@@LemonCake101 What is super wild is that tooltips++ was invented by Jon Shafer, lead dev on Civ 5, although he didn't invent it till after he worked on Civ 5. But the idea has existed for nearly a decade at this point so it isn't like they didn't know about it.
Good review, thanks. Dear god I hate that "modern UI" means "my UI is ashamed to exist so it hides itself" Minimalist UI is the worst thing to happen since some other bad thing
I did forget to mention a somewhat frustrating element of the UI though, is that from playing a lot of Ck3, I really expected nested tooltips, and they would be an amazing addition to the UI.
That would be awesome. Especially if you have different leaders that you can choose from with each age transition, and the way your civ plays would differ based on the leader you pick. Leaders can be chosen from historical figures of the region where the civ originated, based on what kind of agenda and what kind of ideals they had, which would then determine what bonuses your civ will have for that age based on the chosen leader. Far more awesome system than stupid civ switching, and a lot more immersive.
I see people say this a lot and I honestly really don't understand it. I get why it's same leader but different civilizations. When you run into Alexander or Gilgamesh you immediately identify and personify _them_ not Macedonia or Sumeria. A big problem Humankind had was the enemy leaders basically being nothing at all. The actual thought process a player goes through is going to be well...the person, not a grand conceptual personification of whatever civilization they're representing. And significantly more goes into (and even more now) the civilizations than the leaders for obvious reasons. One of the things they wanted to do was tackle that feeling of them being insanely generic outside of very specific parts of the game. I get why people are iffy on the concept itself but it makes zero sense to me for it to have ever been the leaders.
Also, sorry to comment twice; but Lemon Cake, specifically: is there a discourse on the following issue in Civ? In every Civ game since Civ 2 the relative size of the world map vs the size and number of individual cities has been shrinking. In Civ 2, a large country might have 20-30 cities spread all over the globe, which might get a bit micro-y late game, but it made the world feel bigger. It took longer to explore the globe, mountain ranges felt more like obstacles, and equatorial jungles could effectively split continents. Each game since, the number of cities which constitutes wide gameplay keeps shrinking, and the importance of individual cities keeps increasing. A mid-size power can be just three cities, but on the world map, those three cities generate boarders the size of the Italian peninsula. Now in Civ 7, the cities sprawl across implied hundreds of miles, and there's no room for farmland and mines, let alone untouched jungles and forests. To me, it makes the world feel very small, and that there's less to discover and exploit.
I think thats a fair point honestly: having played on a lot of 'oversized maps' too its usually the bits outside the borders that seem untouched. I will say here its very sprawly still, and while Civ 5 for me was peak 'tall' civ, this feels like a continuation of civ 6 for civ 'sprawl' if that makes sense
@@LemonCake101 You could play wide in V. You just had to puppet enemy cities instead, which I understand players do not like. The main issue with big maps are the oceans and as pointed out the amount of cities and civs too. You end with scenarios where you cannot counter a civilization on the other side of the map because your units will take half a game to get there (and be expelled across the globe liken Odysseus if you lose open borders). The late game (at least in V) fails to get globalized depending on the size of the map.
I havent played the old civ games but I agree that I lack size in civ 6. Playing on big maps doesnt really feel like they are that big because instead of having 6 insanely big cities, you have 10-15 insanely big cities, you still have districts and improvements everywhere because, at the end of the day you can supply builders to every city, having 20 cities doesnt mean you cant develop all 20 because most of the time a city can develop itself after a certain point, and so going from 6 to 20 is a number increase not a style change.
@@JonatasAdoM you might know this already, but in case someone else reads this there is a hidden option to disable happiness in V. All you need to do is go into the settings file and reveal the option, super simple, no special software required. Also works for other mechanics but idk why you'd wanna disable them...? It definitely ruins the game, but sometimes you just wanna sprawl. You do hit the nail with how it would take half the game to get anywhere though.
I don’t like the idea of being able to form any civilisation. It would be nice if say Greece forms Byzantium if they go orthodox and say build the Hagia Sophia. Or if the celts can form multiple cultures depending on what they did in that particular age.
17:45 its the opposite direction of letting players keep playing with the same civ but if they are already forcing you to transition into some other civ they should limit it based on the previous civ. Like you shouldn't be able to form germany in late eras if you started with aztecs. They could create a tree for civ formation. Somethingl like EU4 nation forming. idk Because I think the main reason is that it is weird to play Rome with nukes, against USA, in 2040. If that's the concern they should limit the formables based on the tag.
It’s alternate history. Not even the PDX type where its based on the earth map and even the wildest alt history resembles our own, the civ world is completely alien. On an alien world with completely different context and societal pressures whos to say how these civilisations would evolve?
@@jackgurney6961 Are we forgetting the option to have a real world map? And besides, there are still nations literally half a globe away that trace back their roots to a precursor that still retain a lot of their cultural similarities IRL, an argument like this assumes that all cultures are capable of evolving into all other cultures, it'd be really weird to see the greeks adopt thick fur coats and start speaking Kamchatkan suddently even though their homeland is still the very much warm Greece
There are limits like you have to do X before you unlock a civ you can switch into, with like one or two default options. Though I do wish you could play as Rome with nukes against the USA in 2040 since to be fair, Rome died a mere 224 years before the US was born so it's quite plausible. And most civs still need proper historical successors for me to actually be happy with it, the alternate switches should be secondary to historical ones and something you do when you want some chaos.
I'm not going to lie, as good as the new introductions are, after seeing how much it costs I just can not justify it, it's 300 PLN for me, basically an entire month's worth of expendable income, nothing can really justify that.
Oh damn fair, that's pretty bad. I would have expected localized pricing, as UK prices are £49.99, so around 30% discount compared to the average triple a
@@LemonCake101 I remember someone saying that in Brazil it is more than half a monthly wage/salary. And we don't know how high they will price the expansions at. Sadly this does not seem uncommon, as it does not get coverage as it would say pricing a game at $120 in the US Not to mention the hardware to run the game.
@@JonatasAdoM As a Brazillian, that person was exaggerating wildly, it' currently R$350 on steam, while the minimum wage is R$1518. It's still ridiculously expensive though, 1/4 or 1/5 of a monthly wage for a videogame is insanity and why I'll sadly have to resort to Jack Sparrowing it despite owning Civ VI with literally every single DLC, because that is cheaper than base Civ VII lmao
@@LemonCake101 sadly if you are in EU market, the price is same, no matter if you are in Luxemburg and make 4k euro a month or live in Bulgaria and make only 500 eur a month
I keep on getting the impression that development for civ 7 happened right around the time Humankind was announced and everyone was touting that it would be a "civ killer." I think Firaxis panicked and did a hard pivot, which is why so many of the design choices feel unnatural.
To echo some of the "I like workers" comments, let me add by saying that little 'streamlining' designs like that are the reason modern games are suffering. Workers add real logistics to the process of developing your land. You need to invest in your workforce and then spend turns (a resource) to go and actually build the improvements you need. It takes them time to actually go somewhere and you get a feeling of accomplishment when you see the untamed wilds of your cities slowly turn into industrialized, well, civilization. Not every strategy game needs such a system, but in Civ 7 it reeks to me of the devs going "Hey, we know you hate actually strategizing this part of the game, so we made it easier for you." Paradox GSG's have a lot of busywork type mechanics to them, too, in fact I think a lot of games have mechanisms like this, but just because a mechanic isn't "fun" in the sense of an immediate dopamine release doesn't mean it isn't contributing to the game. Like in the RTS space, RTS's have tried for a long time to get rid of workers and almost universally this is seen as a bad thing by people who enjoy those games. Age of Empires is not Age of Empires without creating a huge economy of villagers, who themselves represent units of available labor that produce resources. In Civ 7, I can no longer get value from wars by stealing enemy workers without capturing a city wholesale. Like in what way can I fuck with another player's economy in Civ 7 apart from taking cities? Also they brought back happiness, the worst mechanic from Civ 5 by and large and I'm not happy to see that at all
To be clear I do agree with the sentiment and indeed I should have been more clear about how I personally also really disliked the idea when I first heard it. My main argument though is having played with the system, personally that is one 'optimization' I am happy to have been made, my mind has changed after playing the game. Also don't worry happiness here is less the Civ 5 happiness style and more 'another resource' like gold etc that's usually super positive and just ticks up to add buffs. Its like a secondary culture slider to be honest.
I actually really liked civ5 happiness, personally. It was a real neat system to balance wide vs tall playstyles, made them feel really different. I get why people don't like it, but it just feels so much better than (megacorp) stellaris's increasable govcap so wide always outscales tall every time or civ6's more cities are always better, or a hard cap on city count
@@LemonCake101 Of all the potential micro removal changes that have been tried in recent years removing workers is the one that gives the most value for the least cost by a landslide. Worker micro was already crazy in Civ 3 and it didn't add *that much* to have to spam railroads on every tile. Millennia's Pioneer system combined with Improvement points is perfectly acceptable where you use them for very important decisions on the map but there's not that much micro every turn.
