I can't believe that the person who practically taught me how to play Civilization 6 and master the cultural victory wasn't invited to play Civilization 7 early. As a huge fan of the series, it's shocking to see you weren't given the chance, especially considering how many of us learned from your videos. You would have deserved that invitation more than anyone.
No workers\builders No barbarians No Civilization I want to play from star to finish This is going to be either the best Civ game ever, or the worst Civ ever.Firaxis really got the balls
@jonathanchimaras5428 And? Competitors utilize ideas from eachother all the time and build further upon them. I'd much rather that then remake the exact same game with slightly updated graphics like a lot of other franchises do.
They got rid of Barbarrians? How could they? I loved the fact that when you made a Civ game on the earth, they'd always takeover Australia first. Yeah, it's gonna be the worse. Hands down. Sticking with 5 and 6!
I like the idea that you change your civilization. It's creative BUT it cannot be random. It must be connected civilizations otherwise it breaks the entire game atmosphere because it makes a lot of sense to go from, lets say, Rome to Italy or other Romanic civilizations but it makes zero sense to go from Rome to India or Japan. If they make nations completely random then it's a deal breaker for me.
Honestly the only major problem I've had so far is similar to what Potato said about the leaders. If that is what we're keeping consistent then they have to be done correctly, and interacting with the leaders directly has been core to the civ identity since the beginning even more than the real world nations we borrown the bonuses from.
I think with the potential for the map getting larger each age and changing your leader based how how the game was played will help make the late game much feel more interesting and dynamic.
One thing I see people not understanding about the Ages is that each is 200-300 turns. So they're more like a full game, and then a full Campaign is like a Marathon game.
out of curiosity where did you get that information? also i imagine if that is the case there will be options to reduce that cause that kinda just sounds exhausting drawing out a game like that as the default unless the ai can actually keep up,
When I choose the "Romans" to control, I want to control them from cavemen to a nuclear world power. The only thing I have ever asked for was to be able to change the name of the Civ... Iike Roman to Italy. Never Roman culture to Greek culture to Russian culture. This is stealing very bad game ideas from other games and throwing out a trashy mess for a money grab.
I don't remember hearing that specifically but I do remember them talking about being 100-120 turns in and they were only half way through an age. So that all tracks.
That was the beauty of Civ, playing as Babylon until the future, regardless of how it fell in real history. Locking Civs to specific eras can lead to unfortunate implications. Are all Native American Civs gonna become America in the Modern era? Maya and Aztecs become Spain or Mexico? China and Korea become Japan? I need to see the full Civ roster to judge how well planned the Civ paths are. But if I don't like playing Civ7, I will stick to playing Civ6.
I haven’t really seen people say that Civ switching makes the game historically inaccurate. But most just aren’t fond of no longer being able to take one civilization all the way through history, when that was kind of the point of the first 6 games.
My argument to that is play civ 1 through 6. I still do. Not 1 or 2 but you get my point. I bet they'll add gameplay where you stay the same civ down the road. But if you think about it, it's just complaints to change. The actual game play could become more diverse and exciting
@@Sonicifyouwanit People can dislike *a* change without disliking *all* change. There are lots of places that the Civ games could go and a lot of interesting things in 7, but *this* mechanic in particular what’s causing the controversy.
@@SonicifyouwanitI like every single other change they've made (changes which aren't in civ 1-6). This single change might be a deal breaker for me though because it doesn't give me the vibes of what I want out of the game. Now I'm sure Firaxis doesn't want users to not buy the new game and "just play the old ones instead". I'm pretty sure they want each game to be a hit. If the players are going to not play the new game they're investing $ into it's something they want to know.
'Build a civilization that stands the test of time' This changing civilization mechanic kinda goes against the primary motto of the game Also it's funny they used Egypt as the example of changing civ when in reality we do have the Egyptian state existing in present times.
That will probably be one of the first mods. I really hate that stupid change civ. I've been playing Civilization since the first one. I'm not buying this one, this isn't Civilization anymore.
I like many of the changes in Civ 7. In regard to keeping a civ through all eras, I’m sure a mod will come out quick to support that. I’m hoping my pre teens get into the game and we are able to learn to play together. They are interested in playing
I think it'd be awesome if we could continue as the same civilization only if we handled the crises superbly at the age end. This would add an extra challenge. If we fail the crisis our empire fragments and we have to choose which fragment/civ to rule.
This new era change feature is going to be the most controversial gameplay change in all the civilization games. It could force Firaxis to change it during their mid cycle updates because some gamers are going to hate it and (maybe) some are going to like it. I understand the reason behind the developers plan to make the game feel more realistic as you manage your civilization through time but at the same time it adds unrealistic characteristics to the game with the ability to mix civ leaders with different civilizations. If I am not mistaken the plan was to take one leader e.g. Benjamin Franklin, then choose your first antique age civ like Egypt and then morph Egypt into Mongols in case you can find two horse resources. So, in the late game there might be a war between Montezuma, the leader of the United States versus Benjamin Franklin, leader of the Mongols? Come on guys! This is ridiculous! I don't see even one percent realism in such a scenario, which will occur in very game. The only way to prevent such nonsense from happening if Firaxis narrows down the civs a great person can choose and then narrows down the evolution path of each civilization. Meaning: England starts as Celts in the antique age, then transforms into either Vikings or England and in the late game to Great Britain. Another example would be for Rome to transform into Holy Roman Empire during exploration age and then into Italy when entering the modern age. Otherwise, this game becomes just another strategy game that takes place in some randomly generated world with random civilizations fighting for land and gold.
In fairness, I don't really care if there are historical connections between the civ switching. I look at it from a strategic perspective, where do I want my civ to go, what path will I take? Civ is not a game where you try and replicate history ( that would be a nightmare for the devs and even more controversial). There will be options to loosely follow a historical path im sure if not a game mode then modders will intervene to satisfy that demand so I wouldn't worry too much about that. The format leaves huge potential for modders to make this game amazing.
It's the same thing every time a new Civ game is on the horizon, people complain about the changes and then a year later it is all treated as normal and inevitable. People were angry about going from squares to hexagons. People were angry about not being able to stack all their military units onto one tile. People didn't want governors. It's like that bit from the Matrix: "Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the seventh time we have built a Civilization game, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it." I'm gonna trust Firaxis on this one until they give me reason not to.
Not true. People don't come around eventually. Those who hated Civ 6 (like me) still haven't bought Civ 6. And they, like me, will not be buying Civ 7. The extra sales will come from newer players who only know Civ 6, or Civ 7 will be their first Civ game. But many older Civ players will buy it, play it a bit, and likely hate the new changes and go back to the Civ version they like best. Sid Meier will still have made a sale, even if it's not played or liked, so they don't care.
2 месяца назад+5
I really hope this enables them to add a lot more Civs to the game. One of my favorite parts of Civ VI has been the sheer amount of diverse civilizations they kept adding, it made me return to the game and have a lot of fun. Their expansion passes also really felt like a good deal, compared to other shady gaming companies. I hope one day I'll get to see my Civ on there (Dacians / Thracians in Antiquity, and Romania in the Exploration or Modern age)
i am disappointed.. why force people to change their civ when a new age starts? why.. wdf... you can have them change some of their stats.. change the whole civ..
You should have the OPTION to change the Civilization if you want, and to something they were IRL or could have been. So, say, you start with Rome. Then you can change to Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, Bizantine Empire. If you choose to. If not, you stick with the original one. But I start with Rome, then I become Japan? It's beyond absurd.
