still has better graphics and mechanics as civ 6 and 7 especially if you have the no quitters mod which improves a lot of the not so great stuff in civ 5

[@johnxinasupremeleader]

SAME I am beyond disappointed, I don’t understand why Civ devs are so retarded

[@rezasalamati9652]

Well said, same here from 2012

[@Kjotleik]

Civ IV...

[@der.loyalist]

If this game would have been announced as Humankind 2, nobody would have realised that this is Civilization.

[@francothebrazilian2764]

JumboPixel was talking about the “opportunity” that you can change your nation maybe we can just stick to one nation like in the old games

[@CASHWrightharvey]

Cap

[@wedgeantilles8575]

Well, if they are happy with the sale and player figures of Humankind - which are a fraction of Civilization - I say: Go for it... But they shouldn't make a surprised Pikachu face if it results in there not being a 8th part because the company closed.

[@josdelijster4505]

Correct its lazy just rip off the competition.. pmayed all viv versions gor 1500 hrs minimum.. but ill 'spend the money on pizza

[@francothebrazilian2764]

@@wedgeantilles8575 the crazy part is that the best edition is 125€ or 129$

[@macmac436]

If I pick Egypt its because I want to play egypt....

[@TheElvisJamboree]

Amen!

[@2bobaf]

@@TheElvisJamboree Ra!

[@Max-zs6ur]

No! You want to play Congo and you don't know you want it! "Devs"

[@akvyr]

You pick Egypt because you want to play *Ancient* Egypt. Which you get to do. Irl Egypt lost its independence for 2600 years then and got taken over by another civilization.

[@gustavofring9985]

Look they said you can play only one age if you want you can play them in a bit of a smaller game

[@BlahDeDah-pu8ee]

So, Civ VII is an RPG where you level up a leader and assign them skill tree points that they earn by playing through three different scenarios (ages).

[@boblionia]

Yeah it's absolutely awful. It's like they looked at Civ, asked what makes it good and unique and then made sure to remove those aspects

[@bobby2dreky]

@@boblionia I mean, just like with all the other CIV games, people will play the version they liked the most. I think inovation is good, this gives us a total new CIV experience. ANd if you don't like the experience? Well CIV 6 (or other) is still there.

[@HspncAt7heDisco]

@@bobby2dreky Yeah, Civ 5 and 6 still hold up great. I can't say I'm thrilled about the idea of swapping Civs throughout the game but I'm definitely open to giving it a chance. I'm glad they're trying to keep the game fresh by refining old ideas and adding new ones

[@Baulderstone1]

It seems weird to make leaders and civs separate, then have a leader who jumps from one civilization to another. Wouldn't it make more sense to play one civ the entire game and have the leader of the civ change over time?

[@zigajanezic6380]

At first glance I love it. Humankind was always a contender but deep down we all hoped CIV will make us proud again by taking some ideas and make them their own. Plus, we would all be really disappointed if we just got better looking CIV 6 again. So this game looks great.

[@BlahDeDah-pu8ee]

Game is accurate because "no civilization has stood the entire test of time." But you are playing as the same world leader for 6,000 years... Civs generally last longer than one leader's lifetime.

[@BiNumLi]

That's true. But the legacy of historic leaders influences nations long after they are gone. Look at Putin. Driven by the legacy of the USSR as a world power. Maybe even more driven by Peter the Great and the Czars. In Humankind my logic was 'I have the same leader over multiple ages. He/she is reincarnated in different individuals but they are bound to operate according to the historic parameters of the founding leader'. Make sense? Or not?

[@p.taylor981]

That’s just because they’re a stand In for us. Can’t kill the player irl

[@josephmoore9706]

Something needs to remain so we don't get confused on who is who. Rather civ change for new units & traits.

[@Coeurebene1]

Also, isn't building a civilization that stands the test of time the iconic goal of Civ?

[@IndustrialBonecraft]

Truly a galaxy brain take here...

[@dwarfilicious1526]

I really hope that Songhai will not be the canonical continuation of Egypt. Just because they are both in Africa, does not mean that is a logical timeline

[@vanman266]

It's so dumb. It's further away than the UK and Turkey, and there is no cultural link.

[@drsuchomimus]

Ancient Egypt-Mameluks-Kingdom of Egypt. There we go

[@EFO841]

that was my exact complaint when I watched! especially disappointing if their goal was to be more historical, and they lump two totally different african civs together

[@markos50100]

Just as dumb as ghandi and Teddy Roosevelt fighting each other with chariots in the ancient age. The game was never perfectly aligned to real life. It is just as close as they can fit it with what they had. Civs are more like which civilization best fits my environment more than I'm Mongolian now. It's more like I have lots of horse tiles, get a horse civ. They could have literally removed the Mongolian name and put nomadic cavalry tribe as the description if people are being so picky about names.

[@aeliusdawn]

There was the option to choose the Abbasid Caliphate in the gameplay video. They just didn't highlight it

[@qiang2884]

The more I see, the more it looks like they just slapped Humankind and Millennia(to leaders) together

[@josdelijster4505]

Agreed lazy devolepment all effort on making it look nice😊

[@Nebelkorona]

Weird to see Civ adopt Humankind mechanics, after I actually hoped and got disappointed by Humankind itself.

[@MortVaderDK]

Exactly!

[@Omega-mr1jg]

So many people rag on humankind when i actually found the game mechanics of humankind a whole lot better I keep coming back to humankind but not so much civ 6

[@wedgeantilles8575]

@@Omega-mr1jg Well, Humankind has a playerbase of something like 1500-2500. Civ 6 has a player base of 50.000 on steam alone. I am not sure why a company would try to cater to 5% of its audience and alienating 95% of its audience. But I am probably not smart enough to realize how genius it is to only aim for 5% instead for 100%^^ Fact is: There are some individuals who like humankind. But the huge majority did not like the game and stopped playing it almost instantly. And today there are 20 times more players playing Civ 6 than Humankind. Hell, we have 15k players on CIV 5! roughly 8 times more players play the old Civ 5.

[@CausticSpace]

@@Omega-mr1jg Well there's your problem, you only have civ 6, try civ 4 with some mods, you will not be dissapointed and thats a 100% guarantee.

[@Bookworm214-y3d]

This is gonna be a controversial take but are they teamed up with SBaby? I feel this is their way of forcing us to play other leaders due to "DIVER-City" (no you cannot play as George Washington for the whole game!!!)

[@godofwar8954]

No one preorder, hold the line.

[@MichalKaczorowski]

I'll wait 8 years for the ultimate version with all the DLCs to go on sale on Steam. Maybe I'll have enough money for a computer that can run it by then.

