I would prefer the same country but different leaders to mimic how countries and cultures change over history. For example, England could start off as Athelstan, where the bonuses are about setting up cities. And it could move onto Edward the IIIrd, and England could change to be more military-based before moving onto Henry the VIIIth and being more faith-based. Then moving onto Victoria, etc. This means the nations are much more unique and, during different time periods, have different strengths and weaknesses. It will also mean the game is slightly more historically accurate and immersive, and it will also be different from Humankind.
@douglasyoutube I really like how you put your comment. I actually think I agree with a lot of, if not all of it. My initial thoughts after reading it were straight out of Civilization V. "A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!"
There are only a few leaders of nations that have such an effect on said nation that it changes so drastically. The effects you're talking about would be so minor for such a huge undertaking. (Massive graphic changes for say a -20% cost in settler production or something.) Not to mention not very Civilisation at all. The point of Civ is taking one of that nation's great leaders and making a civilisation to challenge the test of time. It also is against Civ's emphasis on nations specifically for different playthroughs. Science nation for science victory etc... etc...
I’m very confused by ur understanding of history and countries… countries aren’t historical at all… they are very modern and very fluid. Like holy hell nations claims and leaders gets very messy and very nationalistic very quickly also rather that not occur.
It depends how historically accurate civs available at era change are. Do you switch era at your own pace or is it global change? culture evolution could be cool depending on what features and ascetics remain, do they blend to create a unique culture
How do they keep making the leaders worse and worse? Civ V they were perfect. You click on a civ leader and they were larger than life, with a personal background that made you feel you entered their world. Civ VI they became cartoony caricatures with no background, but at least were very expressive. These new leaders look like two Barbie dolls you're having talk to each other. Bland designs and unrecognizable to the historical figures they're supposed to represent.
This is one area where maybe I’m in the minority but I prefer these simple leaders over elaborate full screen leaders that I look at for 2 seconds before I make my decision. I wouldn’t care if they were stick figures as long as the game was good.
@@eliasbang5490 There's no way they fully implement different leader designs... This is pretty close to what we're getting. It would be great if it happened, but I'm not sure about it.
Apparently, I'm a member of a small group who actually likes micro-managing workers, chopping down woods, building roads, mines, plantations and fields. I felt much more connected to my empire when I did all of those tasks myself.
Tbh it's one of the changes that worries me the least. Barbarians won't kidnap my workers anymore. But hey, maybe they keep some worker abilities as "powers" you can use?
You do realize that the founder’s edition will 100% definitely be cheaper than the game + the first 6 DLC packs, right? If anything, you’re wasting money by not preordering…
@@JStack you have to not be playing any 4x/grand strategy to NOT believe that. I just saved 20 bucks buying the 3 next CK3 dlcs in a bundle some months ago
9:09 about religion. On the website of CIV VII, if you go to the game guide and select civs. There is information on one exploration age civ, the shawnee. This civ's unique civilian(!) unit is the Hoceepkileni. A missionary replacement unit. So at the very least it confirms that there will be missionaries in the exploration age.
It's Civ so people are still gonna play it. I myself even though I hate the Civ and leaders swapping. Am still gonna play... the moment the crack comes out that is. I am not supporting this.
i think thats what they're trying to do. for some reason they decided to say that Egypt's successor is Songhai, when it's actually quite confirmed that Abbassids are in the game (for a split second you can see on Egypt's screen it says unlocks Songhai and Abbassids). Another thing that's hopeful is that in a Japanese interview with Ed Beach about Japan in Civ VII, he said that wouldnt it be cool to have an antiquity Japan, medieval Japan and modern Japan... surely there's an implication here.
@@yapx I think it is going to be easy to add these features, probably as expansion packs, but still if you keep your leader as previous civs and then you go from ancient Japan to medieval to modern it makes it better than before. But mixing up civs (french japan for example) makes no sense... We ll see in a few months
@@DanaosV5 The most work intensive part about implementing civs in Civ 7 would be the models of the buildings. But if those can be reused (to a reasonable degree) then addings civs would be borderline trivial. That said, why would it make no sense? From a gameplay perspective it would make sense if you want to go for certain bonuses or if you want to make use of certain resources. If all you want is a historic chain of civs then sure, but that's not why they use this system in the first place.
I think what’s weird about the example of London is that London is ONE city. It’s the transfer of hands in power. Civilizations don’t just transfer the entire country into another country. Like Egypt ain’t evolving into Mongolia 💀
I guess that's a tricky one, as London is one city but it's surrounded by the British isles it's people, who have gone through many, many cultures in history and spawned many others around the world. So there is some logic.
Broadly speaking, Rome was the center of the Roman Empire, it was also the center of the Papal States and it was the center of the Italian Republic/Kingdom of Italy. Each iteration not really resembling each other all that much, to the point you could call them different civilizations. The Papal States was so different from a unified Italy that it still exists as the Holy See alongside the Italian Republic, sharing Rome.
Also the thing described with London was cultural genocide. By the Roman's, than Germanics and than the British empire tries to do it to the whole world. And just neatly brushing over it like that is honestly profoundly sickening to me no matter how fun it would be in gameplay
I have to say that ruling one nation from Stone Age to the modern Ages was what attracted me since CIV on the amiga 500. I am absolutely not interested in swapping nationalities. Also having different technological levels was also a thing that fascinated me. So this 2 new changes basically destroy 50% of my immersion
They were pretty clear that you can't stay as your Civ. In the showcase, they talked about it being a lot easier to balance the Civs because they were only balancing within that Civ's Age. That seems pretty clear-cut to me that Civs will not move into the next age.
i still say this game is looking totally sus. the premise of all Civilization games has been 'to build a civilization that stands the test of time'. the fun is in the fiction - not many civilizations do stand the test of time, but this game has always allowed us to imagine 'what if?'. now that wonder is being taken away. as a side note, this talking point of theirs about London growing and changing over time proves the opposite point that they think it does. the fact that London is not a Roman city today is because Rome did not stand the test of time! that said, if they want to simulate the idea of the rise and fall of empires, i am all about it. in fact, i think Civ has been, in many ways, too linear. i think trying to simulate rises and falls could be fun, but as a mechanic - not an arbitrary thing that happens at the end of an era. to put it another way, Civ 1 DID try to simulate this to a certain degree - when taking over an enemy capital city, you would often force a civil war within that nation, and it would fracture into two nations. this was so much fun!! i remember one game i played where the Russians were so powerful, that my only chance of victory was to take Moscow and force a civil war. it worked, and it was very satisfying. i think there are many gameplay mechanics they could look at to add some realism to the rise and fall of empires, and civil war is just one way they could do this. and, others have already pointed this out, but i love workers! there is nothing more satisfying than sending my worker bees all over the map the build up the foundations of my empire. empire is built on the backs of the people, and i want to manage that. TLDR: i am having the same feeling i had when watching preview videos for both Cities Skylines 2 and Prison Architect 2 - those games didn't pass the smell test, and obviously for good reason. i will NEVER preorder a game, and i urge others to wait this one out and see. after all, Civ 5 was a hot mess when it came out, but over time it managed to become a great game, and my personal favorite. i wish for the same here, but i'm currently not sold.
As an older gamer, Have actually been playing since Civ II, I am concerned about culture switch. How will I lead the Aztec's over Spain if there are no Aztecs? I am afraid of not being attached to my little group if I am forced to morph into a civ that I do not like. I am afraid that my century long battle against the Spanish disappears. Who are these new people? Who am I? This is the thing that killed Humankind for me. The story that unfolded as I played was constantly ripped up and fell apart. I never even finished one game of Humankind because of this aspect. Until I see how this works, this is the MOST skeptical about a new Civ release that I have ever felt. I hope it does not ruin the game.
That's what the leaders are for, to give your civs and the opponents a sense of continuity throughout the game, while you both change and adapt to the changing world.
@@MunchKING oh, I'm definitely going to play it... I'm just concerned. However almost all changes they have made in the past have been good so I do have faith... We will see.
"I never even finished one game of Humankind because of this aspect." If you disliked this aspect of Humankind so much, why didn't you just keep the same Culture that you want to play with through eras? Game doesn't force you to change it or anything like that. In fact, it adds quite a compelling challenge for you if you keep the same culture. I'm only asking because I only hear same criticism for Humankind and it's just not a fair point.
@@el.Fakir. to be completely Fair, I only played 4 times after initial release and never thought of it... But I am willing to load it up and give it a go. I was just stating what aspect of the game lost my interest.
I don’t like how the Civ transitions are handled, and it was also my biggest gripe with humankind. I’m fine with a Civ evolving over time, that is realistic. But instead of becoming a NEW, preexisting Civ with predefined qualities, why not let players keep their Civ and decide to take on a set of bonuses that vary according to their actions? e.g., not Egypt > Songhai but Ancient Egypt > Medieval Egypt (+1 trade route or w/e)
Yeah that makes more sense to me. Why not tie in actions you've taken, the current state of the world, how your current leader is viewed, etc. That could include changing leaders. There's tons of ways to make an age shift interesting. Doubling down on your current strategy, sacrificing something else to try to shift strategies...lots of possibilities.
I would refer a system similar to CK3 actually. You select base civ. And as the game progresses you can add or remove certail cultural traits from a shared pool. However if ai gets the trait you want, if that ai remove the trait you wanted you then get to pick it up. This would make that you still start as the certain civ, yet get to adapt to the game around you
Yeah there are definitely smoother ways to add cultural traits. For example Civ 5 Pantheons, they weren't well balanced, but it was a great mechanic to customize your civ a little bit to the game. Social policies have potential to be overhauled into that as well.
The people who dislike the civ change mechanic are not a "vocal minority". Read the room. Civfanatics had a poll and the MAJORITY like or dislike the mechanic, with a plurality voting "strongly dislike". If anything, it seems like Civ RUclipsrs making strawman arguments meet the definition of a vocal minority.
only core strategy players, understand how the industry has evolved the genre. Civilization is many people's Solitare and don't give any poop about alternatives. many civ 6 players never even played 4 or 5 let alone dabbled with 3.
I don't think it's a minority of people who don't like the idea of civilization changes. If you read the comments, and I'm included, people do get the idea of evolving cultures. Historical changes make sense. But in what way does it make sense to go from Egypt to Songhai to Mongolia? If Egypt evolved into say... the caliphate or the Mamluks, sure. Then maybe you could differentiate ancient Egypt from modern Egypt, or find a closely related modern nation as a what-if. If the developers thought of this as the evolution of a civilization around London, this doesn't make sense in every context. You'd need to tie some kind of rationale to it. Like maybe you can even stretch it for native American civs to evolve into the US but historically, that's not really how it worked. Aztecs or Mayans into Mexico, sure. China into Russia? No.