Good to see you back! I've always loved your videos and subscribed a long while ago. So glad the algorithm showed me your new vid. Keep up your quality content and I'm sure the Saxy Gamer will be there in the studio to review Civ 8
Pretty sure I once made it halfway through a game of civ (forget which one) without the wheel, which is exactly as ridiculous to realism as it sounds, so whatever’s going on with techs I’m with it
If true I like the idea of the map expanding as the ages progress. With the previous Civs there would be an opponent placed on each continent. By the time you earn the ability to cross oceans the other continents are already fully occupied. This could make the middle of the game interesting as everybody will be rushing to explore and settle the new lands. It could also make the scenario interesting as it could lead to a decision on whether to focus building you military to conquer the existing lands while your opponent is focusing on building settlers and ships.
The argument of civs not being on the same continent makes no sense for civilization. The continents are not that of earth. Civilizations pop up everywhere. Rome can be a neighbor of America.
I think it’s looking good overall. But I’m also not a fan of switching civs. I always liked the idea of creating an “ancient” USA or an “ancient” Canada and guiding them through the ages to create a Canadian Empire that stood the test of time. Or taking an ancient civ like Babylon, and guiding them through the ages and eventually to the stars. However, if the system is better implemented than it was in Humankind, I’ll probably like it!
"Civ was never a historically accurate game." I disagree with this kind of response. Not that it's not factually true. I just disagree with this _kind of response._ Well yeah duh, no game is ever completely realistic or historically accurate, is it? Of course not. But at the same time not every developer uses that as an excuse to do the most unintuitive, incongruous things ever either. Just because people can tend to understand a few weird things like a game still presenting you with stone-age barbarians in the middle-ages, doesn't mean they'd be just as fine with EVERY departure from realism or intuition without limits. And I'm not even someone who necessarily disagrees with Civ 7's feature of "becoming different civs." I just disagree with the flippant and lacking response people have to the concern about it. It reminds me a lot of a stupid mantra I kept hearing back in the day on the forums of Warhammer 40K Dawn of War, quipped by the gatekeepers whenever people had criticisms or views about visuals : "graphics don't equal gameplay :)" Duh, but there's a reason people still buy/upgrade their gaming machines instead of playing tetris or pacman all day everyday.
I get what you mean. I suppose I’m not arguing that historical accuracy is totally irrelevant, but more so that changing cultures is not necessarily any less historically accurate to how Civ currently is. I do still have some concerns with the civ-changing mechanic, I’ll probably talk about them in a later video.
I'm hoping "eras" and "ages" are different like I hope there's still 2-3 eras within each age. Cause i really liked the dark and golden eras changing often
I think you are missing the point when addressing the issues players have with non historically accurate civ switching mid game. The issue doesn't seem to be whether or not Civ is a historically accurate game, the issue lies within the suspension of disbelief and credibility. When, in my game, I play Babylone nuking other countries, I know it's not historically accurate but it is immersive because the identity of Babylon has remained untouched throughout the centuries. I am attached to the identity of the Civ and to the idea that it is a credible and consistent, yet ever-evolving, empire. In that regard, having only "True Earth" Civ branchings is ok to me as my people evolve, change name and customs. But changing to a random Civ that has nothing to do with my previous one breaks the suspension of disbelief.
as long as they have a good mechanic on what civilization you can switch into, or you keep your old one. i think it will be an interesting mechanic. and option in the beginning where you enable or disable the change civ every age can also be a solution to those who want/don't want it in the game. because historically some civ was changed into a new nation. Like Majapahit turn to Indonesia. If they add it into the game. it will be awesome
My biggest worry about civ change system is how insensitive it could be. I don't see people talking about it (just the dumb argument about lack of historical accuracy). Like, we know we will get Shawnee, who are Native Americans, right? If they're an Exploration era civ (or even Ancient era), then the best guess would be that they'd turn into Modern era America, right? Doesn't that sound kinda awful, especially for people that might be affected? Other examples from civs appearing in previous games: - Celts becoming England (basically Irish being put under the rule of England) - Cree becoming Canada (another Natives that got almost exterminated by colonizers) - Poland becoming Russia or maybe Germany (2 countries that erased Poland and almost erased it second time) - Inca becoming Brazil (Natives exterminated by colonizers). Also, there's high chance that China will be Modern era civ because Mongolia is Exploration era. And Japan likely will be an Exploration era, because I doubt they'll pass on doing samurais (who fit that timeframe). Which means Japan might have to change into China, which is again just wrong. Imagine if Korea is also an Ancient Asian civ, then we have Korea chaning into Japan (which would be wrong, because at that time period Japan tried to conquer Korea) which turns into China. Another off feeling example would be to make Indonesia change into Australia. I don't think there's a bad blood between them, but still, it suggest one is more primitive than another. For people claiming they want to celebrate a place in history of many nations, they are kinda happy to also celebrate their downfalls or outright traumas. Not to mention that the way it's presented it suggest some real life countries (like Egypt or any I've mentioned, if they would happen) are just primitive compared to others. All that stuff is a good gameplay design (from the looks of it), but wrapped into an awful package. They really should do something about it. Otherwise they will end up alienating part of their fanbase who will feel unpleasant with gameplay forcing them to do that stuff.
I spotted something very interesting. Around 5:50 they showed policy screen and there is a card that literaly said '"gain 2 migrants". So migrations are replacing loyality system maybe? Miasma is the name of a card.
There has to be a way to make civ switching feel cohesive. If they let me NAME my civ (i give them a unique identity) and then they called the civ switch a "style" / "inspiration" I'd be fine with it (and if they kept the old building styles where they are)
if the most cosmetic of changes is all it takes to change your mind then I don't think you or anyone in your camp really has an issue with these changes. A mod that does what you describe will be out within weeks of release.
@@EarlHare I don't have an issue with the mechanics. I have an issue with potential execution. I was psyched out of my mind about this same mechanic in Humankind, and then it felt really really really bad because they didn't get the details right (and mods didn't help).
Imagine being a peasant in the Civ VII world. You go outside your house in an Egyptian village to pick up some dates. In the middle of your walk - "poof". You look around startled, but you continue your walk. Finally you come to the place where the dates were and you find coffee there. And then you come back to your house in a ... Mongolian village. WTF Firaxis? Stop calling it Civilization!
I'm disappointed you didn't get to play the game. I was looking forward to your opinion specifically about it. I've been watching your Civ 6 videos for a while now so I was hoping to hear your thoughts. I'll keep an eye out at launch for your thoughts though. Glad you're posting again!
I wish they would let us switch leaders between eras rather than Civs. To me that makes more sense and would still present lots of interesting gameplay opportunities. That being said, I'm keeping an open mind. I liked Humankind so I think Firaxis will be able to make it work
If I want to play USA I first have to play 2 ages with civilisations I didn't want to play with and I can't even be sure I'm playing USA because another player might grab USA in the last age? Is this the fun in Civ7?
2:20 I’m going to be real, that’s a lame mechanic. Just because dates weren’t useful to Europe during that era it doesn’t mean it wasn’t useful elsewhere. I really hope they don’t go this route
I only wish two things: 1. that we get the same camera mod 😅 and 2. good music/soundtracks… Civ5 has imo the best soundtracks especially the African/middle east ones!
My big fear is that the cities become too alike from game to game (I like builders). I don't play fast domination games at all so I'm also worried that there is no other viable gameplay. Lastly my other fear is that the random generator options will be too limited and reduce replayability.
I wonder how the determine who choses the new leader as the age changes? I haven't heard much about the role of culture in this game. Perhaps a good way is to give the civ with the highest culture first dibs on the leader going into the next age.
8:30: Egypt is on the same continent as Mongolia... and the mongolians ironically stopped their conquest at egypt, being defeated by the Mameluq Egyptians.
The point isn't what happened historically for the Mongolians but that their civilization found and used a lot of horse resources and so when Egypt in that game found 3 horse resources in game that is why they were able to diverge into Mongols if they chose to. People are overlooking the mechanical reasoning because they can't look past the actual historical records of Egypt and Mongolia never being relatable. It's about what happens in the game on the map. You discovered horses. Thematically, Firaxis is only trying to accomplish an abstraction of the concept that civilizations are dynamic and change and influence others.
