Take a chance Fireaxis to save the game

[james.norcross]

So I played 4 games of Civ 7 on immortal difficulty with different leaders. During the first two ages just try to play strong, keeping near max cities and getting control of resources. No particular emphasis on any legacy path, but of course picking up a fair number of legacy points just as a matter of play. At the end of around 250 turns all games entered the final age. At this point, in terms of resources I was typically 2nd or 3rd in culture/science/influence, but never first in any of the categories.

In each game I decided to go for a different one of the win conditions. 60 to 80 turns later I won. In fact, if I had chosen any of the four win conditions for any of the games the result would have been the same.

The difference between this experience and that for civ iv through vi is that in those games the victories would involve making decisions much earlier that would affect one's ability to achieve a particular victory condition. These decisions could involve tech paths, terrain development, beliefs, great people management, trade, espionage and nearly every facet of the game.

For Civ 7 to provide this type of depth, achieving legacy points in initial ages must be more difficult and require decisions having greater consequence. The benefits of completing a legacy path in an age must carry over more strongly than they do now. Somehow, a coherence must be generated for a number of different game mechanics (tech, religion, civics, foreign relations) that lasts throughout the game.

I know that some of the new mechanisms in civ 7 are to maintain interest and avoid snowballing. However, making the endgame depend so little on the beginning and mid games does not seem to be a good way to maintain interest. In previous games if I had reached 60 turns remaining and could have chosen any victory condition at that point, that would have qualified as snowballing in my book.

[Bandit17]

Have you had a "poor" first age? Or "poor" 2nd age? I have and the difference definitely can be felt in the next age as it now takes me longer to get my cities up and running and so on. I will miss out on prime New World land or Wonders. If I don't knock it out of the park in the next age I can really be behind going into the final age.

So I think it really does matter how well one does in an age in this regard. The Elephant in the room is that the AI performs very poorly in most of the Legacy paths past the first age so the human, as long as they don't get overrun in the first age militarily speaking, should always win regardless of how well they do. The coherence is in the Player Unlocks, Attributes and the Unique Improvements.

The cool thing about the Age transitions, other than what you mentioned, is we get the chance to vary our gameplay. Shore up weaknesses, change Momento's or try a new civ for funsies (technical term indeed).

The fun in this game is more about the journey and MP but that mileage varies depending on the person. I personally felt the previous two Civ's had a feeling about midway through a game of "I know I am going to win and how I'm going to do it (it was almost always science for me)." I would usually just start a new game because the beginning was always the best part and some do it for this game as well.

The Age system, Legacy paths along with all the leaders/civs/momento's holds a lot of potential and keeps me interested longer than previous Civ games have because usually halfway through a Civ7 game I am still unsure what my next civ/momento or victory type will be and because of an ample of civ choices, that will only grow over time, I can always try something new or something I haven't played in a while.

I also play the same way in Civ 7 compared to how I did in the Previous Civs in that I might specialize in a certain area but I also make sure I don't have any weaknesses. Meaning I am open to go for any victory I want to or go for any wonder I want to depending on how things work out. A jack of all trades playstyle if you will. Religion was the only exception to this rule as that had to be planned for early on.

There are definitely some balance issues in the game and this next patch will hopefully address some of them. Like the previous two Civ games it can take a year or longer for the game to reach maturity so what we have now may look and feel very different down the road.

[jariel]

I agree with the op, and i think that they made winning super easy so that no one feels bad, but think that this is flawed strategy cos if you suck the whole game the win aint gona make it feel better and how it is done now just ruins whole modern age. Personally i set my goals to those paths to complete those all and most of all to future sci and cultures, how many times i get to hit those..

The paths do matter because of the attribute points and much of the game is played in that, but op is 100% in the right that those should matter in winning. I ques its just the culture of the day, everyone gets a participant trophy, but it does really take from the late game, i have used airplanes once or twice just to test those and newer even seen a nuke and still "won" the game every time. I want deity to be deity, now its just a little harder start.

[Many-Named]

the game is def too ez, and that braindead combat ai omg...

[Hamptidampti]

2K/ Firaxis are dead.
Civ 6 was a desaster, but Civ 7 is the worst game ever mit a ton of DLC instead of fixing.
FCK 2K,
FCK Firaxis.
Bye.

[jariel]

ai is somewhat braindead in some situations, but its still one of the best turn based strategy ai.. they have come far from civ 4, 5 and 6. And the game aint easy at all if you set your goals to doing as good as you possibly can and not that "win" and allso there are lots that can be done with just by choosing different maps and there is that one mod that will do ai super aggressive and the whole game much harder, even than i do ok in deity i dont dare to test that one in a long while.

[Rhapsody]

Originally posted by james.norcross:

The difference between this experience and that for civ iv through vi is that in those games the victories would involve making decisions much earlier that would affect one's ability to achieve a particular victory condition.

Besides everything you accomplish in the game organically (empire growth, wonders, elimination of rivals...), legacy points/milestones earned in both previous ages also contribute to production rate of the victory project of their type in the modern age. Sometimes it can even be a decisive factor.

Originally posted by james.norcross:

For Civ 7 to provide this type of depth, achieving legacy points in initial ages must be more difficult and require decisions having greater consequence.

I can't really disagree there personally, but seeing some players are fed up with the system altogether or are struggling to grasp the strategies to completing the paths, there is no way clear way to "a win" here IMO.

Also worth keeping in mind that the fourth age will enter the game one day. It's not pleasing that modern age was developed into this sort of "temporary" conclusion of the game, but it is what it is. It's not like Civ V or VI were really fleshed out in all areas like this either... sadly.