Totally agreed but I think it will be historically correct if Russia will evolve into Zimbabwe or Nigeria because nowadays it is a banana republic (actually fascist dictatorship masquerading as a republic) owing Soviet technologies but having no idea how to work with them.
Being Chinese one turn and Sudanese the next is neither authentic nor historically accurate. A slow transition brought on by conquest or revolution would feel better. You touched on competing with other civs to get the culture you want. That is a major downside with humankind. If I’m trying to do a high tech civilization, but when I age from antiquity to exploration, and all the exploration civs with research boosts are already taken, that sabotages my entire strategy. Frankly I have yet to hear one advantage to the culture shift change, and can only think of the negatives I experienced in humankind with a similar system.
London was Roman because Roman's founded London. It's not that the Romans became English. I hated the changing cultures in Humankind and now I'm really worried.
Exactly England became English because the Roman Empire collapsed and then Germanic tribes took over were eventually invaded by Normans. From here there is a gradual identity shift to an Anglo-Norman culture but this culminates into the 100 year war. So Civs 7 era change system is inherently inaccurate, eras change at their own pace for more dynamic reasons and are always marked by another civilisations conquest
A huge fan of Civilization since the original Civ1 back in the 90s. However... I never got into Civ6... tried several times, never completed a single game of Civ6... HUGE FAN OF CIV5... played it to death, even long after Civ6 released... no clue what I will make of Civ7.
To be honest, the “choose your leader and civ type separately” is just an excuse to sell content pack with those 2 things only and have a quick money grab scheme. And that is enough to me to not continue supporting the franchise, is not the rode I want this company follow in game development
I'm very excited for how alive the cities seem now, SO many buildings, make it actually feel like an empire, love the art style, navigable rivers is something I'm excited about for surprise assaults, and the combat looks very alive so I'm happy about that.
I don't think any Civ fans expected a clone in Civ 7, but we did not expect a copy of Humankind. I tried Humankind and didn't like it. The devs reason that you have to change cultures because cultures don't last forever, yet they have you keep the same leader for 4000 years. People don't live forever either. Benjamin Franklin Aztecs anyone? One thing I enjoy about Civilization is that you can take a given civilization from the ancient era and build your civilization to "stand the test of time". I don't know why the devs decided to throw out their winning formula to make a Humankind clone. I might try it later, when the price goes down.
I wouldn’t say I was “so sure”, but it seems u likely to me that majority of the reviews for this game will be negative. It’s not going to be 40% positive over time. This is Civ.
For me at the beginning switching civs was awful buuuut, problem in Humankind was the fact that we didnt have leaders, in Civ we have leaders. Second problem was that in HK we changed civs very often without ANY historical context, in Civ we will have just 2 changes and if we want to, there will be a historical context. I played Humandkind a bit yesterday and overall Civ 7 will be totally diffrent from HK. I think all these changes with cities infastructure, leaders, civs, generals, attributes will give us more flexability and replayability
From a gameplay point of view I really liked HK's ability to switch to a culture with the bonuses that corresponded well with your civ's needs in the next era (especially as you could choose cultures that had advantages for where your civ was located on the map). But I understand it's not so great from a historical roleplay point of view.
Exactly! I'm actually super excited for this. As long as the gameplay is good that should really be what matters, they wanna try a new gimmick so let's give it a shot!
CIV has a legacy in it's ideea to let the player to recreate history, so it was inspired from history, it used historical nations and leaders, no it was not historically accurate and no one asked for it, but tried to have a historical sense, was not a fantasy. They can make fantasy games but why kill CIV legacy.
@@raulepure9840 I mean you say that but I remember Civ2 had Amaterasu as the female Japanese leader. As in a goddess. And Ishtar for the female Babylonian leader... yeah. At least in CIv VII, it looks like they're still using historical figures and historical Civilizations.
@@AnonSeacat So! I know Amaterasu is a legendary godess like figure based on myths but is part of a nation creation story, you can see Amaterasu as a leader of japanese nation without a feeling of artificiality.
A.I. wise, I want to know if they've even thought about the silly things that happen, i.e. an A.I. civ declaring a surprise war on you, you then beat them and take their city, now all of the other A.I. civs instantly decide you're a warmonger. Or say, I join a war with an A.I. civ and save the day, but two turns later that civ is denouncing me. All of it has in game mechanics as reasons, but it is just so annoying and non-immersive to deal with. And with difficulty, if you put it right up it should make the A.I. smarter, i.e. attacking with a plan and with many more units, teaming up with other civs against you and working together to attack simultaneously, and it should NOT: just give the same A.I. extra bonuses. If I jump into civ 7 and the A.I. still does all of the dumb stuff, AND they still unit cycle in a non-intuitive way (not going nearest first) then it will be obvious they havent really developed anything other than a skin.
You don't have to change the leader, so if you think the leader is the civ then you can play with more fun. And civ7 is making the leaders have more character by adding a lot of unique things to them, it might be even better. Civilization itself will be more like a way of development rather than the usual civilization we played in the games before.
@@megmucklebones7538 Same. They are claiming historical precedence with that London example, but that’s not what they are doing at all. Don’t make me pick a new Civ, let me pick bonuses and traits like in CK3.
I think it won't be that bad. After all, in Civ 6 you also abandoned a lot of unique traits from a civilization pretty early. Take Rome: once you developed away from Legions, it was similar to other civilizations.
I am over the civ change mostly. My new 2 biggest concerns are the map sizes and if this game is less sandboxy and removes player agency. Also id like to know if the devs think past rulers had fun watching their empire collapses around them.
Nothing personal, but I find it hard to believe i am getting an honest opinion from someone who was flown out by the company to the studio, and given early access to the game. More likely if there is doubt in your mind about any feature you will lean towards saying it is positive or doesn't bother you.
Based on my observations, atleast 50% of the audience is mixed on the changes while 100% of the access youtubers aren't . Tells a lot about their honesty and integrity doesn't it?
If the devs actually cared they could make the changing cultures particular to the civilization you're playing. Maybe have the leaders (if consistent) change clothing appropriate to the times. For example, Egypt could start as itself, then have the option to either evolve into either the Ayyubids (Saladin), Mamluks (a more localized and accurate version of mongol) or remain Cleopatra's Egypt. Then a similar set of choices for the modern age. The same goes for other civs, like England having to choose between Anglo-saxon, Norman or Norse. Germany also offers a very spicy set of choices with one of them being the Teutons.
I think I agree about the consistency point. I liked the concept of evolving civs over time in Humankind, but I hated how confusing it got to track who was who and who swapped to what. I think maintaining the leader is the way to go to create that throughline. I do think the mechanic would've been better received if they sorta limited your choices of which civs you could evolve into based on gamestate and things you've chosen. Like some civs can automatically evolve into others but can't evolve into X or Y unless they fulfill certain prequisites or have chosen certain playstyles during the previous era.
That’s exactly the system they previewed in the trailer. You will have a limited choice between historically relevant and gameplay relevant successors.
My biggest grip with the game so far is the diplomacy screen, it feels so lazy compared to previous games where wash leader had a unique screen and music where as now we just get both our and the opposite leader and a little banner. Take me back to the quality of civ 5 or the livelyness of civ 6
More like the minority is the one that like Humankind's system. You could always make a poll to see if your audience share the same view point as yours. Look, no hard feeling since I've been follow you from the day you started promoting Humankind, which I can understand why you think the system is good. Humankind's system was good initially, and it didn't rear its ugly side until after a dozen of hours when you realize there is no story whatsoever in your playthrough, because everything is just same mixed hotpot. You only play to get to that victory screen. Of course I think it will be fine if they say there is an option to lock everyone into one initial civ, but then there will be the problem of the number of civ become too small.
Agreed. Suspect it's a majority that are unhappy with the era changes. They need to persuade us. There is an issue with otherwise trusted youtubers going soft because they don't want to lose access. They are also invested in the game doing well. This happened a lot with Skylines 2, where eventually they had to admit, yes it sucked.
I think people are being premature, even Jumbo admits that he's only had a few hours with the game. There's a lot time between now and launch (even assuming the date doesn't move) to see more, and how they evolve the systems. At first blush I think I like HK's generic leader because I won't be leading modern Russia with George Washington or such, but I also think having fewer transitions is an improvement, that said Civ without leaders is too much of a change. It's too much to have any conclusion just yet, and it's too early to come down hard on really anything as it's all subject to change. I'm just glad we're seeing this much six months out.
@@ElykEcralc You're right, they can't completely remake the whole game, but the product has by no mean 'gone gold' they don't even have the UI in the product yet. Yeah, I guess if you *hate* the whole age transitions and new civ choice completely, you are outta luck, but I wouldn't be surprised if over the course of this game they give some options to remove the civ choice limits (eg. you could become Mongolia regardless of how many horses you have) and similar changes to the 'formula'
15 mins ago is crazy... I dont see the point in even having civs if you dont play as your civ throughout the ages, it seems lazy to me and more of a lame copy of other games that have been copying civ recently... the whole point was to see how your civ would evolve throughout the years. Now its like there is no soul.
I'm really baffled by this perspective, since being a civ in the wrong era always was kinda frustrating and annoying to me. Like it was fun for the Ancient and classical era civilizations to take them into the modern era, but any other situation just felt incredibly off to me. This approach is much more in line with how I'd like to role play.
@@a.m.hofmeister725 You're baffled by the perspective that the first 6 civ games took? So playing as Egypt and then changing to say America, that doesn't feel off to you? But starting as America does? Baffling...
@@Simon-gc6ufmate they explained the civs are limited to cultural connection. You won’t be able to go from Egypt to America; you’d have to choose another civ to become America.
No, just, no. The more I hear about the Civ switch in every age the more I hate it. For me what made Civ different and great was that sense of power fantasy, that sandbox feeling of what happened if a Civilization never fell and became truly powerful, going from a tiny settlement to a powerful empire. That is all gone in Civ 7, I am now forced to switch to a Civilization that I didn't want to play to begin with and I'm locked from choosing a Civilization because that Civilization is only available on the Modern Age and so on. It completely kills any sort of attachment one gets to it's Civilization. Plus one thing that every player that likes strategy games likes to do is playing with their own country, well guess what you can't, you are forced to switch to another Civilization or maybe your country is only available in a later age of the game. It was the worst possible change they could have made, it was the feature that made me lose interest in Humankind and the same is happening to Civ 7.
@@dmdm597 I agree 100%. When I encountered this in Humankind, my first thought was, “This is a cool idea but it doesn’t make sense to choose between preexisting civs. Please let us choose from a list of traits that can be influenced by achievements and play style in the previous age.”
