EPTHaven't tried Old World yet, but it is on my list.
Sid Meier's Civilization VII - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2552 Posts
Haven't tried Old World yet, but it is on my list. | ||
|
Mafe
Germany5966 Posts
On June 15 2024 14:45 Fleetfeet wrote: I fucking hate culture victory and culture lategame in civ 6. I don't know what it SHOULD be, but both stacking museums/galleries and rock bands are just irritating mechanics. I also accidentally win via culture more than anything else. Haven't tried Old World yet, but it is on my list. I found myself with a similar issue, but more generally that lategame for most victory types (except domination) is rarely interesting. In case of a culture victory, there is some supportive stuff you can/should do like trading with all civs, place improvement like city parks or gain suzerainty of city states that give tourism-yielding improvement, regularly check enemy governments to adjust yours for maximum tourism or go for national parks if you still have locations. Then you could go for more exotic stuff like biosphere based tourism or build leftover wonders. But in my games, most of this is set up well before the actual predictable and inevitable victory occurs so at some point and therefore the game devolves into an end-turn-simulator. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On June 14 2024 21:17 deacon.frost wrote: 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) I think Civ 6 is a bit more balanced in this regard. I hated the ICS strategy of earlier civs but I also hated how dominant the 4-city science victory was in Civ 5 for a very long time. I like to make my core cities tall. I just hated how limiting 4 cities are. Yongle is definitely fun. I still need to try Tokugawa. I actually found Hojo interesting even though he has some ICSish mechanics. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2552 Posts
On June 15 2024 23:30 Mafe wrote: I found myself with a similar issue, but more generally that lategame for most victory types (except domination) is rarely interesting. In case of a culture victory, there is some supportive stuff you can/should do like trading with all civs, place improvement like city parks or gain suzerainty of city states that give tourism-yielding improvement, regularly check enemy governments to adjust yours for maximum tourism or go for national parks if you still have locations. Then you could go for more exotic stuff like biosphere based tourism or build leftover wonders. But in my games, most of this is set up well before the actual predictable and inevitable victory occurs so at some point and therefore the game devolves into an end-turn-simulator. Totally. I do find biosphere tourism, wonder-related stuff, and city-state suze all interesting. I also find the endgame for science fun (up until the point you're literally just waiting for your rocket to get there) because it requires a refocus from science to production on some cities, which necessitates interesting planning. Religion is okay also, the minigame of apostles and alternate battle is good enough imo. By far my least favourite victory types are culture and diplomatic - culture because its endgame rock bands are annoying mechanically, and diplomatic because it feels super undercooked. The game devolving into an end turn sim is imo an issue of AI and perfect information. If the AI was at all competitive and you didn't know exactly how close to winning the pressure to optimize your endgame for science/culture would add any tension, instead of the current incentive of "well I have to press end turn fewer times." | ||
|
Yurie
11822 Posts
On June 14 2024 18:10 Silvanel wrote: Old World > Civ VI 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. How important are characters in Old World? I see it has an inheritance screen in its screenshots on Steam and that directly bounces me off. I think there is too much focus on people in Europa Universalis IV where you basically just have a ruler and some marriage diplomacy. (Generals / Naval commanders having names don't really matter.) | ||
|
Latham
9560 Posts
Artstyle looks still cartoonish/Mobile Game-ish, but also a step in the right direction and an improvement over Civ 6. Maybe some ReShade to make the colors less vibrant and more washed out. More hands-on experience from a Youtuber who got to play it himself: | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8649 Posts
didnt watch enough to comment on gameplay much but in the first 5mins of the 3rd vid im already raising my eyebrows. why the hell are you able to pick a leader for a civ when the leader has had absolutely nothing to do with said civ? and youre apparently able to change civs during the game? wtf is this | ||
|
Bacillus
Finland1927 Posts
On August 21 2024 16:29 evilfatsh1t wrote: didnt watch enough to comment on gameplay much but in the first 5mins of the 3rd vid im already raising my eyebrows. why the hell are you able to pick a leader for a civ when the leader has had absolutely nothing to do with said civ? and youre apparently able to change civs during the game? wtf is this Yeah, the leader - civ roulette sounded horrible for me. It kind of reminds me of the less pleasant parts of Civ 6 where you've got crazy number of all kinds of options, but in reality only a few viable ones and limited depth gain once you see past the superficial complexity. (Or that's how I've understood the issue at least, never really learned Civ 6 inside out to say for sure). On a quick glance, the UI also seems really raw and unfinished at places. I guess there's plenty of time to refine that still. I think I'm fine with the visual style. I just wish they can nail the overall tone better than Civ 6 did. On 6 they seemed to bounce between epic, silly and cartoony and it never really struck a good balance on them. | ||
|
Latham
9560 Posts
Where I stole this from: https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1ex8zxq/civ_7_gameplay_details_ursa_ryanboesthius/ Note from myself: I think I heard in one of the videos someone posted that there are no barbarians now? Something to that affect. I think they merged barbarians with city states to form these completely random and aggressive mini-countires? Also can't cut down forests to boost production of buildings/units anymore. Can't buy tiles. Instead you do these production zone bombs on your outer borders to scoop up land, a little like culture bombing from previous titles. Initially its just rural zones, later on its rural/urban zones. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