@InternetMameluq and like i was saying civ isn't trying to bring historical accuracy to the table and never had been. It's emergent based on what happens IN GAME and it has HISTORICAL merit because they found horses. Nothing more. Firaxis isn't making the claim that Mongols and Egypt are linked. Don't skip over the important thing - that they found the horses. Firaxis is saying if a society or civilization had found and used the resource of horses that they might diverge into a mongolian like civilization. When people slow down from their initial knee jerk reaction and understand what they are trying to do instead of focusing on "this didn't happen in history" they'll see they're only simply trying to show that civilizations are dynamic and change and are influenced by their surrounding circumstances.
@@Cipher_8na it sucks and breaks immersion. Imagine playing rome and then switching to india mid game. If you come up with a dull excuse for that one youre mentally challenged.
It's boring to just play as Rome from beginning to ending. I've done that in all prior Civilization games and many other 4X games. It's about time the genre innovated some.
How is stealing leaders not gonna be an issue? You still cant have duplicates so theres gotta be some way to decide who gets who unless its rng which is awful.
I understand why Firaxis is trying to introduce civilization switches but it does feel jarring for a civilization such as Egypt known as great builders to evolve into nomadic Mongolia. The argument that civilization change, fall and rise etc is absolutely understandable but I'd prefer If we were just switching our civ bonuses with each era. Let's say after acquiring 3 horses Egypt does not change into Mongols but swaps it's starting bonus e.g. "Great Builders" into "Nomadic Culture" etc. That way we could keep the mechanical progression without making a jarring 180 on how we imagine the culture of our civ. People already have their own perception of each country and its history and explaining Egypt evolving into Mongols just because their civilization had access to a lot of horses is weird. They'd obviously change but not to such a great degree. It feels like changing your class from warrior to mage because I found 2 rings boosting mana or smth. But what If I wanted to play the warrior all the way to the end of the game? Maybe I'd adjust my build to use a few spells here or there but I mostly wanted to use my sword and I'd try to stick to that. That being said personally I think I could get used to civ switching and start enjoying it after a while but the transition will feel painful to me. Of course I didn't play the game. I am not a game designer. I am talking here from my POV and how the changes feel to me now. I hope they can manage to find a way to make it work but right now I have no idea how you'd do that. P.S. A long comment I know, I hope I managed to present my feelings on this at least a bit coherently. I have a bad habit of rambling sometimes.
I was offended you didn't get an invite. Your videos are the BEST for civ players of every level. Potato talks to damn fast, and most others are just showing off. You and Drew are the titts.
@@gregtuff4020 But you might put a big handicap on yourself by not doing so. And the AI sure is going to do it. If from one turn to the next your Egyptian neighbors suddenly become Japanese or Franks its going to ruin any immersion
civilization has progressed far n all, but i wanna see some day is civ implement a kardashev scale system, where civilizations can progress to planetary to galactic to multiversal levels
tbh I'm more concerned about the (in my opinion) ugly UI + fonts, and leaders (Augustus) for the mechanics, there will always be pushback initially, even Civ 5 was disliked when it was released.. People will geet used the new stuff
Wonder if I'll be able to play as america and then switch to england to right the wrong that happened??? Graphics look really good and the ages switch up could definitely be an interesting game mechanic!
Can you imagine how confusing that would be? Turn 89 I made a deal with Ashoka. Then when I tried to contact him again at Turn 160, he no longer exists as the leader, and now I am wondering which leader was it that I made a deal with all those turns ago.
@@thomanarchos so I wrote "(not leader)". Plz think about single governer slot for great person, employed by the leader. One civ, One leader, replaceable One great person.
It amazes me people are so upset about a GAME not reflecting history. Its a game guys its not meant to make exact historical sense (dont get me wrong its feels great to play a semi historical game but its not essential). When has civ made historical sense in the past. Some examples below which illustrate how nonsensical this argument is: England building Machu pichu America building the pyramids Sumeria in the modern age Canada in the ancient age A slinger depending your capital in 1950 😂 Do i need to go on? The only historical accuracy in the game has been the names and traits of civs and leaders and the name of wonders and building's.
Civilizations "switched" all the time. Its not a fixed body. The Romans ended up as several and merged with even more. There is no "historical" argument against it, but because we have hardwired current history some people may not manage to accept alt. History. Its really comical when you think about it, because you can play the Mongols and start on a world space that never existed in the ancient times and take over the entire world before the Mongols ever existed as we know them, yet the idea that Civilisation Z was the spawn of civilisation X, thats just not historically accurate. It baffles the mind what some people get stuck on.
Theres a difference between Roman Empire becoming England and Zulu becoming Mongols. Surely theme always has to be sacrified for gameplay mechanics but theres some lines when crossed, it just becomes an abstract experience with no attachment or immersion because the theme is no longer there.
@@stefansibbes2440 Indeed. There's something called plausibility. Yep. England is a stretch for the Roman Empire, but they were there for a few centuries, so yeah. Just going from one Civ to another random Civ is just plain stupid.
I'm very excited to try this game once it's possible. I appreciate that they're going all out with big expansive changes - the ages is actually the thing I'm most confident about working out. As everyone has mentioned, they're actually very long so I'm not worried about that overblown concern that the AI will be tag switching so much you can't track it. The lack of tile management is what I'm afraid might make the game less interesting, but will have to actually try it.
The whole civ switch just feels wrong and basically ruins what made civ fun for me, the whole "build a civilization to stand the test of time". I didn't care if America or Canada was starting in the ancient era because that was the whole point of the game, starting small and build your civilization. Now that's basically ruined and not only that I won't be able to complete a game with my country and wining with it. I would have honestly preferred that the leaders switched insted of the civilization, for me at least it would have allowed for a far more interesting gameplay where each leader offered different bonus to game while keeping it just being one civ throughout the whole game. Let's say for example England you start with William the Conqueror where in the first age your leader will give bonus for a more domination focus game, and then in the next age you play as Victoria where she offered bonus for a naval and production game and then in the modern age you get someone like Churchill. That for me sounds way more interesting and would have probably caused way less uproar in the community.
I don't know if you ever played Endless Legend but what I liked about it is part of growing your civ is you basically exploit (conquer or befriend etc) other minor factions and assimilate them in. Basically building an empire, much as how empires formed in real life, how dominant civilizations and their influence spread across continents or enormous regions. I had always thought that should have been the inspiration that civ should take. A sort of organic morphing and altering and evolving of your civ, as you navigate your way on how to deal with minor factions, and even how culture, religion, technological advances spill over because of embattled cities which have seen different takeovers between competing civs. I feel that would at least be more intuitive, more organic and nuanced, than a prompt screen that just unceremoniously pops up at some point in the game that says "OK time to declare yourself as another civ now." I would have loved to see the slow changes, the gradual diversification of aesthetics in your city architecture, people, music, religious beliefs, dialects etc (I know that last one sounds a bit much for a game, but if I were a developer I'd still be thinking of these things as eventual goals in an eventual project). And, I would have loved to see that the bigger your empire becomes, if you cannot maintain the same level of control across all of it, certain parts of it may start to gain its own spark for independence, forming new NPC factions -- and a nice name generator for all of it. "The ____ Republic." "The Reunified ____ of the ____." etc.
Thematically, Firaxis is trying to accomplish an abstraction of the concept that civilizations are dynamic and change and influence others in the future. It's still one culture one society one civilization standing the test of time.
I would like it if I could effectively make my own civilization that is not just a rename, but it would require a complex system. They did try here and there, but it wasnt very complex.
still mixed feelings. slightly more positive. i think with swaping civ you become more flexable. then the culture civ spawned next to a war civ. ruining your plan. also wonder if the era's are even in turns or era 1 is shortest 2 is middel and 3 is longest. if the era sytem works what you think of a posible mars/moon colonly era 4! future era.