@@DaveReithmiller1983yeah bro it’s a bit of a meltdown lmao. This guy wants a game that feels like a sandbox. That ain’t what civ is and never was and never should be.
I wish the playtesters would spend time talking specifically about the AI. I've been spoiled by Vox Populi. If the AI is not clever (strategically, tactically, diplomatically) I'm going to patiently wait for a modder to fix that before I buy the game.
@@kattenelvis1778 I don't feel like a it's a minor change the whole idea of civilization is you take a civilization with a leader to success and jumping around different civilizations while my leader stays the same makes no sense. It made sense when I play as Benjamin Franklin from USA but it is a clown show when it is Benjamin Franklin from Mongolia.
If the symbol, colour, and civ name remains the same, leaders changing makes a lot of sense. The core identity of the civ remains the same - it's a head of state change attached to bonuses and modifiers - which they will try to balance, but will bring this valid idea of history having "layers".
@@MunchKING That's interesting, in the gameplay reveal and trailer they still say build a civ (trailer says empire) to stand the test of time. Still not sure what to think of the feature, probably need to play it first.
I’m curious about the city and town system. I normally like to play on huge maps and make a ton of settlers to gobble up as much land as possible in the early game. I’ll have to figure out a good strategy of when to covert towns into cities.
Does it feel like there is still the civ 6 "Play the map" type of principle? Any concept of housing? Do you still kinda need to settle next to a river? Happiness seems to be a resource instead of level eg. per turn and flat amounts granted, how does it apply? Were some cities happy and others not? What happens if you tell a commander to unpack, but there aren't enough unoccupied adjacent tiles - and either way, can you manually select which goes where? Can a unit embark directly onto a river and sail along it? Is river sailing lower cost than regular land movement ie. is it a faster mode of travel? How does the civ selection work at the end of an age when it comes to the other players/ai - who wins if two people want Songhai? Are there still strategic resource requirements - horses for horseman, iron for swordsman (if so, is it like civ6 gathering storm of civ6 vanilla)? In general, it seems like they're trying to make it overall more accessible to new users, more diverse/inclusive to attract a wider audience and alot more console-focussed eg. reduced alot of minutae that favour a mouse.
How did you find the new "world wonders" or Natural Wonders? CIV.6 actually helped me to go and see places around the world and look at the wonders in person :)
Everything excluding the 'civ-swap' mechanics looks great. I'm even ok with the separation of leaders and civs since it allows you to feature some civs we know a lot about culturally but don't know much about their leaders (e.g. Indus Valley Civilization) as well as feature leaders that don't easily fit into specific civilisations (e.g. Charlemagne). But the Civ changing with eras is the BIG turnoff, for me and a lot of players. I understand why they did it (to properly present the evolution of certain civs, e.g. Rome->Papal States->Italy), but it does feel like it goes against the general philosophy of the franchise. "Can your Civilization stand the test of time", changing Civ's partway through the game contradicts that.
I mean I rather switch leaders that ruled that civ,switching civs makes it feel more like humankind. He mentions humankind alot during this video,that it's like humankind. I want like civ,not humankind.
I'm curious. Have you experienced any Natural Disasters in the game? If so, were there any new disasters? Did they kept the same ones? Did any of the disasters damaged your tiles? Did any disasters effected your battles? (Perhaps lower visibility in a blizzard or less attack in a dust storm), Etc
The way they did civ changes is so stupid. It would have been much better if they implement the same system but with guardrails that make you follow an accurate evolution of culture. Maybe something like a culture tree where you start as Roman then can change to Byzantine and then to Turkey or Italy.
I appreciate your measured optimism a lot. I'm also feeling positive but cautious about the game, and it's nice to see some not-shouty opinions on it given how a lot of the community has reacted. I found your take on historical accuracy vs. authenticity spot on. It feels like there's an Overton window of what needs to be historically appropriate in Civ vs what's acceptable to handwave. There's understandable resistance to shifting that window, but in 5 years changing civs might feel as baked into the franchise as nuclear ghandi or communist genghis.
@@TheSjurisI mean we’ve seen a very small portion of what’s to come, just because they haven’t said anything about religion doesn’t mean it’s not there. But it could be pushed into culture, we just don’t know yet
One of my concerns is the lack of mention of modding. For me, modders are what makes a good game, great, with the CIV series. I only play Vanilla CIV a few times each DLC to learn new systems, and then go to modders who always fix the flaws, bugs, and failures. In CIV 6 they made some promises about modding which were broken, and now there is zero mention.
I haven't seen a single official Civ 6 video that mentions modding. It rather goes without saying that the creators consider their work to be perfect and requiring no corrections.
cant have modders provide free content that is better than the studio tries to milk the crowd for, and its 2k they are some of the greediest in the industry.
@@MichalKaczorowski Then you didn't look/watch enough. From an article back in 2016 on PC Games "while of Civ VI, they promise it has been “designed from the ground up with deep mod support in mind.”" They discussed it with the community, the community and modders discussed it on CIV Fanatics. I'm not sure what else to tell you?
I've been playing Civ Five on marathon speed only since 2011. I felt that playing on marathon had certain micro managing issues to over come and nothing that didn't seem hard to "fix" as it were. I did like taking a strategic look at worker use and feel compelled to say the developers should have explored multi-step orders and an alert mode for builders, but I am still intrigued Keep up the good work
From what spiffing Brit and potato have said it’s a bit too early to tell, spiff says he saw some either "tactical brilliance" or typical dumb ai army movement but said with only 3 hours he couldn’t really tell
Pixel, what you said about story building and consistency at 20:37 is so true and IMO one of the biggest failures of Humankind brought about by its flagship features of constance culture shifting and non-historical custom leaders. Sadly the developers were never able to address that fundamental issue with the expansions. However your video makes me hopeful and dare I say excited for Civ 7. It seems like that culture switching is a lot more reigned in vs Humankind and I think the keeping of iconic historical leaders will help keep things tied together in a way that Humankind couldn't with its custom avatars.
The thing I dislike with the culture change is most of them happened due to getting taken over by another civ , it’s like when Norway and Rome conquered London it’s always been through conquest not just slowly changing . But that’s always been a thing in civ . I just don’t think it makes sense as you don’t get conquered if you’re still alive . What they should have done is change leaders each age and have 5 different Egypt civs each one . That would allow you to keep your civ but also adapt play style
I am sorry but i hate the civ changing. My Egyptian neighbours will suddenly all turn Asian when they switch to Mongolia. That makes no sense and i can not justify that in my head...
15:55 I agree it would make sense for one of those three types to be a naval commander, but having an air commander seems less likely. At least with previous Civ games, air units didn't work in a way where this would make much sense. I was going to suggest maybe the third would be great generals, but you'd think they would include great admirals too, so that doesn't add up to 3.
Why are you insisting that the people who hate the Civ change mechanic is "a vocal minority"? Where are you getting this information that it's the minority opinion? You didn't have anything positive to say about this mechanic, you can just admit it's lame.
The vast majority of players are ones who would never watch a video like this or even pay attention to these details. So they are certainly not upset by the changes because they are still completely unaware of them.
If we think about it, history does have layers - why would you want to play as Washington or Gandhi in the Antiquity age past maybe the memes? This is a step in the right direction. If the core civ identity remains the same, a name change is not a biggie.
I just don’t understand why one can’t just keep one’s first civilization choice. Like, sure, give the player the option to change IF THEY WANT. But if the player doesn’t want to, why force that upon them?
Im pretty sure by launch or next year sometime there will be a historically logical route you can take or a wildly absurd route you can take when changing civ. Modders will ensure you can play 3 versions of Egypt if you want im sure. They will go crazy on civs and leaders. Game modes could also correct any issues people have. I played civ 6 the other day with a mod that allowed me to play Saladin of Scotland and was able to go science crazy it was a blast. The game is about strategy and creating unique empires and that isnt damaged through civ switching it just makes it more interesting and adds depth and replayability to the game.
The best part of just discovering 4x games is that they are all new, lol. I never gave them a chance since i thought i hated the turn based thing. I played a Castles game in the 90s. Other than that didn't care for them. Picked up Civ 6 on a sale on Stem a while back for like $2 just in case i ever wanted to try it and it was too good a deal to pass up. Then i actually gave it a try, then BAM!! I'm obsessed. Old world is great too.
the concept is supposed to be if you have lots of horses, you'd turn your civ into one that USES all those horses. Like "Mongolia" is just a name for "Horse-archer culture".
@@MunchKING okay, but still, evolving from egyptian into a mongolian feels very weird to me - egypt >> sassanid empire >> modern iran feels more how it should be done, not suddenly becoming a completely different civilization thousands of kilometers away
@@markosan2087 Yes, but you're just limiting them based on geographic proximity in our world. In Civ the Civilizations are never anything like where they are in our world unless you're playing True Start. So while it may feel weird, it makes sense for them to turn into Mongolia for horse-archers or some kind of boat-civilization if they have a lot of ocean to travel, or in other ways reflect the world that they are in in the civ game, not our reality.
The big splash over the last few days with Civ VII left me looking at the game and asking; is this Civ VI with a graphics update and mods? And how much of the game will be developed for the single player rather then dev time spent in console player demands for every game to be online multiplayer? I’m glad you’ve done this overview, though I’m still not convinced it’s going to be worth the $70(?) price plus DLC
I don't mind the civ-swap. For long games it was a problem if you had all your special units and abilities in the early age and you did not get much done. On the other hand you could end up pretty badly if the enemy had all of its stuff in the later ages. Its a good way to balance this issue with older games.
Would you consider doing a sort of closing retrospective on Humankind? With the definitive edition out and Amplitude going completely silent it seems like they are closing this chapter on their self-described 'magnum opus'. Seems topical given how much inspiration Civ 7 has taken from Humankind. Always felt like Humankind had so many great ideas that just fell short of greatness and never quite came together in a way that Civ games do.
I like the enforcement of crises during the change between ages. Civ is a game, so it doesn’t need to fully accurately represent history. But that was perhaps one of the biggest issues, is that if a player manages their empire well, they never really experience any downturns. It would be good if, like the Civ change options responding to user gameplay, the crises cards also responded to gameplay. If you spent the ancient era expanding, you should be forced to choose a card that negatively impacts expansion for example. If you been turtling, well same thing (citizens growing restlessness and need to expand and/or fight with another empire). Or maybe if you have been pushing really hard in science or culture, same ideas (culture shock among citizens that increase unhappiness and slows science and culture generation). It would be good if the didn’t of crises turn advantages from the previous era into a disadvantage. That might help stop the snowball effect. I think it’s happening a bit anyways with the emergence of new cultures/city states with new eras. But along with the crisis card a player chooses. There should also be a “global crisis” all players have to deal with as well.
