Lathspell said:

---

I'm so bad at the Civ games, but that doesn't keep me from playing hours and hours of them. I do wish I was better, but I just don't want to learn to be that good. Seems like a pain to learn all the mechanics to be that good.

---

I do ok on them but certainly lose my fair share at the king + difficulties. I tend to always find myself not being aggressive enough for early expansion then falling into the space race most of the time and sometimes lose to a culture or religious civ.

KidDoc said:

---

Lathspell said:

---

I'm so bad at the Civ games, but that doesn't keep me from playing hours and hours of them. I do wish I was better, but I just don't want to learn to be that good. Seems like a pain to learn all the mechanics to be that good.

---

I do ok on them but certainly lose my fair share at the king + difficulties. I tend to always find myself not being aggressive enough for early expansion then falling into the space race most of the time and sometimes lose to a culture or religious civ.

---

I usually cheat and kill the ability to win by culture or religion, as I never focus on those. lol

From a flow perspective, I'd prefer to see the change come in terms of the leaders rather than changing the civ. So if you play as the Egyptians, they'll have set bonuses that run through your entire game, but if you want to start out as Cleopatra (with her own unique bonuses) and then swap to Abraham Lincoln when you change eras (with his own bonuses), you can do so.

Ah well - we'll see how it works in practice.

I feel like changing leaders would have the potential to get confusing on games where there are a large number of AI opponents especially for lesser known civs.

I like the idea of having different bonuses and aesthetic options at each era change.

They should change the game's tagline to better describe the gameplay loop for Civ 7
"Build an empire to stand the test of time...until you hit a certain milestone, progress to a new era and now you're suddenly Mongol"

IrishAg said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

First breakdown from someone that has had a hands on w/ Civ 7:

Breaks down his experience into the good, the bad, and the ugly.

---

Wow, that's a long breakdown

Also found this guy who break things into different parts



This is a really good breakdown on the new cities only, builders are gone, different types of tiles, multiple buildings can be placed on a tile depending on the tile.

---

No builders? Multiple buildings on a space? Why not just call it a new game and stop milking the civ franchise?

After watching multiple long form review videos from creators who played the alpha, I'm nervous about the amount of fundamental changes. Just a few examples; influence points, mixing leaders + cultures/civs, changing civs over eras, no builders, leader upgrade trees are all potentially massive and a lot to fine tune and balance by next year.

Civ has always delivered phenomenal games, but 5 and 6 were both underwhelming, if not bad, on release until DLCs perfected them. Im expecting to not love 7 on release, but going to give it a fair shake. I am confident that within 1.5 years Civ 7 will be contending for best expansion in the series.

Big Walt Law Firm said:

---

After watching multiple long form review videos from creators who played the alpha, I'm nervous about the amount of fundamental changes. Just a few examples; influence points, mixing leaders + cultures/civs, changing civs over eras, no builders, leader upgrade trees are all potentially massive and a lot to fine tune and balance by next year.

Civ has always delivered phenomenal games, but 5 and 6 were both underwhelming, if not bad, on release until DLCs perfected them. Im expecting to not love 7 on release, but going to give it a fair shake. I am confident that within 1.5 years Civ 7 will be contending for best expansion in the series.

---

Im with you. These "mixing leaders + cultures/civs, changing civs over eras, no builders" all seem like things they will have to fix in the expansions.

I could see something like having Frederick as a leader for the Holy Roman Empire and you can change some traits in the modern era and become Germany or the Aztecs become Mexico but the options i saw to go from Egypt to some random country in Africa with no real ties was off putting.

The more I've watched on this the more excited I am.

Boy Edna doesn't care for those Aztecs!

That was the first one I played. Freshman year on a buddy's computer.

I always get addicted until one turn starts taking an hour to complete.

Denuvo DRM being implemented for Civ 7. Not ideal...can really impact game performance, requires always online connection, and is very intrusive.

kb2001 said:

---

Civ 1, 2, 3, and 5 consumed a lot of my time.

I bought 6 but never really played it much.

---

I bought Civ 6 a couple of years ago. Played about a half-dozen games on it, and was pretty bored. This from someone who played a lot of Civ II and Civ IV

Hope I like the next one better