EPTYou can wishlist it on steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1295660/Sid_Meiers_Civilization_VII/
Release date is planned just for '2025', no further details.
Here's the teaser/reveal trailer:
It's August and here's gameplay:
Sid Meier's Civilization VII
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Latham
9558 Posts
You can wishlist it on steam: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1295660/Sid_Meiers_Civilization_VII/ Release date is planned just for '2025', no further details. Here's the teaser/reveal trailer: It's August and here's gameplay: | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
| ||
|
WGT-Baal
France3342 Posts
| ||
|
TropicalHaze
Finland55 Posts
On June 11 2024 00:06 andrewlt wrote: I've played Civ since 2. It's really going to be tough topping Civ 6 this time around. I've enjoyed it more than any other and keep coming back to it for a few games every year. Civ 5 for me, I still seem to go back to it from time to time over Civ 6. But I second your feeling, hard to top either one of those. What can they add to an almost perfect 4X game. | ||
|
FaCE_1
Canada6163 Posts
hope we can see some gamepaly soon, or just how the world will look like | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2521 Posts
On June 11 2024 06:21 TropicalHaze wrote: Civ 5 for me, I still seem to go back to it from time to time over Civ 6. But I second your feeling, hard to top either one of those. What can they add to an almost perfect 4X game. If mods for civ6 have anything to say, TONS! I don't think I use any mods that fundamentally change how civ6 functions, but there are loads of QoL mods and added content mods that I have a hard time playing without. Also, AI could be vastly improved and/or reconsidered. Deity difficulty is -fine-, but once you get to a certain level it's hard to actually lose Deity because the AI won't actually pursue win conditions. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
I have Boes' tier list bookmarked somewhere haha. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8614 Posts
personally i liked both civ 5 and 6 but civ 5 just feels old now and civ 6 has certain things which do annoy me | ||
|
WGT-Baal
France3342 Posts
On June 12 2024 23:03 evilfatsh1t wrote: i agree that theres still a lot that could be done for civ 7. civ 5 and 6 were well received but they generally still divided the civ community imo. its time we got a civ is more unanimously praised i think. personally i liked both civ 5 and 6 but civ 5 just feels old now and civ 6 has certain things which do annoy me same, i prefer V despite its age. Also not a fan of the cartoon style of 6. 6 does have some nice things too with the districts and the governors adding depth. But i dont like the social tree much a bit of a mess with the cards. also the loyalty system is good but a bit meh early game (personal opinion) | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8614 Posts
| ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On June 12 2024 23:23 WGT-Baal wrote: same, i prefer V despite its age. Also not a fan of the cartoon style of 6. 6 does have some nice things too with the districts and the governors adding depth. But i dont like the social tree much a bit of a mess with the cards. also the loyalty system is good but a bit meh early game (personal opinion) Maybe I should've given Civ 5 more of a chance. I bounced off quite hard because of the overemphasis on tall empires. I played a few games, played the scenarios and just stopped. I love the district and wonder placement game that Civ 6 has. It just hit the right spot for my preferred play style. I tend to build 8-16 cities in a usual game and it just allowed for more freedom on that end. They also went ham with the leader abilities later on. Lots of interesting ones towards the end. The game did release with pretty bad diplomacy though (Total War levels of anti-player bias) and I dropped it for maybe 4 years before picking it up again. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
| ||
|
WGT-Baal
France3342 Posts
On June 13 2024 01:03 andrewlt wrote: Maybe I should've given Civ 5 more of a chance. I bounced off quite hard because of the overemphasis on tall empires. I played a few games, played the scenarios and just stopped. I love the district and wonder placement game that Civ 6 has. It just hit the right spot for my preferred play style. I tend to build 8-16 cities in a usual game and it just allowed for more freedom on that end. They also went ham with the leader abilities later on. Lots of interesting ones towards the end. The game did release with pretty bad diplomacy though (Total War levels of anti-player bias) and I dropped it for maybe 4 years before picking it up again. with all expansions V plays ok. I usually play either Byzantium or carthage which you can play wide. Esp carthage i like to have outposts everywhere. Granted the happiness can be tricky but it s manageable. At the same time i rarely 1v1 it s mostly either cpu or with friends (and sometimes with friends vs the cpu ;p) so take this with a grain of salt. One thing i d love to have is in games having perhaps an option to be allied without being the same team and "share a victory" that way. like you start rough and one player helps you/you help him out of necessity to survive early then sometimes you both grow too integrated to turn on each other and it would be nice not to be forced into that. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
I normally play standard 8-player map with cpu on one of the middle difficulty levels. I don't think I've repeated any leader yet in Civ 6. In fact, I may not have done it in any civ. I always try somebody new. Of course, I've only had maybe 15-20 games. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
 | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
I've also been enjoying Age of Wonders 4 for my 4x fix lately. It is a lot more combat oriented and the empire building is more limited. Still fun. My campaigns in civ 6 tend to be on the 20-30 hour side, I think. I've only done story realms of AoW4 so far and I estimate they average 30ish so just slightly longer. | ||
|
FaCE_1
Canada6163 Posts
| ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8614 Posts
it was interesting at first because of the extensive planning you had to do, but after a while its just tedious and probably a bit too powerful. also i disliked the pacing of the tech and civic trees. the problem was probably connected to how powerful districts were and how quickly you could research tech/civics but youd find yourself unable to upgrade your army at the pace which things were being researched. for me civ 5 leaned towards building tall whereas civ 6 was the opposite and you had to expand very wide. my first wish for civ 7 would be that the game allows you to build tall or wide depending on your civ or particular strategy, rather than the mechanics of the game quite obviously pushing you into 1 direction over the other. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4704 Posts
Really, it is much better game. Not really excited for Civ VII, I dont see them vastly improving over previous iterations. There are more changes/improvements between some DLCs in Stellaris then between various iterations of Civ's. Somehow, even after all this years they cant seem to create workable diplomacy. It's just sad. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On June 14 2024 16:02 evilfatsh1t wrote: yeah civ 5 happiness sucked. i was glad they changed it in civ 6 but in civ 6 after a couple hundred hours my eventual conclusion was that districts sucked. it was interesting at first because of the extensive planning you had to do, but after a while its just tedious and probably a bit too powerful. also i disliked the pacing of the tech and civic trees. the problem was probably connected to how powerful districts were and how quickly you could research tech/civics but youd find yourself unable to upgrade your army at the pace which things were being researched. for me civ 5 leaned towards building tall whereas civ 6 was the opposite and you had to expand very wide. my first wish for civ 7 would be that the game allows you to build tall or wide depending on your civ or particular strategy, rather than the mechanics of the game quite obviously pushing you into 1 direction over the other. Yes, Civ6 was wide > tall, but later on there were some changes. Maya is probably the best example as you are actively punished for going wide, but there are other civs capable of doing that which were added later on. There more civs which can be played tall - probably other good example is Inca. You probably cannot play tall for the cultural victory, with Khmer you can do go military/religion tall. But once you go military, it goes wide  Edit: also the latest civ additions added some tall civs - Yongle(China), Tokugawa(Japan) | ||
| ||