I'm very much on the fence about this change at the moment. Each time I play Civ, I do find myself getting a little tired of microing builders and finding things for them to do as the game progresses. I do understand their rationale for this and it might work well in the context of Civ 7, so I'm keeping an open mind. However, I find builder-fatigue happens most often in 6, which is the game that I feel gives builders the least (interesting stuff) to do. In Civ 4, you can prospect for minerals, and strategise about where you want to place cottages, which are neat little interactions that draw you in to the world. I wonder if the problem isn't that builders are boring but rather if you make them boring by incrementally streamlining them, you end up in a situation where it seems better to just remove them. I do agree overall with your take on streamlining. I think Age of Wonders 4, another 4X, is one of the worst recent examples of this. City placement went from tile-based to province-based to simplify decision making when it came to placing cities, but it also means you can't place cities or fortresses in choke points anymore. Settlers and builders were removed and their functions moved to heroes, to streamline and speed up the exploration/expansion process. Production queues were split into units and buildings so there's no opportunity cost to training versus building, and vice versa. Enchantments are no longer specific to individual units but global, which eliminates any way to micromanage your spell upkeep and makes every army feel the same. Ironically, the streamlining has lead to a situation where in-game economies can pump out large numbers of high-tier units fairly quickly, resulting in a lot of tedious army micromanagement as you move them all and fight multiple battles per turn; and resulted in the devs tying themselves in knots to try and keep other units relevant. So - as a rule I'm very wary when it comes to streamlining. However, I'll keep an open mind and optimistic outlook with Civ 7, as many seem to have embraced the change.
Civ V was amazing... With DLCs... That's was the first game for me in the series. I preordered Civ VI when it was announced amd when it came out it was... Kinda mid... But with DLCs it became amazing. So I guess with Civ VII it'll be the same.
I'm imagining the narrator talking to you like in a kids cartoon. "The enemy is settling near our borders. What do we do? ... ... .. Yes, We Denounce them!"
Honestly as someone who started playing civ at civ 3; the hate behind civ 6’s artstyle was really bizarre and dumb. Like the series was always cartoony from the very beginning, and the style wasn’t even that cartoony anyway, especially later on in the games lifetime. The only one that wasn’t cartoony was civ 5 and by far I think it’s the least inspired one of the franchise, either way it just doesn’t matter you play for strategy not to look at realistic trees.
@ghastlyghandi4301not only that, I loved that art style since vi was announced. Also it made things so much easier to keep track of and less cluttered.
@ghastlyghandi4301 If you don't have a problem with the soulless corpo art style...Then there is no saving you It was a bloody eyesore, mind you i play glorified spreadsheets classified as games. The least a game can do is not be outright painful to look at
So, people were already upset that they felt Civ 6 was ripping off Endless Legend. Now they want to rip off Humankind with Civ 7. Honestly it just feels like Firaxis is copying Amplitude's homework at this point. Do they have any original ideas over there anymore? Franky the fact they they're getting rid of workers/builders entirely and leaning even harder into city-sprawl (which I disliked i Civ6 because it frontloaded massive amounts of planning for every city) just makes me want to skip this entirely. Like I tried Civ6 because they had some fun ideas, like policy cards. But nah there's nothing in this expansion that makes me feel enthused.
Since the leaders are disconnected from the civs, I'm surprised they didn't just remove the civ flavoring from the civs and just make them different paths your civ can take based on how you play.
That's kind of what a lot of the flavor text for the possible choices is about; All of the civilizations you've unlocked are narratively people who exist in your empire for provided reasons and you, the omniscient guiding hand of the player, have decided for them to take the reins. Missisippian -> Ming for example has flavor of like. Having been a trading empire focused on sharing resources across the continent but then going inward because your central powers or say, *Middle Kingdom* see themselves as the only important part of the world. Instead of literally becoming Chinese like Humankind they just assume the niche of a giant insular bureaucratic empire which has Chinese elements because of convergent development and that sort of thing.
I agree that they made the "you can play this civ because you played a geographically similar civ" a bit too wide, but in general I like the Idea civ switching. I always found it weird to have the USA in the stone age, and things like that. And you still have the possibility to play as India or as China throughout an entire campaign, but it's no longer this vague amorphous "China" or "India" but more defined historical versions of these countries. Like in the past the developers had to decide for example which germany to include: Germanic tribes, HRE, Prussia, German Empire, FRoG... which are all drastically different versions of the concept of "Germany" and now you could represent several of these. (with way to many DLC [angry emoji])
$129 + DLC ( $30 ) I called it scummy, and someone told me the World is still recovering from the pandemic and I'm being heartless to the devs and don't understand business.
21:50 The USA is in civ 7, and Portugal was in civ 6 (with dlc). But I definitely agree that the leader/civ roster isn’t the greatest… no Byzantium, HRE, or UK (without DLC)? No US presidents or British monarchs? A lot of the choices make very little sense I personally think either civ switching should be optional or each area should have a civ in each age (like how China and India are). And every leader should have the civ they were a part of (Jose Rizal not being able to be a Filipino is crazy, for example)
Actually I unironically love worker micro lol. From the tense start of the game of prioritising some times over others and dodging barbarians to the late game of building railroads to the middle of nowhere because I'm overflowing with gold, I love telling workers what to do lol.
As somebody who really like Humankind, the Civ-swapping and modifier stacking do not feel like downsides. I am however a bit spooked by the soft-rests of ages, however I can also see myself really enjoying that, as the early game is the best part of every 4X game. That is something that I just have to experience to see how it plays out.
Not considering any decision specifically made for Civ 7 (I'm really not a fan of changing countries like in Humankind and some leader choices are very questionable...), I simply don't enjoy the very concept of the game. I played Civ 5 and wanted it to look closer from a grand strategy game, so when I discovered what Paradox was doing there was no point in going back to Civ. Some design choices are also very infuriating, such as having your wonder construction canceled because some other civ at the other end of the map that you haven't even heard of has built the same wonder.
Thats frankly very fair, which is why I very much judged it in the domain of a '4x' game. Its at best at this point a stratagy game with a history theme
> Some design choices are also very infuriating, such as having your wonder construction canceled because some other civ at the other end of the map that you haven't even heard of has built the same wonder. There is a game where that does not happen: Humankind...
@ it's similar enough to Civ that I didn't investigate it much. And while Humankind may have a better wonder system, the country selection system was a big no for me.
5:50 - My issue with them getting rid of workers/builders is really less about the micro and more about the fact that I assume this means you can no longer steal workers/builders or some equivalent to then use on your own tiles. I enjoyed doing that sometimes.
I would have liked to have cookie cutter versions for MANY Nations (like 100 at least) where as you could for example start as the germani tribes and then transition into Austria, Prussia or maybe the Netherlands. Then with the Next Age each will have another transition so Prussia becomes Germany or stays Prussian if they failed a goal to "Unite Germany", Austria can become Austria-Hungary, maybe the HRE or split into stuff like Checkoslovakia and Hungary or so while the Netherlands could become Belgium, the United Netherlands or LUXEMBOURG... In General i would have liked a more storytellable transition to be available for the player where the disaster or a quest determine your next options but with reasonable sense of evolution in mind. This ofc would make a HUGE catalouge be needed for playable civs but with no leader swapping it could just be a few buffs, a special unit or building and the civics which can be done in a reasonable timeframe. But why the hell is there SO MANY CIVS MISSING!!! No England, No Germany (only Prussia with damn Hussars???) not even Italy or Byzantium which would have been great transitionary nations for Rome. The 2-3 European Civs per Age is also a Disgrace P.S. US is in the Game (at least according to wiki) and British is Coming in the Next Update...
The lack of european civs might be their way to force people to pick non-european civs. We know from games like Europa Universalis, that european nations are the top 20 picks (with the exception of ming) at a minimum. 10 years ago, Ming was in the 20th spot, in 2019, they were in the 9th spot, everything else was european + otto (which eh.. counts? maybe?). And I think Fireaxis wants to steer things into a different direction. Imo, this removes any personal biases like playing as germany, because you are german, for example, but introduces new ones: modifier hunting. Which isn't a good way to play a game about history imo.
@@lamename2010it reeks of DEI and forced diversity...like, who cares if people don't pick Vietnam as much? This would be like a Chinese game studio trying to make a Civ-like game where there wasn't any Chinese civs to promote "diversity"
@@JonatasAdoM That moment when someone uses the Lemoncake gambit at turn 10 so you quit the game because it's already GG since you already can see how the rest of the game plays out
@@Gorbachof V had enough window dressing that I didn't mind the gamier aspects. Not that I wouldn't prefer it feel less gamey, but at least it tried to compensate, and that's more than 6 or 7 can claim.