Things I like: Combat changes, Map graphics, Navigable Rivers, Eras and crisis system. Things I'm negative or skeptical of: Civ swapping, New city building mechanics, Any leader for any Civ
The changes they made to culture changing compared to Humankind seem like a solid improvement. Halving the number of ages should reduce the culture switching fatigue that is experienced in faster games of Humankind, and keeping everybody locked into the same age fixes the awkward era progression system in Humankind. I'm supprised they did it though, I thought culture switching would remain a feature of Humankind since it's controversial, but it just goes to show how much Humankind has pushed the genre to evolve. Glad Firaxis took notice, because Humankind was a breath of fresh air. I haven't been that immersed in a game like this since my modded Civ 4 BtS days, and this game is looking like a solid successor to both Humankind and Civ 6. My dream come true.
Civilization, the names in the game, the idea of changing from Britain to say France makes no sense.... sure change your leader, that makes sense (after all the game spans millenia), it would enable you civilization to be unique, but the underlying Civ? Its just weird... The Roman London example doesnt make a lot of sense, what you're talking about is one civilization taking over a city from another over time, which is interesting, perhaps they might be better merging, so swapping out some perks etc.
I'm trying to remain optimistic but I really do not like the idea of spending 150 turns building up all my cities as say, Egypt, and then having to choose a new civ and rebuild my cities on top of the old ones when the era shifts over. I appreciate the idea of it, London, etc. but in practice? I don't know.
$119.95 to $199.95 Aud for a game is far to much and then you need to start adding a $25-$40+ DLC that will come out after Founders Edition that will more than likely have critical game mechanics
@@mbazea4423 so pay $119.95 for the base game sounds like snake oil to me. the point is the base game is way over priced a lot of RUclipsrs are acting like snake oil salesman and cry when they are called out for it
@@pjackson6688 Australia gets shafted for game prices, it's unfortunate, u are paying 80usd for an otherwise 70usd game, check ggdeals if on pc, it might be cheaper on other storefronts like fanatical or greenman (both will just give u steam key) tbh 70usd is already high for as you have mentioned a game that's gonna be sold piece meal, civ6 was like that too but i think it's odd to blame RUclipsrs for it or for promoting it, these videos are for ppl that already wanna buy the game, it's not up to gamer RUclipss to stand up to industry price abd marketing
@@pjackson6688 Australia gets shafted for game prices, it's unfortunate, u are paying 80usd for an otherwise 70usd game, check ggdeals if on pc, it might be cheaper on other storefronts like fanatical or greenman (both will just give u steam key) tbh 70usd is already high for as you have mentioned a game that's gonna be sold piece meal, civ6 was like that too but i think it's odd to blame RUclipsrs for it or for promoting it, these videos are for ppl that already wanna buy the game, it's not up to gamer RUclipss to stand up to industry price abd marketing
Hello Jumbo, long time follower here. Thanks for another informative an entertaining program. I think exceptionally well delivered audio contributes to your success. Your voice is pleasant, precise and easy to listen to. The articulation is clear and intonation and tone conveys feelings and builds athmosphere. Keep up good work and kudos to kiwis!
Like with car reviewers, the only way you get early access to the product is to ensure you give it a good review. If you give it a bad review, no company will ever give you early access to the product again and will pick someone who will say its great.
Bro this leader/civ system SUCKS who the hell thought of that, ruins the game for me already I don’t wanna buy THAT Literally just make civ 6 with THESE graphics, that’s what I’d spend my money on
Overall, I like the direction they seem to he pushing. From what I've seen, I think there's two big missteps, though. 1. I think they did towns backwards. I like the impulse to reduce micromanagement, but thats a mid to late game problem, not an early game one. Early game, unlocking a 2nd production queue is HUGE and feels really good. I would have preferred they addressed this by allowing us to consolidate/stack cities into metropoli in later ages. (My guess is it's too late to change this) 2. Eurekas and Inspirations are gone. I really loved that system and can't believe they took them out. I hope they change their minds on this (which I'm guessing is still possible)
I'm a bit wary of the civ changing mechanic and how it'll change our connection to the empire we're playing, but I am glad that the choice of civs when you're changing is based on gameplay choices and you don't just have access to the whole roster.
Like you, Jumbo, I didn't have any major issues with the change of Civilizations in Humankind.....though I do think it could have been implemented better. So that means that I am happy to reserve judgement about that mechanic in Civ7. At the least I hope they consider adding an option for people to retain a Civilization across the ages....with the obvious cost of no new, Age-appropriate Unique Buildings and Unique Units. Weirdly, what bummed me most was an apparent lack of Era subdivisions for the Tech and Civic Trees. A minor gripe I know, but I hope they consider adding that in before launch.
Again, Jumbo, great video, but I still have that pressing concern about whether or not everyone will switch to the next age at the same time. With us now switching civs at different ages, I'm afraid there will be a race to certain civs like in Humankind. So, I am dying to know... will everyone be entering the next age at the same time?
I really wanna see how it works with the civ changes. I love the Eras idea on its own to have these stages of each playthrough but will have to see how the Civ changes feel for myself. My initial reaction is that it could make for some more fun storytelling if done right, very similar to everyone's experience with things like, "Damn Chinese building the Pyramids." It can be like, "Damn Ben Franklin went nuts with all those horses and raiding to become the Mongols."
So they picked the main thing I disliked about humankind while having a messier look that lacks artistic direction.. the cities looks too messy, the leaders are on the ugly side... the units and water looks nice though. But overall for me the AI and diplomacy will make or break the game, it's the one thing they seem to struggle on improving.
I think districts were the thing I was most interested to see how it was implemented in 7. I enjoyed the adjacency puzzle for a while, and while I haven't soured on it, but it is now the more tedious part of 6 hundreds of hours in.
I love civ period. I loved civ 1, i loved civ 2, i loved civ 3, I loved civ iv, I didn't much care for civ v, but I still bought it and all its expansions. I loved civ vi and I will most likely love civ vii as well.
Been playing Civ 6 for a few years off and on, and still have expansions to go through there. I want to see how Civ 7 is for domination driven game play so I can tell if it will be fun to dedicate time to with friends or just more a solo experience due to changes.
The funny thing in civilization was that you could have Romans in the modern era, or Egyptians in the North Pole. I hope that in other eras it is the option to maintain these civilizations. Because if the Romans in the modern era become the Germans, and the Egyptians in the north pole, become Norwegians... the magic disappears.
But that's the point...Civilizations don't stand still, they evolve and adapt, go extinct and are reborn as a result of internal and external factors. Egyptians developed the way they did because they were in the desert dependent on river floods etc. And Norwegians became how they were because it's a cold harsh environment. Civilizations don't develop free of outside influence. Similarly, Egypt was fundamentally changed by being taken over by Greeks, Romans, Arabs which led to massive cultural changes. Some of it immediate change because there was an invasion, revolution or immediate cultural event and some of it more gradual as people migrate and the world changed. And all the changes blend together to make what a nation is. The challenge is how to reflect that in the game and make these changes feel organic and related to what has happened in the game and blend together. Get that right and it will be an all time great game. Get it wrong and it will feel silly because it will be like you have horses so you're Mongolian now
![Quando Rondo - Life Goes On [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eIf3fhMXAow/mqdefault.jpg)
I would prefer the same country but different leaders to mimic how countries and cultures change over history. For example, England could start off as Athelstan, where the bonuses are about setting up cities. And it could move onto Edward the IIIrd, and England could change to be more military-based before moving onto Henry the VIIIth and being more faith-based. Then moving onto Victoria, etc. This means the nations are much more unique and, during different time periods, have different strengths and weaknesses. It will also mean the game is slightly more historically accurate and immersive, and it will also be different from Humankind.
@douglasyoutube I really like how you put your comment. I actually think I agree with a lot of, if not all of it. My initial thoughts after reading it were straight out of Civilization V. "A horse, a horse! My kingdom for a horse!"
I had a similar thought, but wondered if they could have gone with Dynasties?
There are only a few leaders of nations that have such an effect on said nation that it changes so drastically.
The effects you're talking about would be so minor for such a huge undertaking. (Massive graphic changes for say a -20% cost in settler production or something.)
Not to mention not very Civilisation at all. The point of Civ is taking one of that nation's great leaders and making a civilisation to challenge the test of time.
It also is against Civ's emphasis on nations specifically for different playthroughs. Science nation for science victory etc... etc...
I’m very confused by ur understanding of history and countries… countries aren’t historical at all… they are very modern and very fluid.
Like holy hell nations claims and leaders gets very messy and very nationalistic very quickly also rather that not occur.
It depends how historically accurate civs available at era change are. Do you switch era at your own pace or is it global change? culture evolution could be cool depending on what features and ascetics remain, do they blend to create a unique culture
How do they keep making the leaders worse and worse? Civ V they were perfect. You click on a civ leader and they were larger than life, with a personal background that made you feel you entered their world. Civ VI they became cartoony caricatures with no background, but at least were very expressive. These new leaders look like two Barbie dolls you're having talk to each other. Bland designs and unrecognizable to the historical figures they're supposed to represent.
I'm guessing that they needed to be simple so that, like Civ 3, they will change with the eras, but that's just speculation on my part.
They've said the ones we've seen in civ 7 right now are only placeholders.
This is one area where maybe I’m in the minority but I prefer these simple leaders over elaborate full screen leaders that I look at for 2 seconds before I make my decision. I wouldn’t care if they were stick figures as long as the game was good.
Exactly what I was thinking!! Civ 5 was perfect in this aspect!!!
@@eliasbang5490 There's no way they fully implement different leader designs... This is pretty close to what we're getting. It would be great if it happened, but I'm not sure about it.
Apparently, I'm a member of a small group who actually likes micro-managing workers, chopping down woods, building roads, mines, plantations and fields. I felt much more connected to my empire when I did all of those tasks myself.
Probably someone with coloured dyed hair and glasses done messed it up
A very specific sort, dyed hair can be stunning. @@windbuddy1560
Tbh it's one of the changes that worries me the least. Barbarians won't kidnap my workers anymore. But hey, maybe they keep some worker abilities as "powers" you can use?
@@Jaxay93 THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO KILL ME! THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO KILL ME! THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO KILL ME!
I mean AI was truly shit at automating that part (as most other things too) so doing it myself was the only viable option.
Remember, no preorders.
Who cares, only brokies throw tantrums about preorders
Already did. Complaints like this happen every single civ installation. And everytime, I have fun with it anyways.