[@MortVaderDK]

Yeah I was going to, no questions asked - until I saw the reveal. Now I am on the fence about buying it at all..

[@godofwar8954]

@@MortVaderDK same here mate, I want civ 7 not Humankind 2.0 also looks like skins and many more microtransactions will be incorporated and no thanks to that garbage.

[@luke1119411]

After I watched the showcase, it was probably the fastest I ever preordered. Game looks fantastic, and the more that keeps coming out, the more excited I get.

[@MortVaderDK]

@@luke1119411 It was completely opposite: Went from dead sure prepurchase - to not at all interested.. :´(

[@davidhancock7748]

I want to play “civilization 7” not “leader 7”. This changing civs thing is the biggest turnoff that firaxis could ever have brought to me. I hate it. The rest looks cool. Plz plz plz give us a “historic mode”.

[@malcolm_in_the_middle]

Maybe we should stick with the Civilization, and change our leaders every age instead?

[@thatoneguy5969]

What if they just changed the wording entirely and made it so each age you pick a new civ power instead of picking a new civ?

[@MisterMick113]

@@thatoneguy5969 no, they clearly have it changing civs. Maybe if they didn't rip off other games people would give it a chance

[@thatoneguy5969]

@@MisterMick113 that's why I asked "what if", because they can still very easily go and change the wording if that's the problem. We can already choose the leader to represent our civ, so if they worded it in such a way where we acquire new powers for an age, or perhaps our civ emulates another, then we're still Egypt forever we're just borrowing traits so to speak. So again, if the problem is a narrative issue, does that fix it? Also, just a minor pet peeve but you can't own a game mechanic. Nearly every video game takes from what already exists. This mechanic is only a "rip-off" if it's a worse version of it. If it's a better version of the mechanic then it'll be called "inspired".

[@Bookworm214-y3d]

This is gonna be a controversial take but are they teamed up with SBaby? I feel this is their way of forcing us to play other leaders due to "DIVER-City" (no you cannot play as George Washington for the whole game!!!)

[@SpaceKingofSpace]

I feel like there are just too many tech/point trees now. The tech tree, the civics tree, mastery techs, policies, government celebration bonuses, leader bonuses, the 3 age cultures and their bonuses, legacies, crisis policies, army generals and their progression trees. We haven't even seen if there's gonna be any religious trees yet either. They've gone overboard on the trees and tiny bonuses.

[@MisterMick113]

I agree, it seems that when new features are added its done in a half hearted method. When religion came to 4, it was pretty bare bones compared to what it is in 6. The culture tree is basically just another tech tree so how many of these new trees are going to be copying similar mechanics?

[@SpaceKingofSpace]

@@MisterMick113 The callous assumption is that designing trees and minor buffs is easy while developing entirely new systems is hard. I don't play Civ to click a bunch of checkboxes.

[@sword_of_damocle5]

​@@SpaceKingofSpace Yeah, I prefer my checkbox clicking simulators to be made by paradox!

[@John_Gundam]

I agree, ive played Civ 5 for the longest time, I tried Civ 6 and that was my biggest problem with the game. Too many currencies, trees and whatnot to manage, it is just overboard. Civ 5 is just perfect imo, and i wanted to get into 6 but i dropped it after like 2 games. 7 seems to be much like 6, which im pretty upset about.

[@HeWhoShams]

Navigable rivers is so peak

[@01talima]

that was a civ 1 feature wasnt it?

[@Charles_Anthony]

​@@01talima: It was also in a Civ4 scenario. Seeing a galley travel down a river was so cool.

[@Flay008]

It was in the early civ game So nothing new ... just takes 25 years to get it back

[@nevenmesic2856]

​@@01talimaciv 2

[@Abcsam86]

@@01talima civ2 if you moved along a river you got double movement (it might be in 1 also)

[@juurika22]

it would suck not to be able to be the same civ from start to finish

[@MichalKaczorowski]

Especially since today we have several civilizations that have existed for literally thousands of years, like China or India.

[@chrisdonish]

​@MichalKaczorowski Western Europe has actually been the same since the Roman times, the Roman empire fell but the Roman civilization lived on. The world we live in is still technically a roman/Greco-Roman civilization.

[@chrisdonish]

​@@MichalKaczorowskiand I would include the entire american continent as a part of that world too.

[@Prberts]

@@MichalKaczorowski Eh the idea that either China or India has lasted for thousands of years is kind of ridiculous. Both have been either fully subsumed, broken up, conquered, revolutioned etc multiple times in the last 3 centuries, let alone thousands of years.

[@comsatangel3522]

You gotta stop that. China survived the century of humiliation. To say china didn't stand the test of time is literally insane.

[@daniels5675]

Hated the civ changing, the big reason why I played humankind a few and never touched it again. It felt like the civ lose identity and doomed to fail when slammed with the crisis instead of standing strong against the odd and rebuild themselves once more

[@TommaHawk79]

agreed , im sticking with Civ 6 my hype an excitement is dead for Civ 7 and replaced with massive dissapointment, KCD2 on the other hand holy moly slap my arse and call me a donkey i cant wait for it

[@zeyadalbadawi8774]

You can continue as the same culture in humankind tho, nothing stops you from keeping the assyrians from the first age through the last. I bet you can also mod it so that the AI keeps their culture, and there are already mods that unlock all cultures in the first age

[@joeyjoejoeshabadoo1411]

Yeah I found the civilization swapping in humankind off putting. I'll probably just wait a few months after civ 7 release

[@TommaHawk79]

@@zeyadalbadawi8774 CANT MOD ON PS5 though SO STILL A HARD PASS FROM ME I DONT LIKE CHANGE

[@zacharybecker8228]

@@TommaHawk79 there is literally an avatar trait u can choose where they stay the same culture through the whole game. But stacking culture bonuses together is what makes humankind fun

[@RaebEeffoc]

I think someone else had the similar feeling going from "Want to Buy now!" to "....meh..." Im so dissapointed they chose to go down the whole Humankind civ switching mechanic. Civ 4 for me personally was the highlight for the Civ franchise. Guess I'll have to wait another decade in the vein hopes there might be a Civ game that has me excited to play as 4 did......hope I'll still be alive by then.

[@Baulderstone1]

One reason Civ 4 remains the pinnacle of the series is that it was the last game before they went to stacking limits. There were definitely problems with "Doom Stacks" in the early Civ games. but at least it kept army movement simple enough that the AI could so okay in way. When they introduced the stacking limits and hexes, the tactics of combat became to complex for the game to manage.

[@zacharybecker8228]

You might like ARA history untold its coming out next month

[@RaebEeffoc]

@@zacharybecker8228 Dam that was a good shout. I didnt even know this existed. Im more hyped for ARA than I am for Civ 7! Cheers!