I think the way they treat civilisations temselves kind of irks me. The way some nations "evolve" into entirely different peoples destroys the spirit of the game for me. I
This is like the nuclear option to addressing the issue of the USA existing at the beginning of civilization. I think the problem can be solved by adding more historically accurate successors for the countries that have them, and the switch into entirely different civs can be an fun option but not the default.
@@danshakuimoThe US would be easy...the first age would be playing a Norman/Celtic/Anglo-Saxon civ, the second age would be playing as Great Britain, and then the third age would be playing as the US.
@@ChristoffRevan it would be cool if they had conditions like the colonial nations in EUIV, for example the civilisation of great britain could have a decision whereby one/all of their cities on another continent could flip to USA if unhappiness is too low or by player choice. You would need something to balance the loss of cities in the "old world" though
@@danshakuimoEven with more civilizations in the game it's simply a bad mechanic. If I'm playing Rome I don't want to morph into Italy, and morphing from Aztecs into Mexico or Inca's into Peru is even worse.
@@danshakuimo I mean that's literally the plan, isn't it? They're going to add more and more of the in-between or post-civs of what is already here. It'll be DLC which is annoying, but that's their plan. I also personally don't mind being able to switch to the completely different civilizations; They are accompanied with enough flavor text to present it in a way of "Well, these people existed in your empire because of X reasons and you're just choosing who takes the reins." Ancient Egypt conquering a bunch of the world on horseback was never historically accurate but in previous games if I spawned with a lot of horses I'd do exactly that and lean into having a big cavalry. Now I can do exactly that still and even go a step further; These horseback conquerors my civilization relies actually changes my civilization itself in a meaningful way. Or...I can of course, just sideline them stuff and play the historical way if I so choose. (Also keep in mind, the AI will only ever go down the historical path-I also wish I could actually make it so they didn't.)
@@LemonCake101 You were also wrong about Portugal not being in Civ6. I also feel you grossly misrepresented the dlc. You keep saying it's wrong for them to make people buy "just a couple wonders." None of the announced dlc is just a couple wonders. They all include civs, leaders and new wonders that are associated to the new civ being added.
I wish there was a menu option to adjust the intensity of the crises. That way those that don't like it could basically ignore it, whereas those wanting more of a "holy shit" moment when the crises kicks in can jack it up
I like Humankind more, based on what I'm hearing. I woudl also prefer it if the game rewarded you for picking the historical continuation civ, and not just the gamiest one.
Regardless of any gameplay improvements, the civ-switching mechanic along with the truly pathetic roster of nations is a complete and total dralbreaker.
@@LemonCake101I feel like if you need a mod to make a game good, then the game is worthless to invest the time in because it'll fundamentally always fall short
Forcing me to abandon the civ I've chose is a deal breaker for me- i will not be playing the game unless they add an option to continue with my original civ
I like the idea because it solves a longstanding problem of civs being completely generic outside of the 1 or 2 eras where their unique unit exists and their abilities actually mean something, but I don't think this is the way to do it. It makes sense to change from Han to Ming to Qing as the ages pass instead of just being China for the entire game, but that's the only example of a natural historical progression from civ to civ. Maybe as they add more civs we'll get more natural progression options with the weird hopping around the world becoming a fun option for minmaxers and competitive multiplayer.
The real problem I have, which I've seen nobody talk about, is that I don't want the OTHER civs to change. It takes out a lot of the charm if I'm fighting "the green nation" rather than "the Aztecs".
@@bmobmo6438 India also has that option to stay the same in all three eras and I agree with you that more will likely be added in time. For the ones that can't stay the same the change is historically accurate like the Roman Empire comes to an end during Antiquity and evolves into something else. That makes sense to me and the options for your new civ are ones that make sense either geographically or culturally. Of course you can also unlock ones that don't make any sense if you just want to have fun and be more random. Both options exist which is nice for whichever way people want to play and you are correct that it really does solve a big problem from previous games and makes it much more fun to always have a civ with relevant abilities and units.
17:52 I think Humankind did this pretty well, you could adapt a new civ (but still keep a legacy trait for the rest of your game), or stay with your current civilisation and get a few little buffs for it. This way you could stay the same throughout the ages, or adopt new cultures but still retain buildings and even some modifiers from your old culture and potentially even make builds out of it
IMO that was one of the worst mistakes of Humankind, it didn't decide if it actually wanted to follow through with the civ-switching or if it wanted to please people accustomed to the old Civ style, so it ended up fence-sitting it and being uninteresting from both perspectives.
humankind did it better than civ 7 is doing it now, but i think the concept is just DOA. it just sucks. it kind of eliminates the point of these games. i have no idea how firaxis saw amplitude get that much backlash over the civ fluidity and think, "hey, this is a great idea, let's implement it but make it even MORE strict."
@ajsciri4 I do think it has some potential if you implement it the right way. Like I imagine playing as as Rome and then reforming into the Byzantines to get different buffs that complement each other well or reforming from the HRE into Germany, from the Mongols to China or similar paths. It could be a nice feature of progressing through different ages and building a sort of legacy, but I do think you would maybe need some sort of hybrid graphic style so the visual of your earlier civilisations isn't lost
It simply does not work on a fundamental level. If your empire dies, it is game over, simple as that. You did not stand the test of time. No freaking civ switching bs. Either you do the impossible and stand the test of time by creating an eternal empire, or you lose the game and go next. Like real life.
@luka188 but civilisations evolve and change. Take Japan for example. Before 1945 you would probably have them as a sort of warrior culture and give them military buffs, but afterwards, they would be a science culture that focuses on science instead of fighting
I would like if they did the CK3 thing of having your "kids" be the new leaders in the era but then I understand there's people who love playing as Abraham Lincoln for 2000 years
@@LemonCake101 It doesn't have to be a bad decision overall. It's hard for me tpojudge without being able to play myself, but I thpught the consistency of playing a certain civ through the ages was a certain trademark of the series. Sure, it was weird and is but I thought they would rather "lean into" the idea and then perhaphs implement it fully and not just jump into it. Dunno, mixed feelings. Great video anyway. Thank you for recording
0:39 - referencing this game made me instantly like the video and subscribe to you, and now I fully trust that your evaluation of the game will be totally honest
Also, I can nothing but agree with the argument from 19:54 to 21:01, the monetization of certain parts has been a major issue for me, not that I wouldn't pay good money for a good game, but that compartmentization seems to mimic the trend for games, going into micro transactions and paying premium for small benefits. I might not have much issue if it was just a visual or skin or something, but it has real gameplay impact, and slams the door wide open for pay to win. Which might seem like a non-issue due to the game seemingly getting easier, but still, is something, I personally don't want for my games and I think many other gamers don't want either, so we should nip that in the bud, sooner rather than later.
As someone who liked the pantheon in age of wonders 4 i dont mind the meta progression, but i can understand that other people will think of it as locking away content behind a grind wall.
In Age of Wonders 4 they encapsulated the thing into the narrative and just the general structure of the game. It still wasn't like 'nice', but at least there it made some sense. In Civ it just doesn't and it is harmful to people who just don't want to grind. I mean I have a full-time job etc, I don't want to be limited in my options for no particular reason. It's fine when it's a game that is about unlocking shit like some roguelike or whatever, but Civ is not the place for it. It's just a dumb decision and it will cost them goodwill.
It's always interesting when someone makes their review, and the parts they like sound bad and the parts they dislike sound worse. I've always loved worker micro, it was a thing I realized especially when I went back to Civ V from Civ VI. I liked having tons of tile improvements on the map and having the buildings within the city. The Civilization system has been a large enough issue that I don't think I'll get the game, especially at the price it is. The tagline of the series has forever been "Can you build a civilization to stand the test of time?" and this game basically says no right to you. I was hyped for it in humankind, and then realized that swapping isn't actually that fun. Its nice having a civ have points of power that make it unique. Oh well, Civ V still exists and vox populi still has active development, so I still have that. I've played over 1000 hours of civ v after civ vi released, looks like that feat may be replicated here.
Thing is I was very pro worker micro, and I was very disappointed personally to see it gone. I mentioned it mainly a positive because personally I was convinced away from it. The rest of your point: yeah very fair.
I think we need a full video on what you think makes good strategy game UI. Imo theres a few aspects. Is information found in logical places, is the most used information easy to access from where its needed, how many clicks per action, etc. like sure your game can have all the information in the world, but do i need to browse an ingame wiki or is there nested tooltips. Do i need to search through a seperate military tab to perform actions on my military units when im looking at them on the map? Etc
I've been wanting "each building consumes a tile" for a long time and I can't believe that they actually did it. It's ... just okay, so far. But I just started playing.
Isn't the civilisation change throughout the ages a ripoff of the paradox 4x game Millenia, and also Humankind, now that I think of it? Its kind of strange that civ is now late to innovating the genre.