You do realize that the founder’s edition will 100% definitely be cheaper than the game + the first 6 DLC packs, right? If anything, you’re wasting money by not preordering…
@@nikolaitregouetyou have to be getting paid by Firaxis or 2k to genuinely believe that lmao
@@JStack you have to not be playing any 4x/grand strategy to NOT believe that. I just saved 20 bucks buying the 3 next CK3 dlcs in a bundle some months ago
9:09 about religion. On the website of CIV VII, if you go to the game guide and select civs. There is information on one exploration age civ, the shawnee. This civ's unique civilian(!) unit is the Hoceepkileni. A missionary replacement unit. So at the very least it confirms that there will be missionaries in the exploration age.
wow than you so much for noticing that and share, van Leeuwenhoek😂
Cool
Missionaries yes religious victory apparently not
Nice find! 🤓
@@TheSjuris Probably gonna be a DLC...
Just like every civ game, it gets good after the second expansion.
4 was fine as it was, and got better with DLC
With this shit? Nah, don't get on it
My thoughts exactly! I will be surprised if it's great from day one.
Ice-T agrees
It's Civ so people are still gonna play it. I myself even though I hate the Civ and leaders swapping. Am still gonna play... the moment the crack comes out that is. I am not supporting this.
Ez fix is civ change according to historical changes.
Britons-anglo saxons- great britan
Perisa- sassiand- iran
Hellas- byzantine - greece
That is what I hope as well! As a Greek I want this for my country and other countries... Historicaly correct age changes
i think thats what they're trying to do. for some reason they decided to say that Egypt's successor is Songhai, when it's actually quite confirmed that Abbassids are in the game (for a split second you can see on Egypt's screen it says unlocks Songhai and Abbassids). Another thing that's hopeful is that in a Japanese interview with Ed Beach about Japan in Civ VII, he said that wouldnt it be cool to have an antiquity Japan, medieval Japan and modern Japan... surely there's an implication here.
@@yapx I think it is going to be easy to add these features, probably as expansion packs, but still if you keep your leader as previous civs and then you go from ancient Japan to medieval to modern it makes it better than before. But mixing up civs (french japan for example) makes no sense... We ll see in a few months
@@DanaosV5 The most work intensive part about implementing civs in Civ 7 would be the models of the buildings. But if those can be reused (to a reasonable degree) then addings civs would be borderline trivial.
That said, why would it make no sense? From a gameplay perspective it would make sense if you want to go for certain bonuses or if you want to make use of certain resources. If all you want is a historic chain of civs then sure, but that's not why they use this system in the first place.
Why force them along historical lines rather than letting them develop as would be appropriate for the world they find themselves in?
I think what’s weird about the example of London is that London is ONE city. It’s the transfer of hands in power. Civilizations don’t just transfer the entire country into another country. Like Egypt ain’t evolving into Mongolia 💀
I guess that's a tricky one, as London is one city but it's surrounded by the British isles it's people, who have gone through many, many cultures in history and spawned many others around the world. So there is some logic.
They do leave other countries though.
Broadly speaking, Rome was the center of the Roman Empire, it was also the center of the Papal States and it was the center of the Italian Republic/Kingdom of Italy. Each iteration not really resembling each other all that much, to the point you could call them different civilizations. The Papal States was so different from a unified Italy that it still exists as the Holy See alongside the Italian Republic, sharing Rome.
Its such a dumb example. Like they didnt spend 5 seconds wondering why London "changed civilizations"??
Also the thing described with London was cultural genocide. By the Roman's, than Germanics and than the British empire tries to do it to the whole world. And just neatly brushing over it like that is honestly profoundly sickening to me no matter how fun it would be in gameplay
I have to say that ruling one nation from Stone Age to the modern Ages was what attracted me since CIV on the amiga 500. I am absolutely not interested in swapping nationalities. Also having different technological levels was also a thing that fascinated me. So this 2 new changes basically destroy 50% of my immersion
They were pretty clear that you can't stay as your Civ. In the showcase, they talked about it being a lot easier to balance the Civs because they were only balancing within that Civ's Age. That seems pretty clear-cut to me that Civs will not move into the next age.
There have devs that have me mentioned some countries will have versions that exist over eras. I expect something like han Chinese - ming empire - PRC
i still say this game is looking totally sus. the premise of all Civilization games has been 'to build a civilization that stands the test of time'. the fun is in the fiction - not many civilizations do stand the test of time, but this game has always allowed us to imagine 'what if?'. now that wonder is being taken away. as a side note, this talking point of theirs about London growing and changing over time proves the opposite point that they think it does. the fact that London is not a Roman city today is because Rome did not stand the test of time!
that said, if they want to simulate the idea of the rise and fall of empires, i am all about it. in fact, i think Civ has been, in many ways, too linear. i think trying to simulate rises and falls could be fun, but as a mechanic - not an arbitrary thing that happens at the end of an era. to put it another way, Civ 1 DID try to simulate this to a certain degree - when taking over an enemy capital city, you would often force a civil war within that nation, and it would fracture into two nations. this was so much fun!! i remember one game i played where the Russians were so powerful, that my only chance of victory was to take Moscow and force a civil war. it worked, and it was very satisfying. i think there are many gameplay mechanics they could look at to add some realism to the rise and fall of empires, and civil war is just one way they could do this.
and, others have already pointed this out, but i love workers! there is nothing more satisfying than sending my worker bees all over the map the build up the foundations of my empire. empire is built on the backs of the people, and i want to manage that.
TLDR: i am having the same feeling i had when watching preview videos for both Cities Skylines 2 and Prison Architect 2 - those games didn't pass the smell test, and obviously for good reason. i will NEVER preorder a game, and i urge others to wait this one out and see. after all, Civ 5 was a hot mess when it came out, but over time it managed to become a great game, and my personal favorite. i wish for the same here, but i'm currently not sold.
As an older gamer, Have actually been playing since Civ II, I am concerned about culture switch. How will I lead the Aztec's over Spain if there are no Aztecs? I am afraid of not being attached to my little group if I am forced to morph into a civ that I do not like. I am afraid that my century long battle against the Spanish disappears. Who are these new people? Who am I? This is the thing that killed Humankind for me. The story that unfolded as I played was constantly ripped up and fell apart. I never even finished one game of Humankind because of this aspect. Until I see how this works, this is the MOST skeptical about a new Civ release that I have ever felt. I hope it does not ruin the game.
That's what the leaders are for, to give your civs and the opponents a sense of continuity throughout the game, while you both change and adapt to the changing world.
@@MunchKING oh, I'm definitely going to play it... I'm just concerned. However almost all changes they have made in the past have been good so I do have faith... We will see.
@@andrewleeper4270 We will indeed.
"I never even finished one game of Humankind because of this aspect."
If you disliked this aspect of Humankind so much, why didn't you just keep the same Culture that you want to play with through eras? Game doesn't force you to change it or anything like that. In fact, it adds quite a compelling challenge for you if you keep the same culture.
I'm only asking because I only hear same criticism for Humankind and it's just not a fair point.
@@el.Fakir. to be completely Fair, I only played 4 times after initial release and never thought of it... But I am willing to load it up and give it a go. I was just stating what aspect of the game lost my interest.
I don’t like how the Civ transitions are handled, and it was also my biggest gripe with humankind. I’m fine with a Civ evolving over time, that is realistic. But instead of becoming a NEW, preexisting Civ with predefined qualities, why not let players keep their Civ and decide to take on a set of bonuses that vary according to their actions? e.g., not Egypt > Songhai but Ancient Egypt > Medieval Egypt (+1 trade route or w/e)
Yeah that makes more sense to me. Why not tie in actions you've taken, the current state of the world, how your current leader is viewed, etc. That could include changing leaders. There's tons of ways to make an age shift interesting. Doubling down on your current strategy, sacrificing something else to try to shift strategies...lots of possibilities.
I would refer a system similar to CK3 actually. You select base civ. And as the game progresses you can add or remove certail cultural traits from a shared pool. However if ai gets the trait you want, if that ai remove the trait you wanted you then get to pick it up. This would make that you still start as the certain civ, yet get to adapt to the game around you
Yeah there are definitely smoother ways to add cultural traits. For example Civ 5 Pantheons, they weren't well balanced, but it was a great mechanic to customize your civ a little bit to the game. Social policies have potential to be overhauled into that as well.
The people who dislike the civ change mechanic are not a "vocal minority". Read the room. Civfanatics had a poll and the MAJORITY like or dislike the mechanic, with a plurality voting "strongly dislike". If anything, it seems like Civ RUclipsrs making strawman arguments meet the definition of a vocal minority.
I think I saw the same poll on Civfanatics! Isn’t that the one with only like 400 voters?
only core strategy players, understand how the industry has evolved the genre. Civilization is many people's Solitare and don't give any poop about alternatives. many civ 6 players never even played 4 or 5 let alone dabbled with 3.
We’ll see when the game launches. I suspect majority of review won’t be negative - therefore a minority. Not trying to disparage you.
Bros mad cuz he thinks one poll of out dozens that are done on an obscure website where maybe a few dozen or a few hundred people vote matters.
I don't think it's a minority of people who don't like the idea of civilization changes. If you read the comments, and I'm included, people do get the idea of evolving cultures. Historical changes make sense. But in what way does it make sense to go from Egypt to Songhai to Mongolia? If Egypt evolved into say... the caliphate or the Mamluks, sure. Then maybe you could differentiate ancient Egypt from modern Egypt, or find a closely related modern nation as a what-if. If the developers thought of this as the evolution of a civilization around London, this doesn't make sense in every context. You'd need to tie some kind of rationale to it. Like maybe you can even stretch it for native American civs to evolve into the US but historically, that's not really how it worked. Aztecs or Mayans into Mexico, sure. China into Russia? No.
Totally agreed but I think it will be historically correct if Russia will evolve into Zimbabwe or Nigeria because nowadays it is a banana republic (actually fascist dictatorship masquerading as a republic) owing Soviet technologies but having no idea how to work with them.
so the entire civilization changed but leaders don't die? What r they, vampires?
I brought this up with my brother, 2 days ago 😂
No leader has ever died in any of the franchises history. Hell they kept bringing Sean Bean back.
I demand a regicide gamemode.
I would have thought they would have done it the other way around, that would actually make sense.
Being Chinese one turn and Sudanese the next is neither authentic nor historically accurate. A slow transition brought on by conquest or revolution would feel better.
You touched on competing with other civs to get the culture you want. That is a major downside with humankind. If I’m trying to do a high tech civilization, but when I age from antiquity to exploration, and all the exploration civs with research boosts are already taken, that sabotages my entire strategy. Frankly I have yet to hear one advantage to the culture shift change, and can only think of the negatives I experienced in humankind with a similar system.
London was Roman because Roman's founded London. It's not that the Romans became English. I hated the changing cultures in Humankind and now I'm really worried.
Exactly England became English because the Roman Empire collapsed and then Germanic tribes took over were eventually invaded by Normans.