[@tad030]

i don't know what it is exactly, but this game is looking a bit sus - something isn't passing the smell test. maybe it's the switching of civilizations mid game, or not having to use historically accurate leaders, but i'm not sold. that said, it certainly does look beautiful.

[@blufuz]

They hiding them micro transactions till launch 👀

[@nothisispatrick6528]

I agree the map certainly looks beautiful. The leaders not so much

[@khatack]

I know what it is. They're copying features from their competitors at random and abandoning the entire identity of the franchise. What you smell is the bullshit of a creatively bankrupt company chasing novelty by trying to be more like others.

[@sword_of_damocle5]

​@@khatack I feel like they panicked when humankind was announced and decided to copy every aspect of it, thinking it would be a civ killer. The similarities are too much for it to be mere coincidence.

[@khatack]

@@sword_of_damocle5 Another sign of incompetence, not trusting your own vision and panicking over what others are doing. This sounds a lot like a decision done by the marketing team instead of the developer team.

[@Yeti2308]

I like most of the new features, however the one thing that worries me about this game is the micro transaction model they seem to be pushing more and more. It seems firaxis is reaching Ubisoft levels of "Editions" and "expansions" especially at launch. Like they are even selling fucking fog of war tile skins, I understand that they need to make money somehow, but this just seems like its gone too far.

[@halycon404]

I have learned over the years to never buy a Civilization game at launch. All modern Civ games were bad before the first expansion or two. People talk about Civ5 as the greatest thing ever, forgetting how bad it was before Brave New World. Civ6 didn't come into it's own until Gathering Storm. I can't remember which expansion it was for Civ4. The best thing about Civilization is enough people buy it at launch to fund the expansions which actually make the games good. Firaxis has been good over the years of listening to player feedback and fixing all the problems and pain points.

[@Charles_Anthony]

​@@halycon404: Beyond the Sword. Civ4 was pretty solid at launch, but BTS really made it the best in the franchise.

[@mrman5006]

It’s not firaxis’s fault it’s the publisher 2k

[@Pizza7478]

@@halycon404 I'd argue that Civ 6 never got good, but I hate Civ 6. Other than the price point, I'm much more excited for Civ 7, as even what they showed so far still looks better to me than 6 does now. (That price point is pain though)

[@raffaelbaccarini351]

THIS

[@inswarlock09]

My 2 cents , CIV 7 should keep the same country through out the ages and only change Leaders !!! ie Carthage should go Dido > Haniibal > Genseric>Gaddafi each with different units and bonus to fit the age

[@Fyrapan90]

I was super excited for this game, but when I saw the changes with the leader and ages, it made me not want this game anymore.

[@tracyjackson7419]

Yeah I'm glad to hear that others are feeling lukewarm about the civ swapping. It feels so jarring. It's such a radical change from previous civ games (and other games in the same genre). I guess I'll have to wait to see how others feel about it when it releases.

[@welersoncarvalho2471]

If they were the first to do it would be fine, but the problem is humankind set a precedent of that being a bad idea and they are following a bad idea its just ugh ....

[@rotomfan63]

I still hate the changing civ feature, mostly because it just does not fit with my view of history for 1 reason. What firaxis described with London were various cultural genocides. The Roman's culturally genocides almost everywhere they touched, the Normans culturally genocide the Celtics and modern age Britian culturally genocide all their colonies, or at least tried to. Pretending these things just kind of vaguely happens really ticks me off. Not to mention, the "intended/historica" path for Egypt is comical. The Songhai were a Sahel empire on the other side of the entire Sahara both in an east/west and north/sense. Buganda wasn't even close to the Sahara. It was based around the African great lakes. Not to mention, even though Persia/Iran and China changed a lot. They still just remained Persia/Iran and China. The pattern they claim simply doesn't apply to places like that. Not to mention the game seems way too heavily leaned towards pop growth from what I have seen so far

[@mythicdawn9574]

What they present with the London example to me seems actually fair and historical. Because the modern English are the product of Celts x Germans x Romans x Greek philosophy. So it would make sense to unlock an English medieval / modern civ after playing one of these civs. Because English did not exist before and don't make more sense existing in Antiquity that the US does before, at best, XVIth century. Modern Greeks inherited both ancient Greece, Rome, Byzantine, and Turks to some extent. What looks stupid, is if there is no effort made to pipeline you into the historical choices. If you can just as easily become English if you played Egypt or Celts, then it's plain stupid. I would say it must be an option for Egypt, but it must require you very special conditions, like having conquered the Celt capital, or being culturally overwhelmed by the Celts, for example, while the Celts should be able to evolve into English by default with no special condition. Which means they need much more civs available in the game to make the historical aspect consistent. Because for Songhai, I bet they won't have any Antiquity civ that fits their history, and probably not in modern age either (or maybe they will place Malian Kingdom in modern age ?), and each civ MUST have its historical fits for each era for a pleasant and historical game.

[@rotomfan63]

@mythicdawn9574 For Songhai they could maybe do the modern country of Mali(not to be confused for the more historical empires and kingdoms by that name the modern nation is descended from and named after)or another post colonial nation partly made of land that was once part of the Songhai empire

[@comradeofthebalance3147]

I do not understand your view that "it does not fit my view of history". Would you rephrase that and the explanation of cultural genocides (also the Normans didn't do that to the Celts, the Brythonic tribes were culturally genocided by everyone)

[@AM97776]

I feel as if a lot of the changes seem geared ever more towards bringing the title to the console market … I have always felt the series was at its best when its main titles were PC focused and dedicated ‘Revolution’ titles for the console market - which necessarily leads to shorter games e.g. the push for single age games here, overall whilst we don’t know a lot, it looks like a strategic misstep so far

[@dmdm597]

The more I hear about the game the more disappointed I get. I know that every civ game has to have different mechanics to be diferent from the others but this isn't civ anymore. They literally broke one of the tenants of the franchise.

[@SpookfulYT]

I definatley agree I think having leaders and civs be a separate choice would have been more then enough for a change personally That’s enough to be a selling point and make it stand out They didn’t need this

[@CausticSpace]

@@SpookfulYT Civ 4 had the ability to have a different leader for a civ they weren't a part of.

[@Bookworm214-y3d]

@@CausticSpace civ 4 was peak civ tho...we can forgive minor infractions 😂

[@cecarter10]

​@@Bookworm214-y3d Civ3 was peak

[@pac1841]

There is lots of stuff I love(Graphics, maps changes, Civ specific civics) but I really do not like the civ swapping thing. Hated it in Humankind and while it looks better implemented here I just hate not getting to play a civ all the way through a game.

