Map Sizes

[A-Money]

We weren't able to glean too much from the trailer/gameplay just how big maps will be, I hope that they have with the advancements in tech that map sizes can be much more expansive. For in terms of earth maps being accurate and balanced in landmass sizes being realistic but also balanced for true start locations, especially with the more expansive cities. Civ 6 struggled, especially in late in game on huge maps and you needed a beefy PC to run modded TSL maps that were larger than huge.

[Zerachan]

Err, you did catch the fact that maps will always start small in first age, and mapsize will get literally expanded with each of the two ageups? (Including spawning in new factions and enemy players located in the newly added areas from increased mapsize. Game only have 3ages total, which may surprise old civ players used to far many more.)

[Spartak]

CIV 7 has the same obsolete engine as 6. So they simplified the game and dumbed down the mechanics, they have turn it in to a mobile game. The new graphics are just textures from Warhammer 3 applied over. It look like huge maps are over, they didn't go that direction. They reduced the scope of the game, instead of expanding it.

[A-Money]

Originally posted by Zerachan:

Err, you did catch the fact that maps will always start small in first age, and mapsize will get literally expanded with each of the two ageups? (Including spawning in new factions and enemy players located in the newly added areas from increased mapsize. Game only have 3ages total, which may surprise old civ players used to far many more.)

I guess I missed/forgot that part. I would assume that the map itself is a set size and open up but there is how much it will/can expand to in other ages determined in the game creation menu.

[A-Money]

Originally posted by Spartak:

CIV 7 has the same obsolete engine as 6. So they simplified the game and dumbed down the mechanics, they have turn it in to a mobile game. The new graphics are just textures from Warhammer 3 applied over. It look like huge maps are over, they didn't go that direction. They reduced the scope of the game, instead of expanding it.

They used a ton of textures as placeholders I'm guessing from 6/maybe even 5 in the gameplay trailer and is being worked on.

[Zerachan]

Don't forget that wars now are popularity contests.
Everyone uninvolved are also allowed to completely for free put extra penalties on either side of any ongoing war,and those penalties are both to cities and to combatunits fightingstrength.. =p
Or how you're forced to choose a single wincondition at start of a new game, like if past games got changed to block you from having more than one possible way of winning.

Seriously, I had thought the low hurdle of civ6 would be easy to surpass, but hey they failed even that.
The fact that the devs are dumb as bricks going with persistent leader and passing civs instead of other way round that would other make some sense also speaks volumes.

Oh, and when you realize the standard ageup involves degrading all cities into unusable towns,deleting all structures and units and so on, only exceptions are the leaderspecific structures that are flagged as ageless.
Or that ageup occurs to everyone at once, meaning it basically wipe everyone clean of how they performed in the now previous age.
Or that there's only one of each unittype per age, meaning there's only 3 regular melee units,3 mounted units,3 standard rangedunits,3siegeunits and so on in total for all ages combined. (All their effort went to making all kinds of unique skins for every civ of each unit,with additional procedural randomgen to make unitcompanies to look like random ragtag groups with occassionally painfully random gear, making the cosmetic nonstop fights between units that stand on bordering tiles and other things that are basically just for having an easier time of using random gamefootage to create trailers.)
Or how you are lvling your individual leaders with skilltrees and obtaining additional bonuses that are persistent between gameplays.


The severe lack of actual gameplay mechanics or depth in this game is saddening.
And while they themselves try claim it's the most historically accurate and realistic game and largest civgame, as they also claim a single age of it is like an entire civgame of itself, I won't bother discussing wether they're just straight up dishonest or so foolish to genuinely believe those statements. (Since it honestly doesn't matter, either way is hopelessly bad.)

[A-Money]

Originally posted by Zerachan:

Don't forget that wars now are popularity contests.
Everyone uninvolved are also allowed to completely for free put extra penalties on either side of any ongoing war,and those penalties are both to cities and to combatunits fightingstrength.. =p
Or how you're forced to choose a single wincondition at start of a new game, like if past games got changed to block you from having more than one possible way of winning.

Seriously, I had thought the low hurdle of civ6 would be easy to surpass, but hey they failed even that.
The fact that the devs are dumb as bricks going with persistent leader and passing civs instead of other way round that would other make some sense also speaks volumes.

Oh, and when you realize the standard ageup involves degrading all cities into unusable towns,deleting all structures and units and so on, only exceptions are the leaderspecific structures that are flagged as ageless.
Or that ageup occurs to everyone at once, meaning it basically wipe everyone clean of how they performed in the now previous age.
Or that there's only one of each unittype per age, meaning there's only 3 regular melee units,3 mounted units,3 standard rangedunits,3siegeunits and so on in total for all ages combined. (All their effort went to making all kinds of unique skins for every civ of each unit,with additional procedural randomgen to make unitcompanies to look like random ragtag groups with occassionally painfully random gear, making the cosmetic nonstop fights between units that stand on bordering tiles and other things that are basically just for having an easier time of using random gamefootage to create trailers.)
Or how you are lvling your individual leaders with skilltrees and obtaining additional bonuses that are persistent between gameplays.


The severe lack of actual gameplay mechanics or depth in this game is saddening.
And while they themselves try claim it's the most historically accurate and realistic game and largest civgame, as they also claim a single age of it is like an entire civgame of itself, I won't bother discussing wether they're just straight up dishonest or so foolish to genuinely believe those statements. (Since it honestly doesn't matter, either way is hopelessly bad.)

Sir, this is a Wendy's.

On a more serious note, I get that. There was a lot of depth missing in 6 at the start that I missed from 5, stuff that wasn't ever added back into 6 (Demographics Panel, my beloved). One could hope that one of the first mods add more ages or whatever the first big expansion adds more, but it would be better if it had that depth from the start. I like the idea of switching Civs, but only within a understandable historical means. I can hope that there is an AI option in the game setup screen to allow them to make only historical descisions, but there only being two eras after the first is a little dissapointing.

[colostmy4]

Part of the fun for me was sending out scouts to explore. I hope they didn't remove the fun of exploring from this game.

[TyCobb]

Originally posted by colostmy4:

Part of the fun for me was sending out scouts to explore. I hope they didn't remove the fun of exploring from this game.

Were barbs part of that fun? They gone now.

[Zerachan]

It's more of a question what they didn't remove, considering how quickly you see they've removed pretty much the entire game.

[Bolesting]

You cant expect big size of maps from developers who wants to attract mobile phones players.

[JuX]

The map sizes have been on downward trend for civ games.