I need to listen to the full review when I have the time but I'm personally really glad to see that the workers are gone entirely. I've never liked the micro involved with them even a little bit. The way the population system works now just makes an infinite more amount of sense to me and it lets me free up production for things I actually care about over tedious micro or just clicking 'automatically build improvements" because 99/100 times the AI makes the same choices I would anyway because the choices themselves weren't really meaningful and were no-brainers more often than not. I disliked Builders more than Workers because you couldn't even automate them; I'm glad to see both are gone entirely.
I'm not too fussed about having to change civilisations, but I wish there was the option of clear historical paths, like Rome > Sardinia > Italy. Although this would of course cause problems for modern colonial states like the US and Australia who both sprung from the UK, and not from a long history with the native peoples.
I remember seeing one of the live streams where they explained the reasoning behind changing civilizations for each age. They saw that people usually brought up the leader of the civs in 6 over the actual civ when referring/talking about them. What they ended up concluding with was that people dont care as much about the civ and more about the leader, hence why they focused on leaders and threw aside the civs. How the core civ team could not see that this is ridiculous is beyond me.
It's perfectly sound reasoning. I'm sorry but saying its the other way around is what is ridiculous even ignoring how the other component is (meant to be) addressing the underlying problem of civilizations being both not as deep and also just strictly generic outside of whatever specific time period they existed in. As an entity you interact with Alexander or Gilgamesh are what comes to mind; Not some grand conceptual but non-embodied personification of the cultures of Macedonia or Sumeria. It's hardly unique to Civilization VI either. Even from the very beginning what was wacky was the idea of Gandhi loving nuclear war, not India loving nuclear war. The leader is who you actually talk to and who you compete against and that was always the case.
the new age system and changing of the culture for each new era has ruined the game if they don't fix this (which they will not do i) will play but if not its a pass for me
To say its a controversial feature is an understatement, indeed I am expecting mods to fix it by just letting me stay the same country by allowing me 'flip' say Rome into Rome into Rome.
@@Knight7562 in fairness, civ 3 had... 4 ages but its an interesting decision. They are quite comprehensive so if that's your only concern, well, its worth trying at least
While I like the idea of towns I prefer the Millennia version where they actually increase the number of tiles in the city. Sure in theory you use towns for your rural tiles in the late game and cities are purely urban, but the flexibility of the Millennia system just makes me happier personally.
3:08 I have to somewhat disagree. Normally, an army would equip its melee units with standard gear, which very much depends on resource availability/price. If your country has a LOT of steel at its disposal, it can enjoy massed full plate infantry with two-handed weapons, while your opponent uses formations of footman equipped with a cuirass, a sword, and a wooden-frame shield. There's also the issue of iron quality, which more source of would likely help with. The result won't be 2 vs 1 odds, but it might get close to it. 3:26 To play devil's advocate, chariots do exist and maybe tired horses can be exchanged for fresh ones mid-battle. But, yes. It really sounds like the game would benefit from certain units needing much more of a resource and, thus, only countries with those resource stockpiles being able to afford them.
Wait... you tag-out of civs? Uff... no thanks. If it was the natural evolutions of those civs, I'd get it, but I deeply dislike the idea of abandoning a civ such as SPQR purely because irl they didn't last past the 4th century (unless you count the Ottomans as Rome, then Rome disbanded in 1922). As a roleplayer, this is entirely counter to my enjoyment.
Civ7's release will surely stand testament to the importance of thoughtful and polished UI design in videogames. Btw, I feel like your complaint about the civ roster is kinda invalid, since we do, in fact, have the USA at launch, and the Normans are very clearly a stand-in for post-1066 Medieval England with a Modern Great Britain civ being announced for a DLC several days before this video came out.
I did miss the USA in fairness that’s on me: but the fact that England of all things is a day 1 DLC to me looks too much like they took it out of the base game to sell separately since they knew people would want to buy England
@@LemonCake101 I wouldn't say the English people are omitted from base game Civ7, since the Normans very much represent Medieval England post-Norman conquest. I do agree that you shouldn't have to buy a separate DLC to be able to play as the Brits at the height of their historical power, but it's not exactly new for the series to remove mainstay civs to sell them separately.
3:30 but you are, crucially, riding a *fresh* horse into battle. More horses in society really does correspond to better cavalry. The best cavalry in history all came from societies that were swimming in horses.
I do not know why, but I cannot see this video on my subscription feed. I was still recommended it by TH-cam but that is quite strange. I have heard others talk about this before, but I think this is the first time in 10+ years on YT that it has happened to me.
Did they substantially improve the UI and input efficiency to play Civ 7 compared to previous versions or is Civ still objectively behind early-mid 1990s games in "# of inputs to do something" design?
Solid video (as always) but technically masteries of techs are not new to Civ. They’ve got a new name but they were first seen in Civ: BE. They had a leaf and web system in that game
As someone who started with civ 1 i feel so so ancient. I enjoyed the review thanks- it is not for me (i cant get around the mix match leaders and civ changes ) and i am annoyed that GB is in a DLC, but maybe in a sale.
Just a heads up, you said there were some big names missing like the USA, but there is an American civilization in the game, it's a modern age civ which iirc, you need to have a certain amount of cities located in plains to unlock or something like that.
I do believe it’s very firmly moved into the direction of picking the actual tiles to expand to/improve, and army micro if anything is even higher now due to the new commander unit
Seems I’m in the minority, but I honestly don’t care at all about civ switching and am actually a fan of it. People are comparing it to humankind which I’ve never played, but I have played the board game small world and that board game is fantastic and completely centered on the declining civilization and rise of a new civilization concept.
@@LemonCake101 The map looks very lifeless in a way. This feels like a downgrade after playing Ara and looking at their map where your citizens are running around your empire while getting hunted by crocodiles
I like the end of districts but come why can’t do they 3-5 to buildings per tile? And have some wonders take building slots and have others take up a tile.
I loved Civ 6 on my Switch, and I was extremely skeptical about Civ 7 when it was announced. On further looking into it, it's not as bad at it was at first glance, but I'm still cautiously optimistic. I'm going to wait for Switch version reviews, and if those are good, I'll grab it if it has a physical. Although I don't think I'll buy the DLC this time around, seems to have more than base Civ 6 and I don't have a lot of money nor do I want to support the greedy monetization practices.
i think this civ kinda lost me a bit. 3-4 were honestly my favorites and 5 didnt grab me the way i thought it would. heck, i still miss building that silly palace in the super early civs. Honestly, i kinda have to un-endorse a lot of the major changes too, i think they change too much what civ felt like on some level. its like theyre trying to copy a copy of themselves like Millennia or Humankind or whatever that other civlike was at the time
No nested tooltips in a 2025 strategy game feels like a crime.
that part I should have mentioned in the review, because I kept trying to use that feature that didn't exist, and honestly forgot!
That's a paradox only feature.
@@skycaptain95My woek uses similar. It's a very good QoL feature that should be included in the Premier 4X franchise.
@@skycaptain95 Old World and Baldur's Gate 3, among others, have nested tooltips.
@@LemonCake101 What is super wild is that tooltips++ was invented by Jon Shafer, lead dev on Civ 5, although he didn't invent it till after he worked on Civ 5. But the idea has existed for nearly a decade at this point so it isn't like they didn't know about it.
Take a shot everytime Lemon says "for lack of a better word"
Please don't instant hospital
@@LemonCake101 then maybe you should get some better words huh
@@LemonCake101literally me but with “essentially”
I'm now in jail for unorderly conduct.
Death by alcohol poisoning speedrun
Good review, thanks.
Dear god I hate that "modern UI" means "my UI is ashamed to exist so it hides itself"
Minimalist UI is the worst thing to happen since some other bad thing
I did forget to mention a somewhat frustrating element of the UI though, is that from playing a lot of Ck3, I really expected nested tooltips, and they would be an amazing addition to the UI.
@@LemonCake101 I agree they are kinda expected these days
@@LemonCake101 no nested tooltips is unacceptable in a strategy game of this budget
@@darkfireslide Pay $129
@@LemonCake101Sounds like a wonderful microtransaction
Personally I like the idea of major changes as the ages progress, but it should be a new leader, not a new civilization.
Yeah, that would be really cool.
That would be awesome. Especially if you have different leaders that you can choose from with each age transition, and the way your civ plays would differ based on the leader you pick. Leaders can be chosen from historical figures of the region where the civ originated, based on what kind of agenda and what kind of ideals they had, which would then determine what bonuses your civ will have for that age based on the chosen leader. Far more awesome system than stupid civ switching, and a lot more immersive.
Actually...that makes a lot of sense!
isnt that what happens in old world?
I see people say this a lot and I honestly really don't understand it. I get why it's same leader but different civilizations. When you run into Alexander or Gilgamesh you immediately identify and personify _them_ not Macedonia or Sumeria. A big problem Humankind had was the enemy leaders basically being nothing at all. The actual thought process a player goes through is going to be well...the person, not a grand conceptual personification of whatever civilization they're representing.