[@MrProzacmilkshake]

bro not everyone makes the cut Australia started as England which was Romans

[@Ghost-eu1rg]

@@MrProzacmilkshakeno one cares. We just want to be able to play as one Civ throughout the whole game like we have been

[@aeliusdawn]

Pretty sure you will be able to keep the modern version of each civ.

[@MrIndiemusic101]

@@Ghost-eu1rg you literally have 6 other games that do exactly that. I welcome these radical changes and I won't fully judge them until I play it hands on. True immersion never existed in civ it never was a history sim. Its a board game. George washington wasn't fighting Gandhi in with chariot horsemen in 1000 BC.

[@OVOgooner]

When a civilization changes IRL it usually mean you were conquered, either militarily or through ideology/religion.

[@floriant396]

They bring back Napoleon, an actual representative historical leader of France, for the best and the worse. I can rest in peace now, I never truly recovered from Catherine of Medicis being France's sole leader in Civ6

[@BocaoZ]

Catherine was so important in France’s history but it seems many ppl can’t understand it

[@leonhardwelkener3917]

The Germans also have a very defining figure...😁

[@mythicdawn9574]

@@BocaoZ I don't get it. She is somewhat important, but mostly because she ruled in one of the shittiest periods for France which was the religious wars. Even though it's not very clear if she was involved or not, St. Barthélemy massacre of the protestants was definitely the most noteworthy event of her rule. And she was not the only French monarch who liked artists. I'm not against her being one of the French leaders for Civ6, but having her as our main leader, and Aliénor d'Aquitaine who's historically "shared" between France and England is a bit rough lol. Since i liked the idea of a "double leader" with Aliénor, I would have preferred they gave us someone like Napoléon III for a change (yes, his war against Prussia was a disaster, but he is the main figure of French modernization) or another very iconic leader like Clemenceau, Louis IX "Saint Louis", De Gaulle (to change from the usual Napoleon / Louis XIV).

[@MunchKING]

I believe you mean Napoleon, leader of whichever civilization you want him to be. :p

[@GreenSkinGentleman]

@@MunchKING Brb making Napoleon, Kaiser of the Holy Roman Empire (best ending)

[@Holydecipher]

The question is: Who is the audience. Humankind did not have their own player base, it was all Civ players that were curious. Most of us tried it and hated it for multiple reasons but mainly the „Civ swap“. It’s absolute bs. Now they have imported it to the actual game we love. F this

[@MortVaderDK]

You are not wrong!

[@boblionia]

Yeah the game being 3 separate acts and forcing you to change civ for this might be what stops me buying this game on release (not allowing Egypt in the modern era?!?!? Does Egypt not exist in the modern world?) They've improved so much of the game, but this change was not only completely unasked for and is solving an problem that doesn't exist, it also removes multiple parts of Civ's identity that it has had for 30 years. Locking everyone in to the same age also works completely against the charm and fun of playing civ where you had the option to be 1000 years ahead of other civilizations. When someone talks about Civilization, the things that pop straight into their head is playing as ancient civilizations in the future/playing modern in the past, and the idea that you can take your people from nothing in 4000bc to being something massive in 2000ad and beyond. Breaking the game into 3 acts completely removes this and forcing civ changes gets rid of the rest. I understand they want to change things and adapt the series, but why remove the series identity? Why remove what makes this series unique in an era where there are a dozen competitors which until now weren't as interesting as Civ, but this massive change to Civ7 had changed me from being ready to preorder the biggest edition to not intending to buy it maybe ever. I'll just play some of the Civ rip-offs who arent selling out their own identity just for the hell of it Really dumb idea. Change stuff for sure, but dont change what makes your series unique. That's exactly how you lose your audience (the people who play your game over other games because of the features that define your game)

[@sandis7674]

Lmao this is just like more polished version of humankind

[@ultimate9056]

Thats arguably the issue. People would have so many less problems if it wasn't Civ

[@kclink1579]

3 "mini" games instead of one full game, can't help thinking of it that was especially as you can singlely just play 1 of the three on its own, making it feel more like that.

[@wedgeantilles8575]

Humankind: 2.000 players. Civ 6: 50.000 players Civ 5: 15.000 players. Yeah, it TOTALLY makes sense to shape Civ 7 to appeal to the 1500 players. Instead of making Civ 7 appeal to the 65.000 civ players. Not. No idea why a company would think aiming for a 5% minority and alienating 95% of their customer base would be a smart move. Like Disney + Co do all the time. But here we are...

[@bcm70]

Bizarre isn't it? Never been so disappointed in a pre-release trailer. I suspect they'll have to back pedal and add in leader/civ locking with the feedback I'm seeing across all sorts of platforms after the announcement OR it's going to be a financial disaster for them.

[@zacharybecker8228]

there are alot of people that wont play it unless its civ no matter how good another game is

[@wedgeantilles8575]

@@zacharybecker8228 Regarding that 20k steam reviews are only "mixed" I'd argue that a lot of people did not think the "how good" was very good. Compared to "very positive" for Civ 6 and "overwhelmingly positive" for Civ 5. Neither reviews nor player base suggest that Humankind was well received.

[@sphaera2520]

Somehow I suspect not all x number of players playing some civ game will unanimously agree they all hate this mechanic. Literally every new civ game the same dance happens where a vocal minority whine and complain really loud, the game comes out and plenty of people play it anyway. Then as the game matures with more features, DLCs, more players join in and it even becomes a series favorite for a large demographic. Until the next iteration trailer comes out and the whole charade starts all over again.

[@sentineloperator3333]

Was so hyped for this, what a shame. The only thing I could possibly be excited about is the rivers… not spending $70 for a river update

[@No1KnowWhere]

Fr tho. I was hoping they would literally do similar ui and graphic’s overall to Civ5 but nah they give us humankind 2 civ7 add on

[@PetraSheeley]

Literally why dont they have you be the same CIV but change leaders throughout the game??? It makes so much more logical sense You could rationalize Ben Franklin becoming the leader of Rome if you were playing more scientific and meeting certain goals to recruit him. Then his unique benefits would apply to your civ. Or if you were attacked, you could pivot and recruit Gengas Hahn to help you fight in the war as he’d give your civ bonuses in combat

[@zant41]

Because it's much harder, expensive and time-consuming to make 3 different models with unique lines and abilities for every single civ than making different civs

[@ethanforster]

The best thing about this game is that the base game is only $120 wow what a deal!