When Civ6 came out and I was playing Civ5 I wasn't too receptive. Now I like Civ6. I'm sure this will be the case with Civ7. Looking forward to taking it for a spin.
I like the new art, i like the new comander system, I like 90% of changes but 2, ages(say you done only 5 out of the 20 tech, when you move to next ages you get given all the previous age tech)and leaders/team swap. I hope I am wrong. Other then that I hate the massive pay wall the game already has. The map gets larger, and 5 new civs gets added to game.I like your videos and content but you shoukd had watch the info video of the people who when in to play it, as lots of info was given, so you dont have to speculate.
Actually, Egypt into Mongol does make a little bit of sense. Hulegu Khan made it to Baghdad, it wasn’t that far to Egypt and there’d have been pretty good pasture for horses once they got into the delta. I think it was more politics than geography that stopped them, if I recall.
Bruh that doesn't make sense at all just bc someone at some point in history was present in a country doesn't change the whole culture or the whole civilization for that matter its super dumb
it always bother me that we had Civ with era specific bonus, specially the unit, because it maded some Civ completly broken compare to other, antiquity civ were nice to bully your neigbor and get big fast and have a snowball effect, but mid game were just the best, in Civ5 i would conquer the whole world with Russia everygame, and that wasn't even hard. and for late game Civ, they are useless, the game is already settle at that point. and historicly, the new system make a lot more sense, i would rather have the egyptian turn into mongol horde because they were geographicly and culturally propice to become it than having the american coesxist with babylon.
Why CIV youtubers are so disingenuous, no one really asked about historical accuracy (CIV was never historically accurate), but asked for historical sense (authenticity), people do not have a problem with an evolution that make sense, happened in history or could happen, like Otomans into Byzantium (where otomans conquer byzantium but they asimilate into byzantium culture). Egypt into Mongolia or Songhai makes no sense, it pure artificial and kills half of what people liked and play for CIV. In EU4 there are different path of evolution that people like, Firaxis could have inspire from them not from Humankind, from Humankind they could take battle sistem that is better than CIV in my opinion.
@@NautilusXO If Greece stay Greece for thousands of years or Otomans evolve into Byzantyum (as an alternative path), where is the historical accuracy? Do you understand the term historical accuracy? can you see the difference in regards to historical sense. Did you understand that CIV was inspired from history and used cultures, leaders, units, buildings, etc from history giving people posibility to chose a culture and lead that culture trough times till they win a symbolic victory, even if in reallity that cultures was destroyed thousands of years ago. Do you see now the difference between inspired from history and historically accurate?
@@Cipher_8 Hard to follow your line of logic, maybe you are sarcastic. Egyptian were a farming sofisticated society that already have horses before even Mongolia exist. In history there is a direction of evolution from simple societies to complex ones. Well established and refined farming societies did not become warmongering nomad pastoralist. It is about historical sense otherwise if you do not care then you can give peoples nukes from the start of the game.
@raulepure9840 it never was super historically accurate or trying to be. America in ancient times. Mahatma Gandhi having nukes. C'mon... And I'm not the only one saying these things listen to some actual 4X game content creators like potatomcwhisky, spiffingbrit, and quill18.
Yeah, i dont get the complain about changing Civs: You can take it as "Unlike in history, in your game you developed Egypt into a horse-centric civ and it became an egipcian version of the Mongols, which now never existed in Asia"
Sooo... I have to waste my time twice on Civs I definitely shouldnt give a crap about... Im not seeing the fun of this mechanic. The whole core concept of Civ games is running a civilization from the beginning of history to the modern day and even slightly beyond.
8:05 okay people are so stupid if they don't look past it at the surface because this IS how societies develop their own cultural identity IRL. Think about it, why or how did Mongolians become horsemen? Why are they known for being horsemen? Because the resource of wild horses happened to be plentiful, and they realized their land wasn't great farming land but it made them nomadic moving from place to place. The pastoral land was okay for grazing. Their leaders realized the advantages they offered in warfare with hit and run tactics and mobility making horses important to the Mongolians. They used them in many ways. Takhi - the wild horses that once roamed the Eurasian steppe in huge herds - influenced their way of life so much that it was centered around horses, which were used as mounts, pack animals, and as a source of food (both for horsemeat and mare's milk). To the point where nowhere are horses more central to daily life than in Mongolia. Mongolia still to this day is known as the land of the horse, and Mongols have a reputation for being the best horsemen. My point being if a civilization finds a certain resource then it makes sense that they adapt to it if they are utilizing it. Yes, in history Egypt didn't turn into Mongolia but if any society had the horses and didn't have the rich farmland that Mongolians dealt with that would've developed the same way. So I take it as less of what happened in real history and more of what could or would happen to my civ based on what I discover or how I choose to settle and develop them. They'll develop and change their own culture based on those decisions, and if I find three horse resources then that's fine that they could develop into mongolian civ who are known for being a horsemen culture.
never a historical accuratly game !!! this is a game about history it should be historically accurate not 100 percent but atleast a good level of historical accuracy or it will be nothing as a civilization game !!!
![Megan Thee Stallion - Bigger In Texas [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QxTkZTLWdo4/mqdefault.jpg)
I can't believe that the person who practically taught me how to play Civilization 6 and master the cultural victory wasn't invited to play Civilization 7 early. As a huge fan of the series, it's shocking to see you weren't given the chance, especially considering how many of us learned from your videos. You would have deserved that invitation more than anyone.
The one of the best parts of a new Civ game coming out, is that we get to hear your silky voice again! Welcome back king!
Historical accuracy. Like when the Incas built the Great Wall
No workers\builders
No barbarians
No Civilization I want to play from star to finish
This is going to be either the best Civ game ever, or the worst Civ ever.Firaxis really got the balls
I love it. Firaxis actually tries to shake things up rather than shoving the same shit with every game release like so many others.
@@malmasterson3890it’s basically another game. Humankind 2
@jonathanchimaras5428 And? Competitors utilize ideas from eachother all the time and build further upon them. I'd much rather that then remake the exact same game with slightly updated graphics like a lot of other franchises do.
They got rid of Barbarrians? How could they? I loved the fact that when you made a Civ game on the earth, they'd always takeover Australia first. Yeah, it's gonna be the worse. Hands down. Sticking with 5 and 6!
Yes, in fact to take a very useful quote out from the film Team America: "I like you. You have balls. I like balls."
The map looks amazing, such a step up from the cartoonish map of civ 6
The Chosen one has returned
Careful, she may change next turn.
I like the idea that you change your civilization. It's creative BUT it cannot be random. It must be connected civilizations otherwise it breaks the entire game atmosphere because it makes a lot of sense to go from, lets say, Rome to Italy or other Romanic civilizations but it makes zero sense to go from Rome to India or Japan. If they make nations completely random then it's a deal breaker for me.
Honestly the only major problem I've had so far is similar to what Potato said about the leaders. If that is what we're keeping consistent then they have to be done correctly, and interacting with the leaders directly has been core to the civ identity since the beginning even more than the real world nations we borrown the bonuses from.
I think with the potential for the map getting larger each age and changing your leader based how how the game was played will help make the late game much feel more interesting and dynamic.
Agreed! I felt the late game was the most boring part of CIV 6
Ok not really sure how well it'll actually work since usually you won't be interacting with farther places most of the time in my experience.
N
I wish the civ stayed consistent, but you could change your leader in different ages. You could pick different leaders based on the focus of your civ.