And significantly more goes into (and even more now) the civilizations than the leaders for obvious reasons. One of the things they wanted to do was tackle that feeling of them being insanely generic outside of very specific parts of the game. I get why people are iffy on the concept itself but it makes zero sense to me for it to have ever been the leaders.
Also, sorry to comment twice; but Lemon Cake, specifically: is there a discourse on the following issue in Civ?
In every Civ game since Civ 2 the relative size of the world map vs the size and number of individual cities has been shrinking. In Civ 2, a large country might have 20-30 cities spread all over the globe, which might get a bit micro-y late game, but it made the world feel bigger. It took longer to explore the globe, mountain ranges felt more like obstacles, and equatorial jungles could effectively split continents. Each game since, the number of cities which constitutes wide gameplay keeps shrinking, and the importance of individual cities keeps increasing. A mid-size power can be just three cities, but on the world map, those three cities generate boarders the size of the Italian peninsula. Now in Civ 7, the cities sprawl across implied hundreds of miles, and there's no room for farmland and mines, let alone untouched jungles and forests. To me, it makes the world feel very small, and that there's less to discover and exploit.
I think thats a fair point honestly: having played on a lot of 'oversized maps' too its usually the bits outside the borders that seem untouched. I will say here its very sprawly still, and while Civ 5 for me was peak 'tall' civ, this feels like a continuation of civ 6 for civ 'sprawl' if that makes sense
@@LemonCake101 You could play wide in V. You just had to puppet enemy cities instead, which I understand players do not like.
The main issue with big maps are the oceans and as pointed out the amount of cities and civs too.
You end with scenarios where you cannot counter a civilization on the other side of the map because your units will take half a game to get there (and be expelled across the globe liken Odysseus if you lose open borders).
The late game (at least in V) fails to get globalized depending on the size of the map.
I havent played the old civ games but I agree that I lack size in civ 6. Playing on big maps doesnt really feel like they are that big because instead of having 6 insanely big cities, you have 10-15 insanely big cities, you still have districts and improvements everywhere because, at the end of the day you can supply builders to every city, having 20 cities doesnt mean you cant develop all 20 because most of the time a city can develop itself after a certain point, and so going from 6 to 20 is a number increase not a style change.
@@JonatasAdoM you can certainly play wide in civ 5, but playing tall was just stronger (well, 4 city tradition was really strong basically)
@@JonatasAdoM you might know this already, but in case someone else reads this there is a hidden option to disable happiness in V. All you need to do is go into the settings file and reveal the option, super simple, no special software required. Also works for other mechanics but idk why you'd wanna disable them...? It definitely ruins the game, but sometimes you just wanna sprawl.
You do hit the nail with how it would take half the game to get anywhere though.
Conclusion : don't buy it yet, wait for the anthology sales and get it for 20 dollars
or pirate
Nah, I'll buy the founders edition. Still cheaper than going out for drinks with friends lol.
20 dollars?
I aint buying it unless they put all the DLC and base game on a sale for 5
or just wait for Endless Legend 2 like I am :)
@@backstabber3537 denuvo
I don’t like the idea of being able to form any civilisation. It would be nice if say Greece forms Byzantium if they go orthodox and say build the Hagia Sophia. Or if the celts can form multiple cultures depending on what they did in that particular age.
I'm begging you, stop saying 'for lack of a better word' before words that suit the contexts they're being used in PERFECTLY
Sorry its my turn of phrase, I need to cut back on that
cant wait for civ 8 in 4 years
Probably another 5 if I would guess
It was 6 years between civ 5 and 6 and it's been 8 years since civ 6 came out so I wouldn't be so optimistic about that turn around time
@@ryanwhimsy Depends if Civ 7 goes the route of BE or not, really.
Bit optimistic? Mabye a decade
If the gap between 6 and 7 was anything to go by, civ 8 won't be here for 8-10 years
17:45 its the opposite direction of letting players keep playing with the same civ but if they are already forcing you to transition into some other civ they should limit it based on the previous civ. Like you shouldn't be able to form germany in late eras if you started with aztecs. They could create a tree for civ formation. Somethingl like EU4 nation forming. idk
Because I think the main reason is that it is weird to play Rome with nukes, against USA, in 2040. If that's the concern they should limit the formables based on the tag.
There are limits in fairness, but they are also quite bypassable.
It’s alternate history. Not even the PDX type where its based on the earth map and even the wildest alt history resembles our own, the civ world is completely alien. On an alien world with completely different context and societal pressures whos to say how these civilisations would evolve?
@@jackgurney6961 Are we forgetting the option to have a real world map? And besides, there are still nations literally half a globe away that trace back their roots to a precursor that still retain a lot of their cultural similarities IRL, an argument like this assumes that all cultures are capable of evolving into all other cultures, it'd be really weird to see the greeks adopt thick fur coats and start speaking Kamchatkan suddently even though their homeland is still the very much warm Greece
There are limits like you have to do X before you unlock a civ you can switch into, with like one or two default options. Though I do wish you could play as Rome with nukes against the USA in 2040 since to be fair, Rome died a mere 224 years before the US was born so it's quite plausible. And most civs still need proper historical successors for me to actually be happy with it, the alternate switches should be secondary to historical ones and something you do when you want some chaos.
I can see Firaxis making 'classic' civ mode where you don't have to deal with ages.
I do play Civ to micro builders thank you very much 😢
Damn fair enough!
Seconded✋️
thirded 🙏🏻
@ worker micro enjoyers... rise up?
You are not alone.
I love planning roads and upgrading them.
I'm not going to lie, as good as the new introductions are, after seeing how much it costs I just can not justify it, it's 300 PLN for me, basically an entire month's worth of expendable income, nothing can really justify that.
Oh damn fair, that's pretty bad. I would have expected localized pricing, as UK prices are £49.99, so around 30% discount compared to the average triple a
@@LemonCake101 I remember someone saying that in Brazil it is more than half a monthly wage/salary.
And we don't know how high they will price the expansions at.
Sadly this does not seem uncommon, as it does not get coverage as it would say pricing a game at $120 in the US
Not to mention the hardware to run the game.
@@JonatasAdoM As a Brazillian, that person was exaggerating wildly, it' currently R$350 on steam, while the minimum wage is R$1518. It's still ridiculously expensive though, 1/4 or 1/5 of a monthly wage for a videogame is insanity and why I'll sadly have to resort to Jack Sparrowing it despite owning Civ VI with literally every single DLC, because that is cheaper than base Civ VII lmao
@@LemonCake101 sadly if you are in EU market, the price is same, no matter if you are in Luxemburg and make 4k euro a month or live in Bulgaria and make only 500 eur a month
@@balticpagan1495 oh ouch, that does suck
I keep on getting the impression that development for civ 7 happened right around the time Humankind was announced and everyone was touting that it would be a "civ killer." I think Firaxis panicked and did a hard pivot, which is why so many of the design choices feel unnatural.
I could see this being the case
To echo some of the "I like workers" comments, let me add by saying that little 'streamlining' designs like that are the reason modern games are suffering. Workers add real logistics to the process of developing your land. You need to invest in your workforce and then spend turns (a resource) to go and actually build the improvements you need. It takes them time to actually go somewhere and you get a feeling of accomplishment when you see the untamed wilds of your cities slowly turn into industrialized, well, civilization. Not every strategy game needs such a system, but in Civ 7 it reeks to me of the devs going "Hey, we know you hate actually strategizing this part of the game, so we made it easier for you." Paradox GSG's have a lot of busywork type mechanics to them, too, in fact I think a lot of games have mechanisms like this, but just because a mechanic isn't "fun" in the sense of an immediate dopamine release doesn't mean it isn't contributing to the game.
Like in the RTS space, RTS's have tried for a long time to get rid of workers and almost universally this is seen as a bad thing by people who enjoy those games. Age of Empires is not Age of Empires without creating a huge economy of villagers, who themselves represent units of available labor that produce resources. In Civ 7, I can no longer get value from wars by stealing enemy workers without capturing a city wholesale. Like in what way can I fuck with another player's economy in Civ 7 apart from taking cities?
Also they brought back happiness, the worst mechanic from Civ 5 by and large and I'm not happy to see that at all
To be clear I do agree with the sentiment and indeed I should have been more clear about how I personally also really disliked the idea when I first heard it.
My main argument though is having played with the system, personally that is one 'optimization' I am happy to have been made, my mind has changed after playing the game.
Also don't worry happiness here is less the Civ 5 happiness style and more 'another resource' like gold etc that's usually super positive and just ticks up to add buffs. Its like a secondary culture slider to be honest.
Fully agree.
I actually really liked civ5 happiness, personally. It was a real neat system to balance wide vs tall playstyles, made them feel really different. I get why people don't like it, but it just feels so much better than (megacorp) stellaris's increasable govcap so wide always outscales tall every time or civ6's more cities are always better, or a hard cap on city count
@@LemonCake101 Of all the potential micro removal changes that have been tried in recent years removing workers is the one that gives the most value for the least cost by a landslide. Worker micro was already crazy in Civ 3 and it didn't add *that much* to have to spam railroads on every tile. Millennia's Pioneer system combined with Improvement points is perfectly acceptable where you use them for very important decisions on the map but there's not that much micro every turn.