[@the_greenfox]

it's $70

[@ethanforster]

@@the_greenfox you must be unaware of currency exchange rates

[@the_greenfox]

@@ethanforster $ is USD by default, sir

[@ethanforster]

@@the_greenfox 😂

[@ultimate9056]

​@@the_greenfoxall currency signs tied to currency types like dollar are all currency agnostic. If being used in a situation where multiple currencies with the same denotion sign the standard is to append the abbreviation to the end.

[@JRWatchman85]

I don't think 3 ages is enough. I think there should be 5. They need to slot a Medieval age in between Antiquity and Exploration, and they need to add Industrial between Exploration and Modern. Antiquity - bronze age to 476 AD Medieval - 476 AD to 1500 Exploration - 1500 to 1820 Industrial - 1820 to 1901 Modern - 1901 to today

[@MunchKING]

The point is the difficulty of creating and balancing era-exclusive civs. They were willing to do enough for three eras but you add 2 more and that's 66% more work for them, and 66% more civilizations they have to add to the game.

[@MatijaVrtar]

@@MunchKING we wont buy game if there will be humankind crap of changing civs hope ya get it.

[@MunchKING]

@@MatijaVrtar *shrug* Okay. That wasn't JRWatchman's point though. He wanted more Ages, and I was just pointing out how many more civs that would be.

[@wellingtonsh1]

I imagine that each era has three or four ages within it and each era is when we choose civilization. Really hoping it won't be like Humankind and the choices for change will be limited. Moving from Rome to Japan doesn't make sense. Now being able to change from Rome to the Byzantine Empire or Holy Roman Empire would be interesting.

[@Ladifour]

Just play Humankind if you want that, it has like 6 ages or smth. I think 3 is better, because it gives each civ switch more time to get immersed in, in Humankind you can breeze through an age without using much of your culture. It also makes it easier to keep up with what the other players/AI are doing if they don't change civs every few techs.

[@happybeingmiserable4668]

Agree with the comments about being forced to a different CIV...also hate how everyone goes into the same era once one Civilization does...in actual history Admiral Perry coming across the Japanese being Centuries behind technological wise...same with Cortez coming upon the Mayans, so in attempt at trying to be more historically correct, they undid actual historical realities.

[@lordnovas]

The problem with Leader switching is that it feels like a fiscal design choice, and not a natural evolution of the game. I'm sure its a fine change but I can't shake the feeling that the Civ series is on its way to Gatcha land.

[@AngeloLegendx]

Can you elaborate? Are you saying "leader-civ locking" will be released as dlc. Something of that nature?

[@lordnovas]

@AngeloLegendx no just that this change makes it a but easier to create and sell leaders without worrying too much about unbalancing things in the game. When I say it like that it doesn't sound too bad, it's probably a great change and I'm wrong. Which is nice.

[@simplymatt6140]

I hope more time is spent in the industrial era to the modern day. It seemed like such an afterthought in the last game

[@samuelhakansson6680]

Yeah the late game is over way too fast in civ 6. The better you get at the game, the faster you win, and the less you get to experience and play with the late game stuff.

[@Lord_Cointoss]

The only positive thing about Civilizations 7 is that... We still have 5 years of playing Civilization 6. Because This Is No Longer Civilization. 😟

[@_..Justin-Case.._]

This just doesn’t look like a civ game

[@Zandorgard]

One more thing, i get the intention of trying to simulate the Civ changing through the ages, but suddenly becoming another Civ completely isn't the way. Egypt still exists today, you know? It's different, yeah, but it didn't suddenly became Mongolian from nowhere

[@bramvanherck4107]

They did my boy augustus dirty. He out here looking like the rich kid bully in a 2000's high school movies. He looking like he's about to scare away a bunch of burglars that invaded his home on Christmas. He looks like he's about to call people a mudblood and that when i take his city he tells me his father will hear about this.

[@Morfind]

Should be "Civ: What if" instead of Civ 7.

[@zant41]

Literally every single civ game is a "what if" what are you yappin about

[@luisalberro5204]

How does antiquity Egypt “historically” morph into medieval Mali and then into modern Uganda??? For those of us that don’t want to play with wacky legacy paths they really need to re-work those historical transitions..

[@shaynecashman5591]

This gonna go on sale real quick.

[@rizaldard3835]

maybe the option to keep old civ name or combined name is gonna make it feels right...

[@xdkwolfx]

In a way I understand the logic behind it. Many civs did not exist during the ancient era e.g. America while some civilisations never made it to the modern era. So it can be a realistic way to portray the progress of time. However, having an immortal leader that lives for thousands of years goes against the realistic touch of the changing civilisations… If they can change the leaders as the era changes, it will be a smoother transition. There should also be civs like China to be available throughout all three ages since it actually survived till today and it has history significance throughout all ages.

[@alosha4321]

I hated the changing mechanic at first, but the more i think about it the more i kinda like it. I just hope they keep the civs you can evolve into at least somewhat similar, so im not seeing some crazy transitions. Also hope they add a game option to only allow historical pairings with leaders and first civs for ai

[@hunterandhayden]

I can’t wait to see more about ara

[@gotrek13]

My thoughts exactly. I hope Ara is good.

[@MortVaderDK]

@@gotrek13 Yeah - also, it's next month :D

[@zacharybecker8228]

there are alot of dev diaries to watch but they didnt have too many gameplay showcases

[@addynaruto1221]

Imma stick to civ 5 with the vox populi mod. Maybe pick this up on a sale 2 yrs later.

[@Navinor]

I don't like the civ swapping. I'll pass on civ 7.

[@zant41]

Good

[@techshrek2827]

Though its true that in a historical sense cities do evolve with differing cultures that influence it, having leaders change civs kinda breaks that historical suspension of disbelief for me. I guess you can argue that its also historically inaccurate to see the Eastern Roman Empire with tanks invading Canada. However thats more on alternate history whilst sticking to historical themes. Leaders changing civs kinda break that. Imagine seeing Napoleon lead England and its culture/virtue? That wouldn't make any sense. I'll admit that the more I watch about civilization 7 the more im interested and happy to see the other good changes (navigable rivers, commanders allowing troops to rendezvous making moving armies easier). Its just that leaders changing civs kinda has an "off" feeling in my head. Hopefully they implement in a good way but it leaves a bit of a sour taste to an already sweet flavor from past iterations.

[@paper9362]

Leaders in Civ have never been anything more than avatars for the player/AI. Sure they are historically themed, but seeing George Washington lead an ancient America armed with sticks and stones through to a Modern America with death robots, makes about as much sense as Napoleon doing the same. Your leaders aren't representative of the actual government in your civ in whatever period, civ never cared about simulating that stuff, it's meerly a stand in for the omnipotent guiding force that controls every aspect of each nations development (I.E the player). Civ has always just been a board game themed to history, rather than something like Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis that actually tries to simulate these things.