One thing I see people not understanding about the Ages is that each is 200-300 turns. So they're more like a full game, and then a full Campaign is like a Marathon game.
out of curiosity where did you get that information? also i imagine if that is the case there will be options to reduce that cause that kinda just sounds exhausting drawing out a game like that as the default unless the ai can actually keep up,
@@limyarplane1991 It was from Herson's video, which he pulled from multiple other RUclipsrs/write ups. I dont remember his exact source
When I choose the "Romans" to control, I want to control them from cavemen to a nuclear world power. The only thing I have ever asked for was to be able to change the name of the Civ... Iike Roman to Italy. Never Roman culture to Greek culture to Russian culture. This is stealing very bad game ideas from other games and throwing out a trashy mess for a money grab.
I don't remember hearing that specifically but I do remember them talking about being 100-120 turns in and they were only half way through an age. So that all tracks.
What I remember is each Age is 200 turns at most (in standard speed).
You can say that it has been AGES since we've been this excited for Civ.
XD
You could say that changing Civs did AGE well either. 😂
Puns, man. Puns for days.
I'll allow it.
Or you can say we waited ages for Civ to copy other, lesser games to put out garbage as a money grab.
That was the beauty of Civ, playing as Babylon until the future, regardless of how it fell in real history. Locking Civs to specific eras can lead to unfortunate implications. Are all Native American Civs gonna become America in the Modern era? Maya and Aztecs become Spain or Mexico? China and Korea become Japan? I need to see the full Civ roster to judge how well planned the Civ paths are. But if I don't like playing Civ7, I will stick to playing Civ6.
I haven’t really seen people say that Civ switching makes the game historically inaccurate. But most just aren’t fond of no longer being able to take one civilization all the way through history, when that was kind of the point of the first 6 games.
My argument to that is play civ 1 through 6. I still do. Not 1 or 2 but you get my point. I bet they'll add gameplay where you stay the same civ down the road. But if you think about it, it's just complaints to change. The actual game play could become more diverse and exciting
@@Sonicifyouwanit People can dislike *a* change without disliking *all* change. There are lots of places that the Civ games could go and a lot of interesting things in 7, but *this* mechanic in particular what’s causing the controversy.
@@SonicifyouwanitI like every single other change they've made (changes which aren't in civ 1-6).
This single change might be a deal breaker for me though because it doesn't give me the vibes of what I want out of the game.
Now I'm sure Firaxis doesn't want users to not buy the new game and "just play the old ones instead". I'm pretty sure they want each game to be a hit. If the players are going to not play the new game they're investing $ into it's something they want to know.
'Build a civilization that stands the test of time'
This changing civilization mechanic kinda goes against the primary motto of the game
Also it's funny they used Egypt as the example of changing civ when in reality we do have the Egyptian state existing in present times.
That will probably be one of the first mods.
I really hate that stupid change civ. I've been playing Civilization since the first one. I'm not buying this one, this isn't Civilization anymore.
I like many of the changes in Civ 7.
In regard to keeping a civ through all eras, I’m sure a mod will come out quick to support that.
I’m hoping my pre teens get into the game and we are able to learn to play together.
They are interested in playing
Sad to hear you didn’t get selected to try out Civ7. Your videos taught me how to play Civ6, and I hope you’ll make tutorials for 7 as well!
I think it'd be awesome if we could continue as the same civilization only if we handled the crises superbly at the age end. This would add an extra challenge. If we fail the crisis our empire fragments and we have to choose which fragment/civ to rule.
This new era change feature is going to be the most controversial gameplay change in all the civilization games. It could force Firaxis to change it during their mid cycle updates because some gamers are going to hate it and (maybe) some are going to like it.
I understand the reason behind the developers plan to make the game feel more realistic as you manage your civilization through time but at the same time it adds unrealistic characteristics to the game with the ability to mix civ leaders with different civilizations.
If I am not mistaken the plan was to take one leader e.g. Benjamin Franklin, then choose your first antique age civ like Egypt and then morph Egypt into Mongols in case you can find two horse resources.
So, in the late game there might be a war between Montezuma, the leader of the United States versus Benjamin Franklin, leader of the Mongols?
Come on guys! This is ridiculous! I don't see even one percent realism in such a scenario, which will occur in very game.
The only way to prevent such nonsense from happening if Firaxis narrows down the civs a great person can choose and then narrows down the evolution path of each civilization.
Meaning: England starts as Celts in the antique age, then transforms into either Vikings or England and in the late game to Great Britain.
Another example would be for Rome to transform into Holy Roman Empire during exploration age and then into Italy when entering the modern age.
Otherwise, this game becomes just another strategy game that takes place in some randomly generated world with random civilizations fighting for land and gold.
They should change strategy set of civilization via changing great person (not leader), rather than changing civilization itself.
In fairness, I don't really care if there are historical connections between the civ switching. I look at it from a strategic perspective, where do I want my civ to go, what path will I take? Civ is not a game where you try and replicate history ( that would be a nightmare for the devs and even more controversial). There will be options to loosely follow a historical path im sure if not a game mode then modders will intervene to satisfy that demand so I wouldn't worry too much about that. The format leaves huge potential for modders to make this game amazing.
Your Babylon example makes sense but transitioning from Roman to Chinese and eventually to American doesn’t make sense either
Ancient China to Mongolia to modern China works though
It's the same thing every time a new Civ game is on the horizon, people complain about the changes and then a year later it is all treated as normal and inevitable. People were angry about going from squares to hexagons. People were angry about not being able to stack all their military units onto one tile. People didn't want governors.
It's like that bit from the Matrix: "Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the seventh time we have built a Civilization game, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it." I'm gonna trust Firaxis on this one until they give me reason not to.
Not true. People don't come around eventually. Those who hated Civ 6 (like me) still haven't bought Civ 6. And they, like me, will not be buying Civ 7. The extra sales will come from newer players who only know Civ 6, or Civ 7 will be their first Civ game. But many older Civ players will buy it, play it a bit, and likely hate the new changes and go back to the Civ version they like best. Sid Meier will still have made a sale, even if it's not played or liked, so they don't care.
I really hope this enables them to add a lot more Civs to the game. One of my favorite parts of Civ VI has been the sheer amount of diverse civilizations they kept adding, it made me return to the game and have a lot of fun. Their expansion passes also really felt like a good deal, compared to other shady gaming companies. I hope one day I'll get to see my Civ on there (Dacians / Thracians in Antiquity, and Romania in the Exploration or Modern age)
i am disappointed.. why force people to change their civ when a new age starts? why.. wdf... you can have them change some of their stats.. change the whole civ..
You should have the OPTION to change the Civilization if you want, and to something they were IRL or could have been. So, say, you start with Rome. Then you can change to Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, Bizantine Empire. If you choose to. If not, you stick with the original one.
But I start with Rome, then I become Japan? It's beyond absurd.
Oh man how I’ve missed that intro.
No Saxy, I probably don’t ever give Civ6 a proper go, a few vids & I was hooked!
Eternally grateful.
Good to see you back!
I've always loved your videos and subscribed a long while ago.
So glad the algorithm showed me your new vid.
Keep up your quality content and I'm sure the Saxy Gamer will be there in the studio to review Civ 8
I like the challenge of racing to be the first civilization to enter into the next era which gives me motivation to focus on technology and science
Pretty sure I once made it halfway through a game of civ (forget which one) without the wheel, which is exactly as ridiculous to realism as it sounds, so whatever’s going on with techs I’m with it
If true I like the idea of the map expanding as the ages progress. With the previous Civs there would be an opponent placed on each continent. By the time you earn the ability to cross oceans the other continents are already fully occupied.
This could make the middle of the game interesting as everybody will be rushing to explore and settle the new lands.
It could also make the scenario interesting as it could lead to a decision on whether to focus building you military to conquer the existing lands while your opponent is focusing on building settlers and ships.
v much enjoyed this, thanks as always.
The argument of civs not being on the same continent makes no sense for civilization. The continents are not that of earth. Civilizations pop up everywhere. Rome can be a neighbor of America.