I'm very much on the fence about this change at the moment. Each time I play Civ, I do find myself getting a little tired of microing builders and finding things for them to do as the game progresses. I do understand their rationale for this and it might work well in the context of Civ 7, so I'm keeping an open mind.
However, I find builder-fatigue happens most often in 6, which is the game that I feel gives builders the least (interesting stuff) to do. In Civ 4, you can prospect for minerals, and strategise about where you want to place cottages, which are neat little interactions that draw you in to the world. I wonder if the problem isn't that builders are boring but rather if you make them boring by incrementally streamlining them, you end up in a situation where it seems better to just remove them.
I do agree overall with your take on streamlining. I think Age of Wonders 4, another 4X, is one of the worst recent examples of this. City placement went from tile-based to province-based to simplify decision making when it came to placing cities, but it also means you can't place cities or fortresses in choke points anymore. Settlers and builders were removed and their functions moved to heroes, to streamline and speed up the exploration/expansion process. Production queues were split into units and buildings so there's no opportunity cost to training versus building, and vice versa. Enchantments are no longer specific to individual units but global, which eliminates any way to micromanage your spell upkeep and makes every army feel the same. Ironically, the streamlining has lead to a situation where in-game economies can pump out large numbers of high-tier units fairly quickly, resulting in a lot of tedious army micromanagement as you move them all and fight multiple battles per turn; and resulted in the devs tying themselves in knots to try and keep other units relevant.
So - as a rule I'm very wary when it comes to streamlining. However, I'll keep an open mind and optimistic outlook with Civ 7, as many seem to have embraced the change.
Damn congrats on getting early access! You’ve grown so big in the past year, well deserved!
Thanks! Its been a grind, and hopefully more to come!
@ I know you will, your videos are always quality
Civ V was amazing... With DLCs... That's was the first game for me in the series.
I preordered Civ VI when it was announced amd when it came out it was... Kinda mid... But with DLCs it became amazing.
So I guess with Civ VII it'll be the same.
That would be a pretty popular opinion!
I've lost hours on Civ5, but Civ6 couldn't get me...
@@doomdrake123Feel free to stay in Civ 5. Us Civ fans do this all the time. Some really only plays a single title.
Shit I feel old when reviewers no longer say that they started with the first civ.. I'll just crawl back in my stone age cave
At the risk of slightly doxxing myself, Civ 3 is actually... slightly older then me. By under a year, but yup :)
Civ 4 came out when I was 3 and it's still one of my favorite games.
For me, the most important thing is that the whole game looks less like a PBS animated children's documentary than the last entry.
frankly fair, I do think the art direction is better
I'm imagining the narrator talking to you like in a kids cartoon. "The enemy is settling near our borders. What do we do? ... ... .. Yes, We Denounce them!"
Honestly as someone who started playing civ at civ 3; the hate behind civ 6’s artstyle was really bizarre and dumb.
Like the series was always cartoony from the very beginning, and the style wasn’t even that cartoony anyway, especially later on in the games lifetime. The only one that wasn’t cartoony was civ 5 and by far I think it’s the least inspired one of the franchise, either way it just doesn’t matter you play for strategy not to look at realistic trees.
@ghastlyghandi4301not only that, I loved that art style since vi was announced. Also it made things so much easier to keep track of and less cluttered.
@ghastlyghandi4301
If you don't have a problem with the soulless corpo art style...Then there is no saving you
It was a bloody eyesore, mind you i play glorified spreadsheets classified as games. The least a game can do is not be outright painful to look at
It’s now confirmed Lemon Cake will be a leader in Civ38.
“A comprehensive review” in 20 minutes. Much preferable to “a brief introduction” that lasts seven hours.
In fairness the actual 'review' bit is 4 min, a lot of the rest is just chatter :)
They actually announced GB as the 1st DLC civ alongside Carthage, so you were right on that one.
So, people were already upset that they felt Civ 6 was ripping off Endless Legend. Now they want to rip off Humankind with Civ 7.
Honestly it just feels like Firaxis is copying Amplitude's homework at this point. Do they have any original ideas over there anymore?
Franky the fact they they're getting rid of workers/builders entirely and leaning even harder into city-sprawl (which I disliked i Civ6 because it frontloaded massive amounts of planning for every city) just makes me want to skip this entirely. Like I tried Civ6 because they had some fun ideas, like policy cards. But nah there's nothing in this expansion that makes me feel enthused.
As endless legends Fun I dont think they successfully stole anything from endless legends, and thats bad
I do unironically like worker micro, especially manually buidling roads.
I do want roads back on workers, but I will say I had the exact same reservations and dislike of no workers, until I tried it.
In all my hours of Civ 6 I have not ever built roads
@@danshakuimohe's talking about the past games before it, nimrod
Civ 3 Roads/Railroads: Hell YES!! Best power spike ever!!
Civ 6 Roads/Railroads: Meh!
I too enjoy micro, pretty much all micro, but I realize most people don't. However, if there's a group that would, it's 4X players.
Since the leaders are disconnected from the civs, I'm surprised they didn't just remove the civ flavoring from the civs and just make them different paths your civ can take based on how you play.
That's kind of what a lot of the flavor text for the possible choices is about; All of the civilizations you've unlocked are narratively people who exist in your empire for provided reasons and you, the omniscient guiding hand of the player, have decided for them to take the reins.
Missisippian -> Ming for example has flavor of like. Having been a trading empire focused on sharing resources across the continent but then going inward because your central powers or say, *Middle Kingdom* see themselves as the only important part of the world. Instead of literally becoming Chinese like Humankind they just assume the niche of a giant insular bureaucratic empire which has Chinese elements because of convergent development and that sort of thing.
I agree that they made the "you can play this civ because you played a geographically similar civ" a bit too wide, but in general I like the Idea civ switching. I always found it weird to have the USA in the stone age, and things like that. And you still have the possibility to play as India or as China throughout an entire campaign, but it's no longer this vague amorphous "China" or "India" but more defined historical versions of these countries.
Like in the past the developers had to decide for example which germany to include: Germanic tribes, HRE, Prussia, German Empire, FRoG... which are all drastically different versions of the concept of "Germany" and now you could represent several of these. (with way to many DLC [angry emoji])
The pricing and the splitting up of content (leaders and wonders) into the deluxe and founders edition just seems scummy as per usual for Firaxis.
$129 + DLC ( $30 ) I called it scummy, and someone told me the World is still recovering from the pandemic and I'm being heartless to the devs and don't understand business.
@@backstabber3537If the game does well devs will just get a pizza and not a raise
@@backstabber3537 Omegalul
@@dioniscaraus6124 Yeah that's all going to 2K most likely. I really really hate day (or in this case, month) one DLC.
In CIv 1, barracks *do* need to be rebuilt, twice. They're the only building that became obsolete.
Oh fair. That was kind of removed though as a feature but it’s back now
Same with civ2. They get sold at gunpowder and iirc mechanized warfare or something like that
21:50 The USA is in civ 7, and Portugal was in civ 6 (with dlc). But I definitely agree that the leader/civ roster isn’t the greatest… no Byzantium, HRE, or UK (without DLC)? No US presidents or British monarchs? A lot of the choices make very little sense
I personally think either civ switching should be optional or each area should have a civ in each age (like how China and India are). And every leader should have the civ they were a part of (Jose Rizal not being able to be a Filipino is crazy, for example)
It looks like Civ 7 tried to fix the late game problem in other 4x games by minimizing micro, unfortunately rendering the early game very bleh.
Actually I unironically love worker micro lol.
From the tense start of the game of prioritising some times over others and dodging barbarians to the late game of building railroads to the middle of nowhere because I'm overflowing with gold, I love telling workers what to do lol.
As somebody who really like Humankind, the Civ-swapping and modifier stacking do not feel like downsides. I am however a bit spooked by the soft-rests of ages, however I can also see myself really enjoying that, as the early game is the best part of every 4X game. That is something that I just have to experience to see how it plays out.
Not considering any decision specifically made for Civ 7 (I'm really not a fan of changing countries like in Humankind and some leader choices are very questionable...), I simply don't enjoy the very concept of the game. I played Civ 5 and wanted it to look closer from a grand strategy game, so when I discovered what Paradox was doing there was no point in going back to Civ.
Some design choices are also very infuriating, such as having your wonder construction canceled because some other civ at the other end of the map that you haven't even heard of has built the same wonder.
Thats frankly very fair, which is why I very much judged it in the domain of a '4x' game. Its at best at this point a stratagy game with a history theme
@@LemonCake101 I know it's not my type of game and I won't judge it harshly for that, indeed. I'll just ignore it.
> Some design choices are also very infuriating, such as having your wonder construction canceled because some other civ at the other end of the map that you haven't even heard of has built the same wonder.