[@isaiahsanchevy9252]

It would make more sense if, instead of picking an entire new culture every age, the game delved deeper into the history of each culture represented in the game and presented the player with choices that reflected moments in history that defined the nation/culture in question. For example, if you played as France, perhapse you could pick between a more monarchical or republican period of history for an era, or if you played as Japan, you could choose between westernization and maintaining the warrior culture of the samurai, or if you played as the U.S., you could pick between continued isolationism or interventionism. They could get really creative with this. Idk. The changing of cultures entirely just seems like a cheap way to genterate complexity while stripping the franchise of some of its appeal. Just my opinion.

[@MunchKING]

I think that's what they are going for with the idea that if you get a lot of horses you could chose to be a horse-rider civilization, they are trying to make the history of your leader's empire matter to the bonuses you get in the next era.

[@Borealis233]

Honestly I disagree with the “no civilisation has entirely stood the test of time” argument, at least most of it. While they have changed I would say civilisations such as Greece, Armenia and others have kept enough identity to be still considered the same civilisation. Additionally many medieval ones have stayed the same, England is still England, Mongolia is still Mongolia, and China is still China, even with societal changes with hundreds of year being passed. I would be okay with this mechanic if it lets you continue as the Civ you play, and has a “historical leader AI” option.

[@PCarllos]

And Egypt is still Egypt, Rome is now Italy but Greece is still Greece. Brazil is still Brazil, Portugal is still Portugal and France is still France. Actually, there are a considerable amount of countries that is still the same, at least in name.

[@PeshoCantDraw]

The idea of the prev 6 civ games was to pick a civ and stand the test of time. 7 just throw that away in order to have Benjamin be the leader of Mongolia...

[@leonhardwelkener3917]

Thats a nice way. And its historically accurate so to say, for example modern era Argentina (dont know if Argentina was ever in the game) could choose between the social party leader and a libertarian party leader. I mean every country has had some alternative routes in the past.

[@mythicdawn9574]

All these countries are inheritors of previous civs. Modern Greece is the direct Byzantine successor, which is the successor of both Rome and ancient Greece. Meaning in gameplay it is consistent to be able to evolve into medieval Byzantines after playing Rome or Ancient Greece. the other option is to remove either Byzantines or Greeks from the game, and say that if you chose ancient Greeks, then they are the Byzantines in medieval era. It's a bit stupid to have in Civ5 both ancient Greece and Byzantine empires available in the same game lol. Many ancient civs have multiple descendants civs. Modern Italians are the clear main inheritors of the Romans, because land, culture, language... But France, Spain, Byzantines/Greece, etc. also descend from Rome, they don't exist in a vacuum, it is logical to be able to become any of these as Rome. England would not be England without Celts + Germanic tribes + Romans + Normands. The USA has no reason to exist in the Antiquity either, it's plain stupid. They are the direct descendants of the English. China is one of the very rare cases where we could say from beginning to the end that it was China all along, although Han, Ming, Qing or Maoist China are just as different between each other as ancient Greece and Byzantium (ie. clear continuity but still very different). And you have both Korea, Japan and Vietnam who have some heavy Chinese cultural heritage too.

[@ZOMBIEo07]

​@@mythicdawn9574Ah yes, thats why it makes total sense that Egypt turns to Mongolia and than to Zimbabwe Am i right? If i choose to play Russia, i want to play as Russia and not be forced to play Brazil instead.

[@lol301100]

Never change a running system. I dont know why they think its a good idea to adapt from humankind but in the end this will be their biggest mistake.

[@MortVaderDK]

I really can't share the enthusiasm of JumboPixel here. I must agree with many others in this thread: this doesn't scratch my CIV itch at all. I was personally hoping that the main new thing would be a GLOBE rather than the tired old CYLINDER WORLD.. but no. In the search for something new to put into CIV, Firaxis chose to copy from Humankind - which was nowhere near CIV level awesomeness. I am a very sad old grumpy man at this point. Not going to preorder, which had been a no-brainer if they just hadn't revealed anything :D :´(

[@vincent06]

It's mathematically impossible to make a globe with ONLY hexagonal tiles. The only possible workaround would be to use a different shape for the poles and thus to make them impassable like in a cylinder world.

[@Deep_Sorcery]

Globe was #1 on my Civ VII wishlist. And I do think it's possible with hexes because the individual hexes don't need to be symmetric. Could use a mapping and make them smaller closer to the poles. Would only display as symmetric at the part you were looking at.

[@vincent06]

@@Deep_Sorcery Look it up on the internet, it's mathematically impossible to cover a sphere using only hexes. However some games 'cheat' with the workaround I explained.

[@MortVaderDK]

@@Deep_Sorcery Ah! Intersting, and ofcourse! Why has noone done this yet? :P

[@zacharybecker8228]

humankind was at least better than civ 6

[@hareonthegrove]

hey JP - I like the background music! Nice touch 👍

[@JumboPixel]

Thanks! It’s a relatively new addition to my videos - glad you like it.

[@magowntown]

Honestly, a lot of this controversy would be solved if they had either/both: 1. A setting to keep your civilization the same throughout the ages. Kind of like how they have certain modes in Civ 6 such as secret societies. 2. The Option to stay as your first civ and turn down the culture change, call it the, "Legacy of an empire" option or something. Give buffs and still provide new units/buildings through the ages so that the feeling of continuing your, "empire" still stays relevant to civ players. Thoughts?

[@vykingtomba7600]

Good news then, no. 2 is still an option. The reveal showed that you can stay as the same civ while the era changes. The game does not force you to change.

[@thiagobarreto9056]

Since Civ 6 is already a very good game, I appreciate trying to get a major change to Civ 7. Of course they can get things right or wrong, but being Firaxis, I wouldn't do it any other way. The idea should always be "Hey, we already have a good mechanic, not much we can do to improve it, let''s try to revisit basic concepts so we can maybe improve the game". You may be afraid of changes, but you got to respect Firaxis for trying to do something different. Otherwise, we would just have a FIFA game that doesn't change at all every year.

[@saveachip2620]

I think here we have a classic example of balancing Realism and fun gameplay. At a certain point making a game too realistic breaks the formula and fun of the game, and games are meant to be fun. The arguement for civ switching is sound on paper, but when put into the game it just leaves players asking "whyyyyy?" And break imersion. Imo its made itself evident that it shouldnt be in the game, that it has crossed the threshold of being too realistic to where its not fun.