Babylon didn’t get to nukes irl because they were defeated early game. Changing Civs 👎
I think it’s looking good overall. But I’m also not a fan of switching civs. I always liked the idea of creating an “ancient” USA or an “ancient” Canada and guiding them through the ages to create a Canadian Empire that stood the test of time.
Or taking an ancient civ like Babylon, and guiding them through the ages and eventually to the stars. However, if the system is better implemented than it was in Humankind, I’ll probably like it!
"Civ was never a historically accurate game."
I disagree with this kind of response. Not that it's not factually true. I just disagree with this _kind of response._
Well yeah duh, no game is ever completely realistic or historically accurate, is it? Of course not. But at the same time not every developer uses that as an excuse to do the most unintuitive, incongruous things ever either. Just because people can tend to understand a few weird things like a game still presenting you with stone-age barbarians in the middle-ages, doesn't mean they'd be just as fine with EVERY departure from realism or intuition without limits. And I'm not even someone who necessarily disagrees with Civ 7's feature of "becoming different civs." I just disagree with the flippant and lacking response people have to the concern about it.
It reminds me a lot of a stupid mantra I kept hearing back in the day on the forums of Warhammer 40K Dawn of War, quipped by the gatekeepers whenever people had criticisms or views about visuals : "graphics don't equal gameplay :)" Duh, but there's a reason people still buy/upgrade their gaming machines instead of playing tetris or pacman all day everyday.
I get what you mean. I suppose I’m not arguing that historical accuracy is totally irrelevant, but more so that changing cultures is not necessarily any less historically accurate to how Civ currently is. I do still have some concerns with the civ-changing mechanic, I’ll probably talk about them in a later video.
I'm hoping "eras" and "ages" are different like I hope there's still 2-3 eras within each age. Cause i really liked the dark and golden eras changing often
I know what you mean.I hope so too.I love to start with stone age , and later to the medieval age ;]
I think you are missing the point when addressing the issues players have with non historically accurate civ switching mid game. The issue doesn't seem to be whether or not Civ is a historically accurate game, the issue lies within the suspension of disbelief and credibility. When, in my game, I play Babylone nuking other countries, I know it's not historically accurate but it is immersive because the identity of Babylon has remained untouched throughout the centuries. I am attached to the identity of the Civ and to the idea that it is a credible and consistent, yet ever-evolving, empire. In that regard, having only "True Earth" Civ branchings is ok to me as my people evolve, change name and customs. But changing to a random Civ that has nothing to do with my previous one breaks the suspension of disbelief.
as long as they have a good mechanic on what civilization you can switch into, or you keep your old one. i think it will be an interesting mechanic. and option in the beginning where you enable or disable the change civ every age can also be a solution to those who want/don't want it in the game.
because historically some civ was changed into a new nation. Like Majapahit turn to Indonesia. If they add it into the game. it will be awesome
My biggest worry about civ change system is how insensitive it could be. I don't see people talking about it (just the dumb argument about lack of historical accuracy). Like, we know we will get Shawnee, who are Native Americans, right? If they're an Exploration era civ (or even Ancient era), then the best guess would be that they'd turn into Modern era America, right? Doesn't that sound kinda awful, especially for people that might be affected?
Other examples from civs appearing in previous games:
- Celts becoming England (basically Irish being put under the rule of England)
- Cree becoming Canada (another Natives that got almost exterminated by colonizers)
- Poland becoming Russia or maybe Germany (2 countries that erased Poland and almost erased it second time)
- Inca becoming Brazil (Natives exterminated by colonizers).
Also, there's high chance that China will be Modern era civ because Mongolia is Exploration era. And Japan likely will be an Exploration era, because I doubt they'll pass on doing samurais (who fit that timeframe). Which means Japan might have to change into China, which is again just wrong. Imagine if Korea is also an Ancient Asian civ, then we have Korea chaning into Japan (which would be wrong, because at that time period Japan tried to conquer Korea) which turns into China.
Another off feeling example would be to make Indonesia change into Australia. I don't think there's a bad blood between them, but still, it suggest one is more primitive than another.
For people claiming they want to celebrate a place in history of many nations, they are kinda happy to also celebrate their downfalls or outright traumas. Not to mention that the way it's presented it suggest some real life countries (like Egypt or any I've mentioned, if they would happen) are just primitive compared to others.
All that stuff is a good gameplay design (from the looks of it), but wrapped into an awful package. They really should do something about it. Otherwise they will end up alienating part of their fanbase who will feel unpleasant with gameplay forcing them to do that stuff.
There is nothing historically accurate about this civ changing. Egypt never turned into Songhai or Mongolia. It's just a gimmick and a bad one too.
I think this could be really cool but it needs to feel coherent and connected. I have hope they will pull it off
I spotted something very interesting. Around 5:50 they showed policy screen and there is a card that literaly said '"gain 2 migrants". So migrations are replacing loyality system maybe? Miasma is the name of a card.
Sailing the river, that's new.
I think it's going to be great. Debating if I should get this on pc or ps5 though 😮
I'm expecting a DLC with an additional era called "the intergalactic era."
There has to be a way to make civ switching feel cohesive.
If they let me NAME my civ (i give them a unique identity) and then they called the civ switch a "style" / "inspiration" I'd be fine with it (and if they kept the old building styles where they are)
if the most cosmetic of changes is all it takes to change your mind then I don't think you or anyone in your camp really has an issue with these changes.
A mod that does what you describe will be out within weeks of release.
@@EarlHare I don't have an issue with the mechanics. I have an issue with potential execution.
I was psyched out of my mind about this same mechanic in Humankind, and then it felt really really really bad because they didn't get the details right (and mods didn't help).
10 out of 10! You got a new video I had never seen! Apparently I missed a video update somewhere. Thank you.
Imagine being a peasant in the Civ VII world. You go outside your house in an Egyptian village to pick up some dates. In the middle of your walk - "poof". You look around startled, but you continue your walk. Finally you come to the place where the dates were and you find coffee there. And then you come back to your house in a ... Mongolian village. WTF Firaxis? Stop calling it Civilization!
I heard you can opt out of switching civs. But the negative of that is u cannot get another bonus of another civ.
I'm disappointed you didn't get to play the game. I was looking forward to your opinion specifically about it. I've been watching your Civ 6 videos for a while now so I was hoping to hear your thoughts. I'll keep an eye out at launch for your thoughts though. Glad you're posting again!
I wish they would let us switch leaders between eras rather than Civs. To me that makes more sense and would still present lots of interesting gameplay opportunities.
That being said, I'm keeping an open mind. I liked Humankind so I think Firaxis will be able to make it work
Can’t wait for True Start Earth Map in Civ 7 🥳
If I want to play USA I first have to play 2 ages with civilisations I didn't want to play with and I can't even be sure I'm playing USA because another player might grab USA in the last age? Is this the fun in Civ7?
Ages look gimmicky ... does everything suddenly change appearance when you hit a new age, rather than growing organically?
So Nuclear Gandi got demoted to regular ol'dude?
I think it really is quite a good idea, like you said the game is too often decided in the first 100 turns
As a lifelong player from number one through six have no interest if I can't keep the same civilization
2:20 I’m going to be real, that’s a lame mechanic. Just because dates weren’t useful to Europe during that era it doesn’t mean it wasn’t useful elsewhere. I really hope they don’t go this route
I'm not sure that's accurate. It would make sense if strategic resources are age exclusive but not luxury or bonus resources.
I only wish two things: 1. that we get the same camera mod 😅 and 2. good music/soundtracks… Civ5 has imo the best soundtracks especially the African/middle east ones!
what we need is a way to stop us from memorizing the map and resource locations between New games and reloads
My big fear is that the cities become too alike from game to game (I like builders). I don't play fast domination games at all so I'm also worried that there is no other viable gameplay. Lastly my other fear is that the random generator options will be too limited and reduce replayability.