From here there is a gradual identity shift to an Anglo-Norman culture but this culminates into the 100 year war. So Civs 7 era change system is inherently inaccurate, eras change at their own pace for more dynamic reasons and are always marked by another civilisations conquest
A huge fan of Civilization since the original Civ1 back in the 90s.
However... I never got into Civ6... tried several times, never completed a single game of Civ6...
HUGE FAN OF CIV5... played it to death, even long after Civ6 released... no clue what I will make of Civ7.
Same here, sticked to Civ5
To be honest, the “choose your leader and civ type separately” is just an excuse to sell content pack with those 2 things only and have a quick money grab scheme. And that is enough to me to not continue supporting the franchise, is not the rode I want this company follow in game development
My issue is only the monetization. They are going to milk the hell out of us for leaders and civs.
I'm very excited for how alive the cities seem now, SO many buildings, make it actually feel like an empire, love the art style, navigable rivers is something I'm excited about for surprise assaults, and the combat looks very alive so I'm happy about that.
I don't think any Civ fans expected a clone in Civ 7, but we did not expect a copy of Humankind. I tried Humankind and didn't like it. The devs reason that you have to change cultures because cultures don't last forever, yet they have you keep the same leader for 4000 years. People don't live forever either. Benjamin Franklin Aztecs anyone? One thing I enjoy about Civilization is that you can take a given civilization from the ancient era and build your civilization to "stand the test of time". I don't know why the devs decided to throw out their winning formula to make a Humankind clone. I might try it later, when the price goes down.
What makes you so sure, that it is "just a vocal minority" who dislikes the civ switching?
most "civ" players have no idea about any other game. and this is their solitaire.
I wouldn’t say I was “so sure”, but it seems u likely to me that majority of the reviews for this game will be negative. It’s not going to be 40% positive over time. This is Civ.
For me at the beginning switching civs was awful buuuut, problem in Humankind was the fact that we didnt have leaders, in Civ we have leaders. Second problem was that in HK we changed civs very often without ANY historical context, in Civ we will have just 2 changes and if we want to, there will be a historical context. I played Humandkind a bit yesterday and overall Civ 7 will be totally diffrent from HK. I think all these changes with cities infastructure, leaders, civs, generals, attributes will give us more flexability and replayability
From a gameplay point of view I really liked HK's ability to switch to a culture with the bonuses that corresponded well with your civ's needs in the next era (especially as you could choose cultures that had advantages for where your civ was located on the map). But I understand it's not so great from a historical roleplay point of view.
Exactly! I'm actually super excited for this. As long as the gameplay is good that should really be what matters, they wanna try a new gimmick so let's give it a shot!
CIV has a legacy in it's ideea to let the player to recreate history, so it was inspired from history, it used historical nations and leaders, no it was not historically accurate and no one asked for it, but tried to have a historical sense, was not a fantasy. They can make fantasy games but why kill CIV legacy.
@@raulepure9840 I mean you say that but I remember Civ2 had Amaterasu as the female Japanese leader. As in a goddess. And Ishtar for the female Babylonian leader... yeah.
At least in CIv VII, it looks like they're still using historical figures and historical Civilizations.
@@AnonSeacat So! I know Amaterasu is a legendary godess like figure based on myths but is part of a nation creation story, you can see Amaterasu as a leader of japanese nation without a feeling of artificiality.
A.I. wise, I want to know if they've even thought about the silly things that happen, i.e. an A.I. civ declaring a surprise war on you, you then beat them and take their city, now all of the other A.I. civs instantly decide you're a warmonger. Or say, I join a war with an A.I. civ and save the day, but two turns later that civ is denouncing me. All of it has in game mechanics as reasons, but it is just so annoying and non-immersive to deal with.
And with difficulty, if you put it right up it should make the A.I. smarter, i.e. attacking with a plan and with many more units, teaming up with other civs against you and working together to attack simultaneously, and it should NOT: just give the same A.I. extra bonuses.
If I jump into civ 7 and the A.I. still does all of the dumb stuff, AND they still unit cycle in a non-intuitive way (not going nearest first) then it will be obvious they havent really developed anything other than a skin.
Erm, don't want to change Civ - want to play it through to the end, watch and evolve. Really don't like this aspect, at all.
I'm very sceptical about that too. It didn't feel good at all in Humankind.
You don't have to change the leader, so if you think the leader is the civ then you can play with more fun. And civ7 is making the leaders have more character by adding a lot of unique things to them, it might be even better. Civilization itself will be more like a way of development rather than the usual civilization we played in the games before.
@@megmucklebones7538 Same. They are claiming historical precedence with that London example, but that’s not what they are doing at all. Don’t make me pick a new Civ, let me pick bonuses and traits like in CK3.
I think it won't be that bad. After all, in Civ 6 you also abandoned a lot of unique traits from a civilization pretty early. Take Rome: once you developed away from Legions, it was similar to other civilizations.
@@SynRequiem You’re mixing things up. London is their example of a city being built over itself over time, which is another mechanic in the game
As someone who likes Humankind, I'm not mad about this change of direction. As a macromanagement lover, I'm cautiously optimistic.
I am over the civ change mostly. My new 2 biggest concerns are the map sizes and if this game is less sandboxy and removes player agency. Also id like to know if the devs think past rulers had fun watching their empire collapses around them.
if it's even more tight in optimal play than Civ 6, the game is even more puzzle game under the guise of strategy.
Nothing personal, but I find it hard to believe i am getting an honest opinion from someone who was flown out by the company to the studio, and given early access to the game. More likely if there is doubt in your mind about any feature you will lean towards saying it is positive or doesn't bother you.
Agree. At best he can only be netural if he wants a relationship with the corperation
@@Bakarost JumboPIxel isn't what you'd call a very critical content creator, he's fairly pro-corporate.
Based on my observations, atleast 50% of the audience is mixed on the changes while 100% of the access youtubers aren't . Tells a lot about their honesty and integrity doesn't it?
@@pisasupayaniMakes sense for them, more money to be earned from sponsorships.
All of them were flown out.
If the devs actually cared they could make the changing cultures particular to the civilization you're playing. Maybe have the leaders (if consistent) change clothing appropriate to the times.
For example, Egypt could start as itself, then have the option to either evolve into either the Ayyubids (Saladin), Mamluks (a more localized and accurate version of mongol) or remain Cleopatra's Egypt. Then a similar set of choices for the modern age.
The same goes for other civs, like England having to choose between Anglo-saxon, Norman or Norse.
Germany also offers a very spicy set of choices with one of them being the Teutons.
They care about your money if that counts.
I think I agree about the consistency point. I liked the concept of evolving civs over time in Humankind, but I hated how confusing it got to track who was who and who swapped to what. I think maintaining the leader is the way to go to create that throughline. I do think the mechanic would've been better received if they sorta limited your choices of which civs you could evolve into based on gamestate and things you've chosen. Like some civs can automatically evolve into others but can't evolve into X or Y unless they fulfill certain prequisites or have chosen certain playstyles during the previous era.
That’s exactly the system they previewed in the trailer. You will have a limited choice between historically relevant and gameplay relevant successors.
My biggest grip with the game so far is the diplomacy screen, it feels so lazy compared to previous games where wash leader had a unique screen and music where as now we just get both our and the opposite leader and a little banner. Take me back to the quality of civ 5 or the livelyness of civ 6
I want a mixture of both, the detailed backgrounds of 5 along with the fantastic leader animations of 6 (ofc with a matching more realistic style).
@@Chicky_Lumps that's exactly what I had in mind as well.
More like the minority is the one that like Humankind's system. You could always make a poll to see if your audience share the same view point as yours.
Look, no hard feeling since I've been follow you from the day you started promoting Humankind, which I can understand why you think the system is good. Humankind's system was good initially, and it didn't rear its ugly side until after a dozen of hours when you realize there is no story whatsoever in your playthrough, because everything is just same mixed hotpot. You only play to get to that victory screen.
Of course I think it will be fine if they say there is an option to lock everyone into one initial civ, but then there will be the problem of the number of civ become too small.
Agreed. Suspect it's a majority that are unhappy with the era changes. They need to persuade us.
There is an issue with otherwise trusted youtubers going soft because they don't want to lose access. They are also invested in the game doing well. This happened a lot with Skylines 2, where eventually they had to admit, yes it sucked.
I think people are being premature, even Jumbo admits that he's only had a few hours with the game. There's a lot time between now and launch (even assuming the date doesn't move) to see more, and how they evolve the systems. At first blush I think I like HK's generic leader because I won't be leading modern Russia with George Washington or such, but I also think having fewer transitions is an improvement, that said Civ without leaders is too much of a change. It's too much to have any conclusion just yet, and it's too early to come down hard on really anything as it's all subject to change. I'm just glad we're seeing this much six months out.
@@GamerPhysics it is not all subject to change lmao. six months out is pretty much the game having gone gold. no time for big changes
@@ElykEcralc You're right, they can't completely remake the whole game, but the product has by no mean 'gone gold' they don't even have the UI in the product yet. Yeah, I guess if you *hate* the whole age transitions and new civ choice completely, you are outta luck, but I wouldn't be surprised if over the course of this game they give some options to remove the civ choice limits (eg. you could become Mongolia regardless of how many horses you have) and similar changes to the 'formula'
15 mins ago is crazy...
I dont see the point in even having civs if you dont play as your civ throughout the ages, it seems lazy to me and more of a lame copy of other games that have been copying civ recently... the whole point was to see how your civ would evolve throughout the years. Now its like there is no soul.
I'm really baffled by this perspective, since being a civ in the wrong era always was kinda frustrating and annoying to me. Like it was fun for the Ancient and classical era civilizations to take them into the modern era, but any other situation just felt incredibly off to me.
This approach is much more in line with how I'd like to role play.
@@a.m.hofmeister725 You're baffled by the perspective that the first 6 civ games took?
So playing as Egypt and then changing to say America, that doesn't feel off to you? But starting as America does? Baffling...
@@a.m.hofmeister725 And what about the names of cities, will they also change from Egyptian to American?
@@a.m.hofmeister725truly a minority opinion that ive seen.
@@Simon-gc6ufmate they explained the civs are limited to cultural connection. You won’t be able to go from Egypt to America; you’d have to choose another civ to become America.
No, just, no. The more I hear about the Civ switch in every age the more I hate it. For me what made Civ different and great was that sense of power fantasy, that sandbox feeling of what happened if a Civilization never fell and became truly powerful, going from a tiny settlement to a powerful empire. That is all gone in Civ 7, I am now forced to switch to a Civilization that I didn't want to play to begin with and I'm locked from choosing a Civilization because that Civilization is only available on the Modern Age and so on. It completely kills any sort of attachment one gets to it's Civilization. Plus one thing that every player that likes strategy games likes to do is playing with their own country, well guess what you can't, you are forced to switch to another Civilization or maybe your country is only available in a later age of the game. It was the worst possible change they could have made, it was the feature that made me lose interest in Humankind and the same is happening to Civ 7.
