Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
I'd recommend reading up a little on it:
https://civilization.2k.com/civ-vii/game-guide/dev-diary/
I was skeptical at first, but now I'm really looking forward to it.
I could have done this better myself with a character creator and custom civ option.
It seems like they reinvented the wheel, when they should have simply realigned it. And since a great deal of these civs are introduced as DLC, it looks like it was a design change created solely to sell more DLC instead of just giving us a custom civ creator in 2025.
I'm just not interested in that sort of gameplay, esp. when paired with artificially-manufactured crises at the end of a given age/era/whatever. I kinda take pride in consistently smooth and successful transitions to a new stage of the game, and making me deal with some kinda BS crisis just for the sake of making more work for me at the end of a stage is baffling, to say the least.
So, what makes you hype for changing horses midstream? Genuinely curious.
Could be my dumbness but I don't even understand what this ♥♥♥♥ means.
So we start as George Washington and America (for example), and then the curtains close and a new act opens with us playing as George Washington in England, and the final age begins and we're George Washington of the Aztecs? Huh what?
Will this be an optional "feature" that we can disable and play a style more similar to prior Civs? Anyone know?
But yeah, essentially, retaining the same leader but swapping civs from age to age is the mechanic. And I haven't met a single person who's asked for it!
It would be hard to justify the "reset" without the civ changing.
However, I really wish most civs had stronger historical connections. I think they dropped the ball there, and I hope the ability to cosmetically mod a civ will be easy. Like I'd love to rename Hawaii to Polynesia, since the kingdom of Hawaii did not exist until the 1700s.
America is a modern civ and so not a choice you can take in the ancient or exploration ages. No england option either at first.
But you can go from Maya to Norman/Hawaii to America.
You choose a leader with a unique bonus and an ancient age civilization. These are Civs which can only be selected in the ancient age, so no America, but like Greece or Rome.
When the Exploration age or Modern age comes you switch to another civ only available in that era. Spain and the Normans for example will be in the Exploration age and USA and Mexico with be Modern.
You can't just choose anyone you want for the next era - there are limitations. It's not like Humankind where anyone can just switch to anyone.
I encourage you to read up more on the website to learn more about it.
I have to agree. The more I think about it the worse the idea is. The tagline of the series has always been "Build a civilization to stand the test of time," to the extent that they even named the remake of Civ II after the phrase. We are basically guaranteed to have one tired DLC after another to try and fill the slots of each age with a suitable analogue to whatever the player is looking to use. I think having a civilization customizer is perhaps a bridge too far for the series, for the simple reason that the series has always been about choosing a civ for the purpose of taking one specific nation from the beginning of civilization to the end. It could certainly work, to be sure, but it would be better handled under a different studio with a different name. I would expect such a game to include customizing the player's introductory civ with a specific culture, ethnicity/ies, etc. and then simulating its development from ancient times to modern by interaction with other players' civs.
The fact is, the more of the mechanic we see in action the less appealing it appears to be. The crisis mechanic is pretty bizarre to justify the civilization swapping itself, I have a feeling it will be a very major complaint for players who probably won't encounter it until well after the refund period. It seems like rather than letting players control and maneuver a civilization from the dawn of history to modern age, it will instead attempt to simulate the twisting nature of history, without any of the accuracy or intensity that grand strategy titles like EU, CK, etc. have.
There is no midstream switch. This is the way civilizations evolve.
Simply put, it's much more realistic than the crap Civilization VI made us do. Playing as Canada from the Stone Age into the future is imbecilic.
I really don't care about the leaders, but I do care about starting as a Native civilization and evolving from there.
Tecumseh > Mississippian > Shawnee > America is much more realistic than having a bunch of cave men from Canada become Robert Oppenheimer 250 turns later.
If they ever include Canada, I'll look forward to the Natives, French, and the British incorporated into my gameplay. Canada wouldn't exist today without them.
Until then, I play for America. The USS New Jersey and the USS Missouri.
...considering the America we know today didn't develop along that timeline at ALL, I would argue that it's less realistic.
The America WE know evolved as follows: Rome > Britain > hodgepodge of immigrants. That's it. How are you going to meaningfully simulate something like that?
There'd also be a huge disparity in different timelines, and in at least one instance (Egypt's), no sense at all in changing civs since Egypt has always been Egypt. They're very proud of that fact. China, Iran, Japan and San Marino (little San Marino) also pride themselves on longevity.
Great for the history books, but for a history sandbox title? I'm not really interested, personally. Sounds like a lot of tedious work for the sake of realism. That doesn't work in survival titles, and I doubt very strongly it will work on a turn-based strat sandbox.
So that brings up another question in my mind -- are we segregating Great People now, too? Do they only get the ones their cultures bore?
We have been given lists and ability descriptions for civ-specific great people, but don't know if those are the only great people, or are simply a given civ's unique great people, that only that civ can ever acquire. Some of the ones on the lists look pretty OP, and if there weren't generic great people any civ might acquire, then it would seem that the few civs that have great people would be obviously OP.
We don't know how you acquire the great people, even the ones on the lists that we know exist. Do you buy them with gold? Produce them as a project? They are said to "cost" more for each one you acquire, like settlers or builders in 6, but I'm not sure that word promises gold over production, or even some other yield, as the "cost". Do you pay your money (or whatever yield) and get a great person at random? Do they come up in a fixed order, so you have to get the early ones to uncover the later ones, or do you get to pick whichever one you want next from the whole list?
We also know that there are great works,but I don't believe we've been told how they arise, and whether some sort of great people are involved in their acquisition, as is the case in 6.
They have revealed a whole lot, but there are huge holes remaining in what we know of this game, and great people sit in one of those holes.