I wonder how the determine who choses the new leader as the age changes? I haven't heard much about the role of culture in this game. Perhaps a good way is to give the civ with the highest culture first dibs on the leader going into the next age.
Do you still stream on twitch these days?
Why oh why the modern age ends when the atom is split and not in 2050 ?
8:30: Egypt is on the same continent as Mongolia... and the mongolians ironically stopped their conquest at egypt, being defeated by the Mameluq Egyptians.
The point isn't what happened historically for the Mongolians but that their civilization found and used a lot of horse resources and so when Egypt in that game found 3 horse resources in game that is why they were able to diverge into Mongols if they chose to. People are overlooking the mechanical reasoning because they can't look past the actual historical records of Egypt and Mongolia never being relatable.
It's about what happens in the game on the map. You discovered horses.
Thematically, Firaxis is only trying to accomplish an abstraction of the concept that civilizations are dynamic and change and influence others.
@@Cipher_8 I'm pretty sure his point was that Egypt turning into the mongols is inconceivable due to the geographic incompatibility.
@InternetMameluq and like i was saying civ isn't trying to bring historical accuracy to the table and never had been.
It's emergent based on what happens IN GAME and it has HISTORICAL merit because they found horses. Nothing more. Firaxis isn't making the claim that Mongols and Egypt are linked. Don't skip over the important thing - that they found the horses. Firaxis is saying if a society or civilization had found and used the resource of horses that they might diverge into a mongolian like civilization.
When people slow down from their initial knee jerk reaction and understand what they are trying to do instead of focusing on "this didn't happen in history" they'll see they're only simply trying to show that civilizations are dynamic and change and are influenced by their surrounding circumstances.
@@Cipher_8na it sucks and breaks immersion. Imagine playing rome and then switching to india mid game. If you come up with a dull excuse for that one youre mentally challenged.
It's boring to just play as Rome from beginning to ending. I've done that in all prior Civilization games and many other 4X games. It's about time the genre innovated some.
How is stealing leaders not gonna be an issue? You still cant have duplicates so theres gotta be some way to decide who gets who unless its rng which is awful.
Your leader doesn’t change with each Age just your Civilization.
The only good thing about civ switching is that I won't have to spend money on Civilization VII.
I understand why Firaxis is trying to introduce civilization switches but it does feel jarring for a civilization such as Egypt known as great builders to evolve into nomadic Mongolia. The argument that civilization change, fall and rise etc is absolutely understandable but I'd prefer If we were just switching our civ bonuses with each era. Let's say after acquiring 3 horses Egypt does not change into Mongols but swaps it's starting bonus e.g. "Great Builders" into "Nomadic Culture" etc. That way we could keep the mechanical progression without making a jarring 180 on how we imagine the culture of our civ.
People already have their own perception of each country and its history and explaining Egypt evolving into Mongols just because their civilization had access to a lot of horses is weird. They'd obviously change but not to such a great degree. It feels like changing your class from warrior to mage because I found 2 rings boosting mana or smth. But what If I wanted to play the warrior all the way to the end of the game? Maybe I'd adjust my build to use a few spells here or there but I mostly wanted to use my sword and I'd try to stick to that.
That being said personally I think I could get used to civ switching and start enjoying it after a while but the transition will feel painful to me. Of course I didn't play the game. I am not a game designer. I am talking here from my POV and how the changes feel to me now. I hope they can manage to find a way to make it work but right now I have no idea how you'd do that.
P.S. A long comment I know, I hope I managed to present my feelings on this at least a bit coherently. I have a bad habit of rambling sometimes.
I think exploration age will be for colonies build or some vassal state play.
I think they should put smart AI in the game; that would solve the problem of boring late games.
I was offended you didn't get an invite. Your videos are the BEST for civ players of every level. Potato talks to damn fast, and most others are just showing off. You and Drew are the titts.
Don't worry, he's an Exploration Era invite XD
idk if I like changing civilizations I like testing to see if I can do al eras as one culture and I like having more eras and having an advantage.
Exploration age probably = Spice as a luxury resource 🤔
Do you have fking cheetah in ur arms???
@@zaruuchshekel5806 😂 It’s a Serval, a type of bigger cat native to Southern Africa 😻
@@jonmac5031 bro looking majestic ngl
I don't think you're forced to change your civ if you don't want to
@@gregtuff4020 But you might put a big handicap on yourself by not doing so. And the AI sure is going to do it. If from one turn to the next your Egyptian neighbors suddenly become Japanese or Franks its going to ruin any immersion
civilization has progressed far n all, but i wanna see some day is civ implement a kardashev scale system, where civilizations can progress to planetary to galactic to multiversal levels
Nah
@@zaruuchshekel5806 ok thats your opinion
changing should be an OPTION.
Keep making Civ 7 videos, Saxy
tbh I'm more concerned about the (in my opinion) ugly UI + fonts, and leaders (Augustus)
for the mechanics, there will always be pushback initially, even Civ 5 was disliked when it was released.. People will geet used the new stuff
I was hoping for late game spaceships/giant death robots/killer satellites. But if it's not going to do that, then I probably won't buy it.
Wonder if I'll be able to play as america and then switch to england to right the wrong that happened??? Graphics look really good and the ages switch up could definitely be an interesting game mechanic!
They should change strategy set of civilization via changing great person (not leader), rather than changing civilization itself.
Can you imagine how confusing that would be? Turn 89 I made a deal with Ashoka. Then when I tried to contact him again at Turn 160, he no longer exists as the leader, and now I am wondering which leader was it that I made a deal with all those turns ago.
@@thomanarchos so I wrote "(not leader)". Plz think about single governer slot for great person, employed by the leader. One civ, One leader, replaceable One great person.
It amazes me people are so upset about a GAME not reflecting history. Its a game guys its not meant to make exact historical sense (dont get me wrong its feels great to play a semi historical game but its not essential).
When has civ made historical sense in the past. Some examples below which illustrate how nonsensical this argument is:
England building Machu pichu
America building the pyramids
Sumeria in the modern age
Canada in the ancient age
A slinger depending your capital in 1950 😂
Do i need to go on?
The only historical accuracy in the game has been the names and traits of civs and leaders and the name of wonders and building's.
Civilizations "switched" all the time. Its not a fixed body. The Romans ended up as several and merged with even more. There is no "historical" argument against it, but because we have hardwired current history some people may not manage to accept alt. History. Its really comical when you think about it, because you can play the Mongols and start on a world space that never existed in the ancient times and take over the entire world before the Mongols ever existed as we know them, yet the idea that Civilisation Z was the spawn of civilisation X, thats just not historically accurate. It baffles the mind what some people get stuck on.
Theres a difference between Roman Empire becoming England and Zulu becoming Mongols. Surely theme always has to be sacrified for gameplay mechanics but theres some lines when crossed, it just becomes an abstract experience with no attachment or immersion because the theme is no longer there.
@@stefansibbes2440 Indeed. There's something called plausibility. Yep. England is a stretch for the Roman Empire, but they were there for a few centuries, so yeah. Just going from one Civ to another random Civ is just plain stupid.
I'm very excited to try this game once it's possible. I appreciate that they're going all out with big expansive changes - the ages is actually the thing I'm most confident about working out. As everyone has mentioned, they're actually very long so I'm not worried about that overblown concern that the AI will be tag switching so much you can't track it. The lack of tile management is what I'm afraid might make the game less interesting, but will have to actually try it.
The whole civ switch just feels wrong and basically ruins what made civ fun for me, the whole "build a civilization to stand the test of time". I didn't care if America or Canada was starting in the ancient era because that was the whole point of the game, starting small and build your civilization. Now that's basically ruined and not only that I won't be able to complete a game with my country and wining with it. I would have honestly preferred that the leaders switched insted of the civilization, for me at least it would have allowed for a far more interesting gameplay where each leader offered different bonus to game while keeping it just being one civ throughout the whole game. Let's say for example England you start with William the Conqueror where in the first age your leader will give bonus for a more domination focus game, and then in the next age you play as Victoria where she offered bonus for a naval and production game and then in the modern age you get someone like Churchill. That for me sounds way more interesting and would have probably caused way less uproar in the community.