[@pwnDonkey]

the genre is wide open for a competitor

[@ikol0ikol1]

Lol the people in this civ Facebook group I’m in are acting like the changes are a god send

[@anaveragegamingchannel1843]

I get what they're trying to represent with civs changing based on the era, but I feel like it really should have been the leader that changed. It would have represented how throughout history, rulers of states could be complete foreigners (as shown by multi civ leaders like Eleanor and Kublai in the last game). At the end of antiquity and the crises, a player playing as Rome could have been able to choose a medieval European leader to represent West Rome being taken by Visgoths. Gameplay-wise, this could've allowed ruler abilities to be more tightly designed around the eras they inhabited + we would've seen our rulers visually change to represent the current era. I get that Rome being able to become the Normans is supposed to have the same effect, but it doesn't feel the same to me. Hell, they could've still allowed the more cracky combinations, like having a lot of horses as Hatshepsut attracting a horse-lord like Chingis Khan to lead during Exploration. It would've also, again, worked better than having all of Egypt suddenly become culturally Mongolian. I am still kinda looking forward to the game. I like the seeming greater focus on narrative they're taking that other 4X games and past games' scenarios already have. I just wish the main progression system didn't feel like a higher budget, but still knock-off, Humankind

[@mojoe6396]

So civ is doing what call of duty does and copies other games? They should have made a modernized civ 5 which I doubt anyone would complain about. The look of this new civ has humankind written all over it. Looks like we have seen the last of the good ole days from this franchise.

[@zacharybecker8228]

civ has been copying; civ 6 copied from endless legend another amplitude game

[@MichalKaczorowski]

Aslo they skipped the Middle Ages which lasted 1,000 years and in every Civilization game lasts the blink of an eye. Before I train the knights, gunpowder already appears.

[@davidhole8175]

Great video. Simple request, a large real world map with historical starts and is properly supported for the life of the game. By supported I mean not broken by DLC and as extra DL civs become available officially they are added.

[@yeahthebois3617]

What makes the Mongolian civilisation Mongolian? Is it because they are called Mongolian? Or is it because they had access to certain resources and geographical features which led to their unique way of life? I'd argue that many people would have had their complaints solved if instead of 'switching' civilisations, your original one 'adopts' the next civ, keeping the original name (or perhaps even changing it), but also reflecting the evolving aspect.

[@jocelyngray6306]

I'm excited to see that elevation was added. How cool would it be if the map was a sphere, though? It can be done by replacing 12 hexes with pentagons.

[@whatevername8551]

I didn't see any elevation

[@shacolin6546]

Makes me wonder how a civilization like Japan, which stayed mostly the same since its inception, is gonna work.

[@samuelhakansson6680]

The problem is also, who gets to play Mongolia? Say if 2 or more players want to go for Mongolia, should you just bar one player from getting to play as them? In that case its "first come first serve", and Mongolia has effectively become just another wonder or pantheon that you race for.

[@MunchKING]

I thought it was "the world moves to an age at the same time" so presumably if everyone can choose Mongolia, the game will just have a bunch of Mongolias running around.

[@Renkinjutsushi]

Yeah... I already have Humankind. I play that for a particular kind of 4x, and I enjoy the civ swapping in that context. I play Civ to build a civilization all the way through history. I hate to say it, but the showcase killed all my interest in Civ VII.

[@awegjlappenaeofgihn]

I Think its a good way in a good directions since i missed a lot of things in humankind, but also loved some aspectsaspects like the civ changes bu i just hope that just 3 ages dont feel to small. I suggest atleast 4 but we see how it turns out :) im eager to see. Also i love the ancient Period the most and thought it was to short in civ, lets see :)

[@snaggiz]

Sid Meier when Humankind came out: “Somebody! Write that down!”

[@tylerphuoc2653]

Everyone forgot how the Civ series stole city district building from Endless Legend without even a single thanks

[@Pizza7478]

@@tylerphuoc2653 And somehow implemented it worse. Seriously, screw Civ 6. At least 7 looks to be IMPROVING the idea they grabbed, rather than making it worse.

[@Mintcar923]

It’s just that 4x mentality.. Keep your own formula but also somehow implement the competitions too.. Like Midnight Suns is kinda like their version of Fire Emblem

[@GenericTrashForAll]

@@tylerphuoc2653 thank you, seems like everybody else forgot

[@tylerphuoc2653]

@@GenericTrashForAll I lament the erasure of Endless Legend every day

[@kerriganrush7155]

I still maintain this seriously looks like Beyond Earth. The UI is similar, toned down color palette, the button layouts are identical... Honestly, I'm still a bit apprehensive, but I personally enjoy the overall upgrade graphics wise, and there are some "newer" things here that peek my interest. Not really sure how to feel about leaders not locked to civ, but I can understand the angle at least somewhat. Thank you for the video, Jumbo!

[@koppy82]

Why couldnt they just do a new leader after each era?

[@bruh4628]

I actually liked playing as one nation, Roman, this change feels weird and honestly seems way too different from what civilization used to be.

[@joramhh1637]

Thanks for the clear explanation of the ages. It actually makes me feel better about it than I did before. If I wanted to choose random civs to min-max, I'd have played humankind. I don't mind it but I already have one humankind, don't need two.

[@SpookfulYT]

I get each game needs to change, so I’m more then okay with being able to pick different leaders for different civs (as long as there’s an option to turn that off for people who want to) But that’s change enough The stuff on top of that is way too much and stuff I rly don’t think people like the idea of That could have been the selling point Choose your leader, choose your people But now IDK man… might have to miss out on it

[@tchugra]

Will probably continue with civ6

[@Waldenstien21]