There is a game where that does not happen: Humankind...
@@BrunoCarvalhoPaula Humankind was trash for other reasons though
@ it's similar enough to Civ that I didn't investigate it much. And while Humankind may have a better wonder system, the country selection system was a big no for me.
5:50 - My issue with them getting rid of workers/builders is really less about the micro and more about the fact that I assume this means you can no longer steal workers/builders or some equivalent to then use on your own tiles. I enjoyed doing that sometimes.
I would have liked to have cookie cutter versions for MANY Nations (like 100 at least) where as you could for example start as the germani tribes and then transition into Austria, Prussia or maybe the Netherlands. Then with the Next Age each will have another transition so Prussia becomes Germany or stays Prussian if they failed a goal to "Unite Germany", Austria can become Austria-Hungary, maybe the HRE or split into stuff like Checkoslovakia and Hungary or so while the Netherlands could become Belgium, the United Netherlands or LUXEMBOURG...
In General i would have liked a more storytellable transition to be available for the player where the disaster or a quest determine your next options but with reasonable sense of evolution in mind.
This ofc would make a HUGE catalouge be needed for playable civs but with no leader swapping it could just be a few buffs, a special unit or building and the civics which can be done in a reasonable timeframe.
But why the hell is there SO MANY CIVS MISSING!!! No England, No Germany (only Prussia with damn Hussars???) not even Italy or Byzantium which would have been great transitionary nations for Rome. The 2-3 European Civs per Age is also a Disgrace
P.S. US is in the Game (at least according to wiki) and British is Coming in the Next Update...
There is a USA to be fair, my mistake in the review, but I do agree!
The lack of european civs might be their way to force people to pick non-european civs. We know from games like Europa Universalis, that european nations are the top 20 picks (with the exception of ming) at a minimum. 10 years ago, Ming was in the 20th spot, in 2019, they were in the 9th spot, everything else was european + otto (which eh.. counts? maybe?). And I think Fireaxis wants to steer things into a different direction.
Imo, this removes any personal biases like playing as germany, because you are german, for example, but introduces new ones: modifier hunting. Which isn't a good way to play a game about history imo.
@@lamename2010 While fair, I would say in Eu4 at least there's a reason for picking European civs: they are just stronger.
@@lamename2010it reeks of DEI and forced diversity...like, who cares if people don't pick Vietnam as much? This would be like a Chinese game studio trying to make a Civ-like game where there wasn't any Chinese civs to promote "diversity"
@@lamename2010Which is an ideological design choice because they dislike Europeans. No other reason.
Thank you for an honest review.
Happy to be off service!
The funny cake is now talking about casual games? Very lemonic
Damn, civ is now considered casual?
Civ has always felt like playing a board game, at least since 5.
@@Gorbachof V was really fun. VI started the trend of going boardy, which I find to be the opposite of casual.
@@JonatasAdoM That moment when someone uses the Lemoncake gambit at turn 10 so you quit the game because it's already GG since you already can see how the rest of the game plays out
@@Gorbachof V had enough window dressing that I didn't mind the gamier aspects. Not that I wouldn't prefer it feel less gamey, but at least it tried to compensate, and that's more than 6 or 7 can claim.
I think the way they treat civilisations temselves kind of irks me. The way some nations "evolve" into entirely different peoples destroys the spirit of the game for me. I
This is like the nuclear option to addressing the issue of the USA existing at the beginning of civilization. I think the problem can be solved by adding more historically accurate successors for the countries that have them, and the switch into entirely different civs can be an fun option but not the default.
@@danshakuimoThe US would be easy...the first age would be playing a Norman/Celtic/Anglo-Saxon civ, the second age would be playing as Great Britain, and then the third age would be playing as the US.
@@ChristoffRevan it would be cool if they had conditions like the colonial nations in EUIV, for example the civilisation of great britain could have a decision whereby one/all of their cities on another continent could flip to USA if unhappiness is too low or by player choice. You would need something to balance the loss of cities in the "old world" though
@@danshakuimoEven with more civilizations in the game it's simply a bad mechanic. If I'm playing Rome I don't want to morph into Italy, and morphing from Aztecs into Mexico or Inca's into Peru is even worse.
@@danshakuimo I mean that's literally the plan, isn't it? They're going to add more and more of the in-between or post-civs of what is already here. It'll be DLC which is annoying, but that's their plan.
I also personally don't mind being able to switch to the completely different civilizations; They are accompanied with enough flavor text to present it in a way of "Well, these people existed in your empire because of X reasons and you're just choosing who takes the reins." Ancient Egypt conquering a bunch of the world on horseback was never historically accurate but in previous games if I spawned with a lot of horses I'd do exactly that and lean into having a big cavalry. Now I can do exactly that still and even go a step further; These horseback conquerors my civilization relies actually changes my civilization itself in a meaningful way. Or...I can of course, just sideline them stuff and play the historical way if I so choose.
(Also keep in mind, the AI will only ever go down the historical path-I also wish I could actually make it so they didn't.)
Isn't America in the base game?? They have America's theme on the Civ channel and showcased America in one of their livestreams.
tbf they are in the modern age, I did miss them mildly. Oops. At least the no England stands!
@@LemonCake101 You were also wrong about Portugal not being in Civ6. I also feel you grossly misrepresented the dlc. You keep saying it's wrong for them to make people buy "just a couple wonders." None of the announced dlc is just a couple wonders. They all include civs, leaders and new wonders that are associated to the new civ being added.
@@LemonCake101 Great Britain are in the first DLC a month after release lmao. Take Two are insufferable for this stuff.
@@GamerSerg74 to be clear I disliked how those wonders are now item points and am worried about the degradation into microtransactions
@@GamerSerg74 in the way that Portugal was quite literally a microtransaction DLC in Civ 6
You're moving up in the world! I wouldn't have seen you getting early access. Very happy for you
Thanks, its been a grind, and hopefully more to come!
My biggest issue with civ, that Endless legends feel more spicy fleshy and less complicated with things like climate change mechanics
$129 + quick DLC ( $30) = Pirate the game , wait for a sale or simply avoid
It's $70, the $130 is the price with DLC and season pass
@@lordlubu3029 and every dummy keeps saying wait and get the dlc, so obviously you and firaxis want them to buy it...
I wish there was a menu option to adjust the intensity of the crises. That way those that don't like it could basically ignore it, whereas those wanting more of a "holy shit" moment when the crises kicks in can jack it up
I like Humankind more, based on what I'm hearing. I woudl also prefer it if the game rewarded you for picking the historical continuation civ, and not just the gamiest one.
It certainly has taken a lot of 'inspiration' from humankind in fairness, although it could also be the same ideas coming together
Says USA doesn’t exist but the funny man who put a key on a kite is there. Also America is a modern day Civ
Regardless of any gameplay improvements, the civ-switching mechanic along with the truly pathetic roster of nations is a complete and total dralbreaker.
I understand why that is a deal breaker, and hence I also await for the inevitable mod that lets me.. not switch my civs :)
@@LemonCake101I feel like if you need a mod to make a game good, then the game is worthless to invest the time in because it'll fundamentally always fall short
@@ChristoffRevan I am not modding anything major, just... name changes for themes.
Forcing me to abandon the civ I've chose is a deal breaker for me- i will not be playing the game unless they add an option to continue with my original civ
I like the idea because it solves a longstanding problem of civs being completely generic outside of the 1 or 2 eras where their unique unit exists and their abilities actually mean something, but I don't think this is the way to do it. It makes sense to change from Han to Ming to Qing as the ages pass instead of just being China for the entire game, but that's the only example of a natural historical progression from civ to civ. Maybe as they add more civs we'll get more natural progression options with the weird hopping around the world becoming a fun option for minmaxers and competitive multiplayer.
its certainly a mod I am looking forward to because I don't expect the developers to backpeddle
The real problem I have, which I've seen nobody talk about, is that I don't want the OTHER civs to change. It takes out a lot of the charm if I'm fighting "the green nation" rather than "the Aztecs".
@@xionkuriyama5697 Leaders don't change so you may not be fighting France but you are fighting Napoleon.
@@bmobmo6438 India also has that option to stay the same in all three eras and I agree with you that more will likely be added in time. For the ones that can't stay the same the change is historically accurate like the Roman Empire comes to an end during Antiquity and evolves into something else. That makes sense to me and the options for your new civ are ones that make sense either geographically or culturally. Of course you can also unlock ones that don't make any sense if you just want to have fun and be more random. Both options exist which is nice for whichever way people want to play and you are correct that it really does solve a big problem from previous games and makes it much more fun to always have a civ with relevant abilities and units.