Little early to have a meltdown friend.
@@feralfanatic6954”melt down” get lost. He simply stated his opinion
@@dmdm597 I agree 100%. When I encountered this in Humankind, my first thought was, “This is a cool idea but it doesn’t make sense to choose between preexisting civs. Please let us choose from a list of traits that can be influenced by achievements and play style in the previous age.”
keep playing civ 6 lol
@@DaveReithmiller1983yeah bro it’s a bit of a meltdown lmao.
This guy wants a game that feels like a sandbox. That ain’t what civ is and never was and never should be.
I wish the playtesters would spend time talking specifically about the AI. I've been spoiled by Vox Populi. If the AI is not clever (strategically, tactically, diplomatically) I'm going to patiently wait for a modder to fix that before I buy the game.
Hard to trust these close test results . If he hates it will they fly him next time ? Doubt it.
I don't like the changing culture stuff.
It's literally just a minor bonus shift, it's not a big deal
@@kattenelvis1778 I don't feel like a it's a minor change the whole idea of civilization is you take a civilization with a leader to success and jumping around different civilizations while my leader stays the same makes no sense. It made sense when I play as Benjamin Franklin from USA but it is a clown show when it is Benjamin Franklin from Mongolia.
@@kattenelvis1778What's the point then.
If the symbol, colour, and civ name remains the same, leaders changing makes a lot of sense. The core identity of the civ remains the same - it's a head of state change attached to bonuses and modifiers - which they will try to balance, but will bring this valid idea of history having "layers".
@@EyewitnessHistoryChannel the leaders stay the same, the civs get switched.
It doesn't matter how good it is when it's $130 USD. Hard pass until it's 75% off or less.
Independent powers look fresh and interesting, no barb, just independent powers that can be friend or foe.
Civ: "build a civ to stand the test of time"
Also Civ: "change your civ, cuz we will force destruct this one, and the next one"
Now the tagline was "Build something you believe in" IIRC.
@@MunchKING That's interesting, in the gameplay reveal and trailer they still say build a civ (trailer says empire) to stand the test of time. Still not sure what to think of the feature, probably need to play it first.
Be fluid culture wise, the new woke concept!
I’m curious about the city and town system. I normally like to play on huge maps and make a ton of settlers to gobble up as much land as possible in the early game. I’ll have to figure out a good strategy of when to covert towns into cities.
Does it feel like there is still the civ 6 "Play the map" type of principle? Any concept of housing? Do you still kinda need to settle next to a river? Happiness seems to be a resource instead of level eg. per turn and flat amounts granted, how does it apply? Were some cities happy and others not? What happens if you tell a commander to unpack, but there aren't enough unoccupied adjacent tiles - and either way, can you manually select which goes where? Can a unit embark directly onto a river and sail along it? Is river sailing lower cost than regular land movement ie. is it a faster mode of travel? How does the civ selection work at the end of an age when it comes to the other players/ai - who wins if two people want Songhai? Are there still strategic resource requirements - horses for horseman, iron for swordsman (if so, is it like civ6 gathering storm of civ6 vanilla)?
In general, it seems like they're trying to make it overall more accessible to new users, more diverse/inclusive to attract a wider audience and alot more console-focussed eg. reduced alot of minutae that favour a mouse.
People don't want the DIE stuff.
I really like your insights on accurate vs. authentic. Beautifully put and thought provoking
No thanks. Steps too far from Civ. I don't want to play Humankind II under a different name.
I don’t like changing cultures I always play as kongo and if civ 7 forces me to change cultures I’ll stick to civ 6
How did you find the new "world wonders" or Natural Wonders? CIV.6 actually helped me to go and see places around the world and look at the wonders in person :)
Everything excluding the 'civ-swap' mechanics looks great. I'm even ok with the separation of leaders and civs since it allows you to feature some civs we know a lot about culturally but don't know much about their leaders (e.g. Indus Valley Civilization) as well as feature leaders that don't easily fit into specific civilisations (e.g. Charlemagne).
But the Civ changing with eras is the BIG turnoff, for me and a lot of players. I understand why they did it (to properly present the evolution of certain civs, e.g. Rome->Papal States->Italy), but it does feel like it goes against the general philosophy of the franchise. "Can your Civilization stand the test of time", changing Civ's partway through the game contradicts that.
Now the tagline is "Build something you believe in", IIRC.
I mean I rather switch leaders that ruled that civ,switching civs makes it feel more like humankind. He mentions humankind alot during this video,that it's like humankind. I want like civ,not humankind.
I'm curious. Have you experienced any Natural Disasters in the game? If so, were there any new disasters? Did they kept the same ones? Did any of the disasters damaged your tiles? Did any disasters effected your battles? (Perhaps lower visibility in a blizzard or less attack in a dust storm), Etc
The way they did civ changes is so stupid. It would have been much better if they implement the same system but with guardrails that make you follow an accurate evolution of culture. Maybe something like a culture tree where you start as Roman then can change to Byzantine and then to Turkey or Italy.
I appreciate your measured optimism a lot. I'm also feeling positive but cautious about the game, and it's nice to see some not-shouty opinions on it given how a lot of the community has reacted.
I found your take on historical accuracy vs. authenticity spot on. It feels like there's an Overton window of what needs to be historically appropriate in Civ vs what's acceptable to handwave. There's understandable resistance to shifting that window, but in 5 years changing civs might feel as baked into the franchise as nuclear ghandi or communist genghis.
Religion will probably be a expansion
Probably "Right to Rule"
Nope, the Shawnee have a special missionary unit. It’s just gonna be in the later ages
Nope.
@@alfredmuszynski4522no religious victory right now.
@@TheSjurisI mean we’ve seen a very small portion of what’s to come, just because they haven’t said anything about religion doesn’t mean it’s not there. But it could be pushed into culture, we just don’t know yet
One of my concerns is the lack of mention of modding. For me, modders are what makes a good game, great, with the CIV series. I only play Vanilla CIV a few times each DLC to learn new systems, and then go to modders who always fix the flaws, bugs, and failures. In CIV 6 they made some promises about modding which were broken, and now there is zero mention.
I haven't seen a single official Civ 6 video that mentions modding. It rather goes without saying that the creators consider their work to be perfect and requiring no corrections.
cant have modders provide free content that is better than the studio tries to milk the crowd for, and its 2k they are some of the greediest in the industry.
@@MichalKaczorowski Then you didn't look/watch enough. From an article back in 2016 on PC Games "while of Civ VI, they promise it has been “designed from the ground up with deep mod support in mind.”" They discussed it with the community, the community and modders discussed it on CIV Fanatics. I'm not sure what else to tell you?
So they copied humankind switching civs?
Roman-Chinese-Jupiterian doesn’t make sense at all unless Sid was heavily drunk the night the idea was approved
I've been playing Civ Five on marathon speed only since 2011. I felt that playing on marathon had certain micro managing issues to over come and nothing that didn't seem hard to "fix" as it were. I did like taking a strategic look at worker use and feel compelled to say the developers should have explored multi-step orders and an alert mode for builders, but I am still intrigued
Keep up the good work
What about AI? Did it seem “better” as you played?
From what spiffing Brit and potato have said it’s a bit too early to tell, spiff says he saw some either "tactical brilliance" or typical dumb ai army movement but said with only 3 hours he couldn’t really tell
Pixel, what you said about story building and consistency at 20:37 is so true and IMO one of the biggest failures of Humankind brought about by its flagship features of constance culture shifting and non-historical custom leaders. Sadly the developers were never able to address that fundamental issue with the expansions.
However your video makes me hopeful and dare I say excited for Civ 7. It seems like that culture switching is a lot more reigned in vs Humankind and I think the keeping of iconic historical leaders will help keep things tied together in a way that Humankind couldn't with its custom avatars.
The thing I dislike with the culture change is most of them happened due to getting taken over by another civ , it’s like when Norway and Rome conquered London it’s always been through conquest not just slowly changing . But that’s always been a thing in civ . I just don’t think it makes sense as you don’t get conquered if you’re still alive . What they should have done is change leaders each age and have 5 different Egypt civs each one . That would allow you to keep your civ but also adapt play style
I am sorry but i hate the civ changing. My Egyptian neighbours will suddenly all turn Asian when they switch to Mongolia. That makes no sense and i can not justify that in my head...
15:55 I agree it would make sense for one of those three types to be a naval commander, but having an air commander seems less likely. At least with previous Civ games, air units didn't work in a way where this would make much sense. I was going to suggest maybe the third would be great generals, but you'd think they would include great admirals too, so that doesn't add up to 3.
Why are you insisting that the people who hate the Civ change mechanic is "a vocal minority"? Where are you getting this information that it's the minority opinion? You didn't have anything positive to say about this mechanic, you can just admit it's lame.
The vast majority of players are ones who would never watch a video like this or even pay attention to these details. So they are certainly not upset by the changes because they are still completely unaware of them.
If we think about it, history does have layers - why would you want to play as Washington or Gandhi in the Antiquity age past maybe the memes? This is a step in the right direction. If the core civ identity remains the same, a name change is not a biggie.
@@EyewitnessHistoryChannel Egyptians changing into Asians when You change to Mongolia is a little bit much don't You think?
I just don’t understand why one can’t just keep one’s first civilization choice. Like, sure, give the player the option to change IF THEY WANT. But if the player doesn’t want to, why force that upon them?
I'm seeing a whole lot more influence from Old World as far as city and district/specialist than from Millenia. Good video JP.
Im pretty sure by launch or next year sometime there will be a historically logical route you can take or a wildly absurd route you can take when changing civ. Modders will ensure you can play 3 versions of Egypt if you want im sure. They will go crazy on civs and leaders. Game modes could also correct any issues people have. I played civ 6 the other day with a mod that allowed me to play Saladin of Scotland and was able to go science crazy it was a blast. The game is about strategy and creating unique empires and that isnt damaged through civ switching it just makes it more interesting and adds depth and replayability to the game.
I haven’t played civ since 2018 and mainly played with civ 5 and civ 4 but im looking forward to getting back into it for civ 7
I'm kind of amazed that Firaxis paid to fly youtubers to Baltimore to play for 4 hours and only show them one "age." Seems awfully expensive to me.
It means late game is full of bugs or is generally trash. They just need to get this out because they want the money.