In previous games I loved early game micro with builders and chops, losing that hurts. Conversely the modern age was always quite boring IMO, the game is usually decided by then and you're just going through the motions. So if they make the 3rd age actually good, could be an OK trade off. Civ changing is the most controversial new feature. I'm in a wait-and-see position for now, I think it could be implemented well, but it will feel weird not carrying the same Civ throughout a whole game. | ||
|
Comedy
456 Posts
VII has me worried it'll dig deeper on the things I Didnt like about VI. I just want to play the game I've loved almost my whole life. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35143 Posts
Every now and then I try to dip my toes into CIV and while I enjoy the early game with expoloration and what not, by the time mid and late game comes around I have to learn a whole bunch of systems that require a youtube series to know what things actually do. | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8649 Posts
governers in civ 6 was pretty self explanatory as a system but you cant get a tutorial for why magnus is so good or when to get pingala. if they did then the tutorial would be too invasive | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
The one thing I'm most worried about is them trying to promote tall once again. I hated that part of Civ 5. I don't go ultra wide but I like to have around 10-15 cities in a typical Civ 6 game. I wouldn't mind fewer if there is more to manage in each city. 7-8 doesn't sound bad but hopefully they don't make domination too punishing. It's one of the more interesting ones right now. On August 26 2024 13:06 evilfatsh1t wrote: to be fair i think its going to be difficult to have a tutorial that teaches players how to best utilise a system. governers in civ 6 was pretty self explanatory as a system but you cant get a tutorial for why magnus is so good or when to get pingala. if they did then the tutorial would be too invasive Agreed. Tutorials are too basic and you would still fall to all sorts of newb traps. I like reading guides because they are better at giving me a sense of what strategy to use. I come back and play Civ 6 for 50-100 hours every year the last few years. Every time I come back, there is a learning curve to familiarize myself with the game again. | ||
|
EchelonTee
United States5245 Posts
Personally I prefer Tall - Venice One City "Challenge" is something I really enjoyed. The city spam of Civ 6 got a bit much to me especially with all the district planning you want to do in advance. Hopefully they can find a decent medium. Seems like even if you dont want too many cities in VII, towns can go beyond that limit and allow for some flexibility | ||
|
evilfatsh1t
Australia8649 Posts
| ||
|
Latham
9560 Posts
We got to see a few new civs (Japan, Normandy, a few different Indias) It was strongly implied that Japan, China and India could remain themselves throughout all 3 ages, but they'd have a slightly different (historically acurate) name. For example "Han" China, "Meiji" Japan, or "Chola" India etc. depending on the age you're in. When playing versus the AI and advancing eras, YOU will always be the first person to choose how your civilization evolves, before the AIs can choose so to not let them steal your dream civilization and fuck up your plans. It was strongly implied AIs will try to follow the logical and historical evolution of their respective civilization. The chances of the AI advancing from Egypt to Mongolia are very slim. They'd really have to have no other option to choose from, to go that route. They are VERY excited to see which civilizations the modding community will add themselves. Denuvo will be in at release. Also, no hot-seat multiplayer (at least on release). | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On August 30 2024 14:40 evilfatsh1t wrote: yeah i previously posted here that i would like a nice middle ground between wide and tall and it seems that civ 7 kind of has a good idea on that. towns and cities being distinguishable and there being a soft cap on cities (which are the ones that really become tall), while towns not having the same restriction still allows for wide gameplay Same with me. When I play domination, I tend to raze most cities keeping only very few. I find the district planning the most fun part of Civ 6, which is my favorite in the series. I find too few cities too limiting in that I could only plan a few different cities. Too many and it becomes exhausting. The removal of workers would really help reduce the annoying micromanagement in the midgame and beyond. I like to have my cities have as much of their 3 rings as possible instead of smacking them too close together. Using towns to grab resources sounds awesome. | ||
|
Bacillus
Finland1927 Posts
On September 01 2024 19:30 Latham wrote: When playing versus the AI and advancing eras, YOU will always be the first person to choose how your civilization evolves, before the AIs can choose so to not let them steal your dream civilization and fuck up your plans. This feels pretty messy. Some people definitely want to play their dream civs and usually you've had the lower difficulties to allow without much obstruction. Meanwhile elevating the player like that on harder difficulties seems pretty weird. I don't know, the more wary side of my brain wonders if the AI is still operating with so many advantages that they're going to hit certain milestones way before the player and as a result the player would have whatever scraps was left after every AI player gets to pick theirs first. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2552 Posts
On September 04 2024 03:51 Bacillus wrote: This feels pretty messy. Some people definitely want to play their dream civs and usually you've had the lower difficulties to allow without much obstruction. Meanwhile elevating the player like that on harder difficulties seems pretty weird. I don't know, the more wary side of my brain wonders if the AI is still operating with so many advantages that they're going to hit certain milestones way before the player and as a result the player would have whatever scraps was left after every AI player gets to pick theirs first. Makes some sense - it certainly is an 'issue' in civ6 Deity. There are certain wonders you'll virtually never get because AI starts making them turn1 with 3x your production, certain pantheons that are gone 90% of the time for similar reasons, and contesting for space for your cities is an issue - the AI will settle foolishly and aggressively, often screwing up your city planning. That said, I don't think that's a bad thing overall. The AI throwing a spanner in your works is kind of the point of having enemies. Also, in the case of civ7 it sounds like dramatic branches in your civ choices happen during age transitions (which in previous civ are simultaneous for everyone) and that the players get first choices. | ||
| ||