I don't know if you ever played Endless Legend but what I liked about it is part of growing your civ is you basically exploit (conquer or befriend etc) other minor factions and assimilate them in. Basically building an empire, much as how empires formed in real life, how dominant civilizations and their influence spread across continents or enormous regions. I had always thought that should have been the inspiration that civ should take. A sort of organic morphing and altering and evolving of your civ, as you navigate your way on how to deal with minor factions, and even how culture, religion, technological advances spill over because of embattled cities which have seen different takeovers between competing civs.
I feel that would at least be more intuitive, more organic and nuanced, than a prompt screen that just unceremoniously pops up at some point in the game that says "OK time to declare yourself as another civ now." I would have loved to see the slow changes, the gradual diversification of aesthetics in your city architecture, people, music, religious beliefs, dialects etc (I know that last one sounds a bit much for a game, but if I were a developer I'd still be thinking of these things as eventual goals in an eventual project).
And, I would have loved to see that the bigger your empire becomes, if you cannot maintain the same level of control across all of it, certain parts of it may start to gain its own spark for independence, forming new NPC factions -- and a nice name generator for all of it. "The ____ Republic." "The Reunified ____ of the ____." etc.
Thematically, Firaxis is trying to accomplish an abstraction of the concept that civilizations are dynamic and change and influence others in the future. It's still one culture one society one civilization standing the test of time.
I would like it if I could effectively make my own civilization that is not just a rename, but it would require a complex system. They did try here and there, but it wasnt very complex.
still mixed feelings. slightly more positive. i think with swaping civ you become more flexable. then the culture civ spawned next to a war civ. ruining your plan.
also wonder if the era's are even in turns or era 1 is shortest 2 is middel and 3 is longest. if the era sytem works what you think of a posible mars/moon colonly era 4! future era.
When Civ6 came out and I was playing Civ5 I wasn't too receptive. Now I like Civ6. I'm sure this will be the case with Civ7. Looking forward to taking it for a spin.
I want to play now! Take my money 2k😍
I'm not impressed.
I love the look from what I’ve seen so far! I’m not a big fan of the cartoonish look in the prior series
I like the new art, i like the new comander system, I like 90% of changes but 2, ages(say you done only 5 out of the 20 tech, when you move to next ages you get given all the previous age tech)and leaders/team swap. I hope I am wrong. Other then that I hate the massive pay wall the game already has. The map gets larger, and 5 new civs gets added to game.I like your videos and content but you shoukd had watch the info video of the people who when in to play it, as lots of info was given, so you dont have to speculate.
Actually, Egypt into Mongol does make a little bit of sense. Hulegu Khan made it to Baghdad, it wasn’t that far to Egypt and there’d have been pretty good pasture for horses once they got into the delta. I think it was more politics than geography that stopped them, if I recall.
Bruh that doesn't make sense at all just bc someone at some point in history was present in a country doesn't change the whole culture or the whole civilization for that matter its super dumb
it always bother me that we had Civ with era specific bonus, specially the unit, because it maded some Civ completly broken compare to other, antiquity civ were nice to bully your neigbor and get big fast and have a snowball effect, but mid game were just the best, in Civ5 i would conquer the whole world with Russia everygame, and that wasn't even hard. and for late game Civ, they are useless, the game is already settle at that point.
and historicly, the new system make a lot more sense, i would rather have the egyptian turn into mongol horde because they were geographicly and culturally propice to become it than having the american coesxist with babylon.
Ya this feature plus only 5 player killed the game for me.
Why CIV youtubers are so disingenuous, no one really asked about historical accuracy (CIV was never historically accurate), but asked for historical sense (authenticity), people do not have a problem with an evolution that make sense, happened in history or could happen, like Otomans into Byzantium (where otomans conquer byzantium but they asimilate into byzantium culture). Egypt into Mongolia or Songhai makes no sense, it pure artificial and kills half of what people liked and play for CIV. In EU4 there are different path of evolution that people like, Firaxis could have inspire from them not from Humankind, from Humankind they could take battle sistem that is better than CIV in my opinion.
You're proving his point, you are asking for historical accuracy.
@@NautilusXO If Greece stay Greece for thousands of years or Otomans evolve into Byzantyum (as an alternative path), where is the historical accuracy?
Do you understand the term historical accuracy? can you see the difference in regards to historical sense.
Did you understand that CIV was inspired from history and used cultures, leaders, units, buildings, etc from history giving people posibility to chose a culture and lead that culture trough times till they win a symbolic victory, even if in reallity that cultures was destroyed thousands of years ago. Do you see now the difference between inspired from history and historically accurate?
Egypt to Mongolians makes sense because they discovered a whole bunch of horse resources in that game.
@@Cipher_8 Hard to follow your line of logic, maybe you are sarcastic.
Egyptian were a farming sofisticated society that already have horses before even Mongolia exist.
In history there is a direction of evolution from simple societies to complex ones. Well established and refined farming societies did not become warmongering nomad pastoralist.
It is about historical sense otherwise if you do not care then you can give peoples nukes from the start of the game.
@raulepure9840 it never was super historically accurate or trying to be. America in ancient times. Mahatma Gandhi having nukes. C'mon...
And I'm not the only one saying these things listen to some actual 4X game content creators like potatomcwhisky, spiffingbrit, and quill18.
Yeah, i dont get the complain about changing Civs: You can take it as "Unlike in history, in your game you developed Egypt into a horse-centric civ and it became an egipcian version of the Mongols, which now never existed in Asia"
Sooo... I have to waste my time twice on Civs I definitely shouldnt give a crap about... Im not seeing the fun of this mechanic.
The whole core concept of Civ games is running a civilization from the beginning of history to the modern day and even slightly beyond.
Good grief, that UI is awful. Hope this was just a placeholder
8:05 okay people are so stupid if they don't look past it at the surface because this IS how societies develop their own cultural identity IRL.
Think about it, why or how did Mongolians become horsemen? Why are they known for being horsemen? Because the resource of wild horses happened to be plentiful, and they realized their land wasn't great farming land but it made them nomadic moving from place to place. The pastoral land was okay for grazing.
Their leaders realized the advantages they offered in warfare with hit and run tactics and mobility making horses important to the Mongolians. They used them in many ways.
Takhi - the wild horses that once roamed the Eurasian steppe in huge herds - influenced their way of life so much that it was centered around horses, which were used as mounts, pack animals, and as a source of food (both for horsemeat and mare's milk).
To the point where nowhere are horses more central to daily life than in Mongolia. Mongolia still to this day is known as the land of the horse, and Mongols have a reputation for being the best horsemen.
My point being if a civilization finds a certain resource then it makes sense that they adapt to it if they are utilizing it. Yes, in history Egypt didn't turn into Mongolia but if any society had the horses and didn't have the rich farmland that Mongolians dealt with that would've developed the same way.
So I take it as less of what happened in real history and more of what could or would happen to my civ based on what I discover or how I choose to settle and develop them. They'll develop and change their own culture based on those decisions, and if I find three horse resources then that's fine that they could develop into mongolian civ who are known for being a horsemen culture.
Civ 7
never a historical accuratly game !!!
this is a game about history it should be historically accurate not 100 percent but atleast a good level of historical accuracy or it will be nothing as a civilization game !!!
Like Rome, or insert whatever civilization, building the Great Pyramids?
It's a pretty shameless copy of Humankind. I look forward to a world without plagiarism. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.
Come on how many Souls clones they have via comparison to this HK mechanic