The best part of just discovering 4x games is that they are all new, lol. I never gave them a chance since i thought i hated the turn based thing. I played a Castles game in the 90s. Other than that didn't care for them. Picked up Civ 6 on a sale on Stem a while back for like $2 just in case i ever wanted to try it and it was too good a deal to pass up. Then i actually gave it a try, then BAM!! I'm obsessed. Old world is great too.
I always cared about playing and evolving one civilization - being an Egyptian and then turning into Mongolia - what the heck is that?
the concept is supposed to be if you have lots of horses, you'd turn your civ into one that USES all those horses. Like "Mongolia" is just a name for "Horse-archer culture".
@@MunchKING okay, but still, evolving from egyptian into a mongolian feels very weird to me - egypt >> sassanid empire >> modern iran feels more how it should be done, not suddenly becoming a completely different civilization thousands of kilometers away
@@markosan2087 Yes, but you're just limiting them based on geographic proximity in our world. In Civ the Civilizations are never anything like where they are in our world unless you're playing True Start.
So while it may feel weird, it makes sense for them to turn into Mongolia for horse-archers or some kind of boat-civilization if they have a lot of ocean to travel, or in other ways reflect the world that they are in in the civ game, not our reality.
Im am really looking forward to the release, seems like they got some interesting new ideas and concepts.
I hope they bring back religious victories in a DLC. It’s like a domination victory but easier and to me, more fun. My apostles are master debaters
0:08 the lip-sync was incredible
The big splash over the last few days with Civ VII left me looking at the game and asking; is this Civ VI with a graphics update and mods? And how much of the game will be developed for the single player rather then dev time spent in console player demands for every game to be online multiplayer?
I’m glad you’ve done this overview, though I’m still not convinced it’s going to be worth the $70(?) price plus DLC
I don't mind the civ-swap. For long games it was a problem if you had all your special units and abilities in the early age and you did not get much done. On the other hand you could end up pretty badly if the enemy had all of its stuff in the later ages. Its a good way to balance this issue with older games.
Would you consider doing a sort of closing retrospective on Humankind? With the definitive edition out and Amplitude going completely silent it seems like they are closing this chapter on their self-described 'magnum opus'.
Seems topical given how much inspiration Civ 7 has taken from Humankind. Always felt like Humankind had so many great ideas that just fell short of greatness and never quite came together in a way that Civ games do.
I like the enforcement of crises during the change between ages. Civ is a game, so it doesn’t need to fully accurately represent history. But that was perhaps one of the biggest issues, is that if a player manages their empire well, they never really experience any downturns.
It would be good if, like the Civ change options responding to user gameplay, the crises cards also responded to gameplay. If you spent the ancient era expanding, you should be forced to choose a card that negatively impacts expansion for example.
If you been turtling, well same thing (citizens growing restlessness and need to expand and/or fight with another empire). Or maybe if you have been pushing really hard in science or culture, same ideas (culture shock among citizens that increase unhappiness and slows science and culture generation).
It would be good if the didn’t of crises turn advantages from the previous era into a disadvantage. That might help stop the snowball effect.
I think it’s happening a bit anyways with the emergence of new cultures/city states with new eras. But along with the crisis card a player chooses. There should also be a “global crisis” all players have to deal with as well.
Things I like: Combat changes, Map graphics, Navigable Rivers, Eras and crisis system.
Things I'm negative or skeptical of: Civ swapping, New city building mechanics, Any leader for any Civ
The changes they made to culture changing compared to Humankind seem like a solid improvement. Halving the number of ages should reduce the culture switching fatigue that is experienced in faster games of Humankind, and keeping everybody locked into the same age fixes the awkward era progression system in Humankind. I'm supprised they did it though, I thought culture switching would remain a feature of Humankind since it's controversial, but it just goes to show how much Humankind has pushed the genre to evolve. Glad Firaxis took notice, because Humankind was a breath of fresh air. I haven't been that immersed in a game like this since my modded Civ 4 BtS days, and this game is looking like a solid successor to both Humankind and Civ 6. My dream come true.
Civilization, the names in the game, the idea of changing from Britain to say France makes no sense.... sure change your leader, that makes sense (after all the game spans millenia), it would enable you civilization to be unique, but the underlying Civ? Its just weird...
The Roman London example doesnt make a lot of sense, what you're talking about is one civilization taking over a city from another over time, which is interesting, perhaps they might be better merging, so swapping out some perks etc.
I'm trying to remain optimistic but I really do not like the idea of spending 150 turns building up all my cities as say, Egypt, and then having to choose a new civ and rebuild my cities on top of the old ones when the era shifts over. I appreciate the idea of it, London, etc. but in practice? I don't know.
$119.95 to $199.95 Aud for a game is far to much and then you need to start adding a $25-$40+ DLC that will come out after Founders Edition that will more than likely have critical game mechanics
buy base game pirate the rest until u feel like buying a complete edition
@@mbazea4423 so pay $119.95 for the base game sounds like snake oil to me.
the point is the base game is way over priced a lot of RUclipsrs are acting like snake oil salesman and cry when they are called out for it
@@pjackson6688 Australia gets shafted for game prices, it's unfortunate, u are paying 80usd for an otherwise 70usd game, check ggdeals if on pc, it might be cheaper on other storefronts like fanatical or greenman (both will just give u steam key)
tbh 70usd is already high for as you have mentioned a game that's gonna be sold piece meal, civ6 was like that too
but i think it's odd to blame RUclipsrs for it or for promoting it, these videos are for ppl that already wanna buy the game, it's not up to gamer RUclipss to stand up to industry price abd marketing
@@pjackson6688 Australia gets shafted for game prices, it's unfortunate, u are paying 80usd for an otherwise 70usd game, check ggdeals if on pc, it might be cheaper on other storefronts like fanatical or greenman (both will just give u steam key)
tbh 70usd is already high for as you have mentioned a game that's gonna be sold piece meal, civ6 was like that too
but i think it's odd to blame RUclipsrs for it or for promoting it, these videos are for ppl that already wanna buy the game, it's not up to gamer RUclipss to stand up to industry price abd marketing
Hello Jumbo, long time follower here. Thanks for another informative an entertaining program.
I think exceptionally well delivered audio contributes to your success.
Your voice is pleasant, precise and easy to listen to. The articulation is clear and intonation and tone conveys feelings and builds athmosphere.
Keep up good work and kudos to kiwis!
Like with car reviewers, the only way you get early access to the product is to ensure you give it a good review. If you give it a bad review, no company will ever give you early access to the product again and will pick someone who will say its great.
Bro this leader/civ system SUCKS who the hell thought of that, ruins the game for me already I don’t wanna buy THAT
Literally just make civ 6 with THESE graphics, that’s what I’d spend my money on
Then don't buy it jeez
Overall, I like the direction they seem to he pushing.
From what I've seen, I think there's two big missteps, though.
1. I think they did towns backwards. I like the impulse to reduce micromanagement, but thats a mid to late game problem, not an early game one. Early game, unlocking a 2nd production queue is HUGE and feels really good. I would have preferred they addressed this by allowing us to consolidate/stack cities into metropoli in later ages. (My guess is it's too late to change this)
2. Eurekas and Inspirations are gone. I really loved that system and can't believe they took them out. I hope they change their minds on this (which I'm guessing is still possible)
All i care about is, can i turn off turn limits and make the winning condition to domination only.
a man of culture
you'd think so
I'm a bit wary of the civ changing mechanic and how it'll change our connection to the empire we're playing, but I am glad that the choice of civs when you're changing is based on gameplay choices and you don't just have access to the whole roster.
Like you, Jumbo, I didn't have any major issues with the change of Civilizations in Humankind.....though I do think it could have been implemented better. So that means that I am happy to reserve judgement about that mechanic in Civ7. At the least I hope they consider adding an option for people to retain a Civilization across the ages....with the obvious cost of no new, Age-appropriate Unique Buildings and Unique Units. Weirdly, what bummed me most was an apparent lack of Era subdivisions for the Tech and Civic Trees. A minor gripe I know, but I hope they consider adding that in before launch.
15:21 the commander is gonna make surprise wars so much more fun! An ai’s gonna stroll up with a commander and then just pop out like 5 units
I hated Humankind. This does not look any different than Humankind to me.
Again, Jumbo, great video, but I still have that pressing concern about whether or not everyone will switch to the next age at the same time. With us now switching civs at different ages, I'm afraid there will be a race to certain civs like in Humankind. So, I am dying to know... will everyone be entering the next age at the same time?
I like the look of this. Looking for a new game atm and this looks like a good balance in sim strategy gameplay.
I really wanna see how it works with the civ changes. I love the Eras idea on its own to have these stages of each playthrough but will have to see how the Civ changes feel for myself.
My initial reaction is that it could make for some more fun storytelling if done right, very similar to everyone's experience with things like, "Damn Chinese building the Pyramids." It can be like, "Damn Ben Franklin went nuts with all those horses and raiding to become the Mongols."
So they picked the main thing I disliked about humankind while having a messier look that lacks artistic direction.. the cities looks too messy, the leaders are on the ugly side... the units and water looks nice though. But overall for me the AI and diplomacy will make or break the game, it's the one thing they seem to struggle on improving.
I think districts were the thing I was most interested to see how it was implemented in 7. I enjoyed the adjacency puzzle for a while, and while I haven't soured on it, but it is now the more tedious part of 6 hundreds of hours in.
I love civ period. I loved civ 1, i loved civ 2, i loved civ 3, I loved civ iv, I didn't much care for civ v, but I still bought it and all its expansions. I loved civ vi and I will most likely love civ vii as well.
Been playing Civ 6 for a few years off and on, and still have expansions to go through there. I want to see how Civ 7 is for domination driven game play so I can tell if it will be fun to dedicate time to with friends or just more a solo experience due to changes.
The funny thing in civilization was that you could have Romans in the modern era, or Egyptians in the North Pole. I hope that in other eras it is the option to maintain these civilizations. Because if the Romans in the modern era become the Germans, and the Egyptians in the north pole, become Norwegians... the magic disappears.
But that's the point...Civilizations don't stand still, they evolve and adapt, go extinct and are reborn as a result of internal and external factors.
Egyptians developed the way they did because they were in the desert dependent on river floods etc. And Norwegians became how they were because it's a cold harsh environment. Civilizations don't develop free of outside influence. Similarly, Egypt was fundamentally changed by being taken over by Greeks, Romans, Arabs which led to massive cultural changes. Some of it immediate change because there was an invasion, revolution or immediate cultural event and some of it more gradual as people migrate and the world changed. And all the changes blend together to make what a nation is.
The challenge is how to reflect that in the game and make these changes feel organic and related to what has happened in the game and blend together. Get that right and it will be an all time great game. Get it wrong and it will feel silly because it will be like you have horses so you're Mongolian now