Scrolling through the comments, I see that peoples' number one issue is that they think the civ-switching mechanic will disrupt the game's narrative, which is arguably one of the most important thing in any civ game; the growth and accomplishments of a civ/empire through time. It seems though that a lot of people believe that the narrative is disrupted by the seemingly ahistorical mechanic of changing civs when the real issue is that of the identity between the player and their civilization. In regards to the ahistorical 'problem,' I think people are underestimating just how ahistorical every civ game really is. Case in point: why don't we complain about America waging war in the ancient era with chariots? Why does it feel like the culmination of success when Babylon, the player's civ, launches a rocket into space in the year 1855 instead feeling outrageously absurd? To be clear, I don't think these are bad things. For a game that is trying to simulate the growth of an empire through centuries, I think it is easier to suspend disbelief for such ahistorical mechanics in this context as opposed to a game like Hearts of Iron or Total War, which are played out in a smaller scale of time. So no, I don't think Egypt becoming Songhai is a problem because it's ahistorical or don't have cultural similarities. If anything, switching civs like that adds more of a historical element; over time real civilizations were wiped out or absorbed into a more dominate culture, but something still remained of that previous civ and their culture. If we can fill in the gaps of an alternate timeline that Babylon to build rockets in the early modern age, I think we can fill in the gaps on a timeline where Egypt's fall from power was filled by the Songhai Empire instead of the Caliphates. The problem is identity. 'You' are Babylon. As Babylon, 'you' discovered writing and went on to launch a rocket. It is easier to project yourself onto a conceptual entity like a civilization than it is onto a human leader who already has a personality. And with this game's design, you are forced to identify with the leader over the civ since the leaders are the only thing that lasts from game start to finish. This is where the real problem of Civ 7's narrative is; when Egypt becomes Songhai, 'you' are becoming Songhai. Maybe the rest of the game mechanics will ease this transition, but I do get how the switch from "I am Rome" to "Now I am England" in the same game can feel jarring. Maybe we are overblowing the problem of identifying with a leader through time versus a civilization through time, but there are enough games in this franchise to set up certain expectations. Based on the little info we have now, one suggestion for keeping the player's feeling of identity intact, all else being the same with the current design, would be to go the Civ 4 route and allow the player to rename things. It may be flavor text, but that actually goes a long way when it comes to building a narrative. A game like Stellaris is a good example of this. So technically you play as Egypt in the ancient age and then Songhai in the exploration age, but making a name like Confederacy of African Kingdoms in place of Songhai for the exploration age; a name that would get used in diplomacy dialogue or event descriptions, could go a long way. Another suggestion would be just change leaders along with the civ at the start of an age. This is probably the easiest and most straightforward fix. To some peoples' points, if the goal of switching civs per age is to add a layer of historical context, it would make sense to keep the same leader from living through all 3 ages too. But as with any speculation on unreleased videogames with a lot of hype, everyone is forming an opinion on partial information or just regurgitating opinions of others. Best way to judge if the game nails the civ-switch mechanic is to play the damn game, which no has done nor can do yet.

[@SinnerChrono]

Id have loved to see an age before antiquity. I personally believe in the theory of lost civilizations during the last ice age. So seeing something where you can find and interact with ancient ruins or lost tech to get a boost to your civ in some way would be cool af.

[@hungrybois5954]

Cautiously optimistic. I'm liking a lot of what I'm seeing, but confused on some aspects too. Hopefully more gameplay reveals in the coming months shed more light.

[@Deep_Sorcery]

So you swap civs twice in one game but keep the same leader? I guess I'm still trying to wrap my head around leaders are untethered from civs. That would mean the entire leader pool is available from the start. Also means that for two-thirds of the game your leader will only be loosly related to the civ you are playing at best. Challenging, but I think Firaxis can pull it off. Of course you can just play a single age and then all the leaders could be connected to their historical civs. I'm trying to think of the main game (all 3 ages) as 3 shorter civ games in which you can pass bonuses to. Would be nice to also have the ability to change leaders. Are we certain the leaders don't change with the new age? I understand history has layers but how does one implement that into a video game?

[@bartlett2335]

This is like if you made the sims and you become an adult and the game makes you place as an entirely different sim. Delusional

[@ResandOuies]

| love how what they're actually saying, with how Crises leads to the end of the Civ you picked and you got to pick a new one. Is that the first Civs where to weak/primitive to stand the test of time and you now need to pick a better one. Until it happens again and at the 3rd age you get to play as one of the Most Powerful and Advanced Civilizations. The true pinnacle of human endeavors. How progressive.

[@pavlepavlovic4073]

While my expectations where far from super high, I was still excited for Civ 7 reveal. However, I gotta say I am a bit dissapointed. It looks like they just ripped out ideas and interface from Humankind and Millenia, respectively, and just said "well we got more money so we will be noticed unlike those two". I think the game will ultimately still be ok, but there is a bit of a sense of dissapointement, that in all these years since civ 6 and other grand strategy games released in-between they evolved the game so little. I think much more could have been done. Many things just look so gamey, it doesn't feel more dynamic which was something I expected. I thought there would be things like production lines for resources, population allocation in different sectors of economy, civs evolving through the ages in a way that makes sense and is natural and not like this mixed and matched thing. So much more could have been done to further evolve the formula of this game.

[@defintity_9951]

One thing I dislike about the graphics would be the lack of a sense of scale. The resource tiles, units, and cities look way too large when compared the landscape. It makes the world feel too small, and like a board game instead of an immersive experience.

[@Deep_Sorcery]

I think maybe they only showed close up video because if they zoomed out you might notice the curvature in the map. I'm hoping that the map is a globe, not flat, and that they are saving it for a later reveal.

[@FurkanCemTurfanda]

This is no go as a concept for me. I like a lot of the other changes, but this alone could be a dealbreaker for me.

[@byzantinebasilieia9783]

I feel like the idea of changing civs could work but I'm worried about the implementation, I desperately need to see more about actually switching, which options you have and how many civs there would actually be to choose from

[@HeWhoShams]

Question: Are River Ports a thing? Can a city that isnt coastal still have a trading hub connected by water?

[@Harsh-tf9he]

I don’t know how to explain it, but the UI needs to feel like civ, and the black with gold design doesn’t feel like a civ game and more like a game from another franchise. The grandeur from the gold,the dark backgrounds and the thin font makes the game seem like it’s trying to impress you as it is without a brand They should experiment, even in civ 5 there was color and tabs are displayed on top of the game map, not a whole different screen It makes it feel like I’m managing what’s on that map instead of managing modifiers

[@Cipher_8]

Love that Firaxis is adopting the change to precursor settlement towns and city creation aka towns that can be later upgraded to cities if need be. Clearly influenced by outposts from Age of Wonders as well as other 4X games Millenia and Humankind but I like that system. Large cities often don't grow their own food and are fed by smaller surrounding towns aka farming towns. So in Civ 7 if your city starts replacing it's rural developments with urban developments as it gets bigger and bigger you might need some towns pumping food into the city for population growth. To me that's more realistic approach to city growth than just having one city with a large population number making itself a lot of food for growth. It also opens up ways to siege down a city in conflict because you can attack it's surrounding towns and cut off it's supplies. A prime example of a term in video games called emergent gameplay which refers to complex situations in video games that emerge from the interaction of relatively simple game mechanics.

[@dnaseb9214]

I will stay with humankind

[@bond0815]

If you look at the very mixed reviews of humankind its easily the civilization swapping mechanic that is by far the most disliked feature. That civ decided that was the one feature to copy is almost comical.

[@sloo6425]

I'd say there's a lot of welcome changes for myself, back to basics. I think Sid may have a hand in a few of the mechanics as a mentor for the devs. It also feels like the Beyond Earth game should have been as well.