17:52 I think Humankind did this pretty well, you could adapt a new civ (but still keep a legacy trait for the rest of your game), or stay with your current civilisation and get a few little buffs for it. This way you could stay the same throughout the ages, or adopt new cultures but still retain buildings and even some modifiers from your old culture and potentially even make builds out of it
IMO that was one of the worst mistakes of Humankind, it didn't decide if it actually wanted to follow through with the civ-switching or if it wanted to please people accustomed to the old Civ style, so it ended up fence-sitting it and being uninteresting from both perspectives.
humankind did it better than civ 7 is doing it now, but i think the concept is just DOA. it just sucks. it kind of eliminates the point of these games. i have no idea how firaxis saw amplitude get that much backlash over the civ fluidity and think, "hey, this is a great idea, let's implement it but make it even MORE strict."
@ajsciri4 I do think it has some potential if you implement it the right way. Like I imagine playing as as Rome and then reforming into the Byzantines to get different buffs that complement each other well or reforming from the HRE into Germany, from the Mongols to China or similar paths. It could be a nice feature of progressing through different ages and building a sort of legacy, but I do think you would maybe need some sort of hybrid graphic style so the visual of your earlier civilisations isn't lost
It simply does not work on a fundamental level. If your empire dies, it is game over, simple as that. You did not stand the test of time. No freaking civ switching bs. Either you do the impossible and stand the test of time by creating an eternal empire, or you lose the game and go next. Like real life.
@luka188 but civilisations evolve and change. Take Japan for example. Before 1945 you would probably have them as a sort of warrior culture and give them military buffs, but afterwards, they would be a science culture that focuses on science instead of fighting
I would like if they did the CK3 thing of having your "kids" be the new leaders in the era but then I understand there's people who love playing as Abraham Lincoln for 2000 years
Okay, so they decided they stop being civ and became Humankind 1.5? (I'm confused with the civ changing)
I mean... yeah
@@LemonCake101 It doesn't have to be a bad decision overall. It's hard for me tpojudge without being able to play myself, but I thpught the consistency of playing a certain civ through the ages was a certain trademark of the series. Sure, it was weird and is but I thought they would rather "lean into" the idea and then perhaphs implement it fully and not just jump into it. Dunno, mixed feelings. Great video anyway. Thank you for recording
I had no idea that tech mastery was in Civ 7. One of thecoolest features from Civ Beyond Earth.
0:39 - referencing this game made me instantly like the video and subscribe to you, and now I fully trust that your evaluation of the game will be totally honest
Moo2 is a great game and one I have basically fully grinded and done 'every possible' build in
Also, I can nothing but agree with the argument from 19:54 to 21:01, the monetization of certain parts has been a major issue for me, not that I wouldn't pay good money for a good game, but that compartmentization seems to mimic the trend for games, going into micro transactions and paying premium for small benefits. I might not have much issue if it was just a visual or skin or something, but it has real gameplay impact, and slams the door wide open for pay to win.
Which might seem like a non-issue due to the game seemingly getting easier, but still, is something, I personally don't want for my games and I think many other gamers don't want either, so we should nip that in the bud, sooner rather than later.
As someone who liked the pantheon in age of wonders 4 i dont mind the meta progression, but i can understand that other people will think of it as locking away content behind a grind wall.
In Age of Wonders 4 they encapsulated the thing into the narrative and just the general structure of the game. It still wasn't like 'nice', but at least there it made some sense. In Civ it just doesn't and it is harmful to people who just don't want to grind. I mean I have a full-time job etc, I don't want to be limited in my options for no particular reason. It's fine when it's a game that is about unlocking shit like some roguelike or whatever, but Civ is not the place for it. It's just a dumb decision and it will cost them goodwill.
It's always interesting when someone makes their review, and the parts they like sound bad and the parts they dislike sound worse. I've always loved worker micro, it was a thing I realized especially when I went back to Civ V from Civ VI. I liked having tons of tile improvements on the map and having the buildings within the city.
The Civilization system has been a large enough issue that I don't think I'll get the game, especially at the price it is. The tagline of the series has forever been "Can you build a civilization to stand the test of time?" and this game basically says no right to you. I was hyped for it in humankind, and then realized that swapping isn't actually that fun. Its nice having a civ have points of power that make it unique.
Oh well, Civ V still exists and vox populi still has active development, so I still have that. I've played over 1000 hours of civ v after civ vi released, looks like that feat may be replicated here.
Thing is I was very pro worker micro, and I was very disappointed personally to see it gone.
I mentioned it mainly a positive because personally I was convinced away from it.
The rest of your point: yeah very fair.
Day 12 of asking lemon cake for an anbennar race tierlist(sorry I'm late I'm posting this from school)
Hey still got the ping in!
I hope they add a 4th "future" age as a major expansion. The game ends short of GDRs, I want my GDRs back. And I feel there's a lot of potential there
I do think they will, frankly tempted to make that as a formal prediction: we are going back to the Civ 3 ages
Is there an option to turn off different win conditions? I heard that was not added in Civ VII which is a bit of a dealbreaker for me.
I think we need a full video on what you think makes good strategy game UI. Imo theres a few aspects. Is information found in logical places, is the most used information easy to access from where its needed, how many clicks per action, etc. like sure your game can have all the information in the world, but do i need to browse an ingame wiki or is there nested tooltips. Do i need to search through a seperate military tab to perform actions on my military units when im looking at them on the map? Etc
could be interesting
Civilization 7: ❌
Endless Legend 2: ✅
I've been wanting "each building consumes a tile" for a long time and I can't believe that they actually did it. It's ... just okay, so far. But I just started playing.
Isn't the civilisation change throughout the ages a ripoff of the paradox 4x game Millenia, and also Humankind, now that I think of it? Its kind of strange that civ is now late to innovating the genre.
They do seem to be taking ideas from games that failed, which is an interesting decision.
I need to listen to the full review when I have the time but I'm personally really glad to see that the workers are gone entirely. I've never liked the micro involved with them even a little bit. The way the population system works now just makes an infinite more amount of sense to me and it lets me free up production for things I actually care about over tedious micro or just clicking 'automatically build improvements" because 99/100 times the AI makes the same choices I would anyway because the choices themselves weren't really meaningful and were no-brainers more often than not. I disliked Builders more than Workers because you couldn't even automate them; I'm glad to see both are gone entirely.
GB locked behind a paywall? Nah, I'm not down with that. I'll take a look in a couple of years.
Balatro fans gonna love this
cannot wait to spend 1000$ for DLCs
I'll just pirate these scammers
I'm not too fussed about having to change civilisations, but I wish there was the option of clear historical paths, like Rome > Sardinia > Italy. Although this would of course cause problems for modern colonial states like the US and Australia who both sprung from the UK, and not from a long history with the native peoples.
I remember seeing one of the live streams where they explained the reasoning behind changing civilizations for each age. They saw that people usually brought up the leader of the civs in 6 over the actual civ when referring/talking about them. What they ended up concluding with was that people dont care as much about the civ and more about the leader, hence why they focused on leaders and threw aside the civs.
How the core civ team could not see that this is ridiculous is beyond me.
I really hope thats not the real reason, not going to lie
It's perfectly sound reasoning. I'm sorry but saying its the other way around is what is ridiculous even ignoring how the other component is (meant to be) addressing the underlying problem of civilizations being both not as deep and also just strictly generic outside of whatever specific time period they existed in. As an entity you interact with Alexander or Gilgamesh are what comes to mind; Not some grand conceptual but non-embodied personification of the cultures of Macedonia or Sumeria. It's hardly unique to Civilization VI either. Even from the very beginning what was wacky was the idea of Gandhi loving nuclear war, not India loving nuclear war. The leader is who you actually talk to and who you compete against and that was always the case.
the new age system and changing of the culture for each new era has ruined the game if they don't fix this (which they will not do i) will play but if not its a pass for me
To say its a controversial feature is an understatement, indeed I am expecting mods to fix it by just letting me stay the same country by allowing me 'flip' say Rome into Rome into Rome.
@@LemonCake101 but what about 3 ages system which is a stupid move i loved civ for its age system 3 age system doesn't even make sense
@@Knight7562 in fairness, civ 3 had... 4 ages but its an interesting decision. They are quite comprehensive so if that's your only concern, well, its worth trying at least
The more I see about this game and other 4x alternatives the more I'm glad I'm still playing old world
While I like the idea of towns I prefer the Millennia version where they actually increase the number of tiles in the city. Sure in theory you use towns for your rural tiles in the late game and cities are purely urban, but the flexibility of the Millennia system just makes me happier personally.
3:08 I have to somewhat disagree. Normally, an army would equip its melee units with standard gear, which very much depends on resource availability/price. If your country has a LOT of steel at its disposal, it can enjoy massed full plate infantry with two-handed weapons, while your opponent uses formations of footman equipped with a cuirass, a sword, and a wooden-frame shield. There's also the issue of iron quality, which more source of would likely help with. The result won't be 2 vs 1 odds, but it might get close to it.
3:26 To play devil's advocate, chariots do exist and maybe tired horses can be exchanged for fresh ones mid-battle. But, yes.
It really sounds like the game would benefit from certain units needing much more of a resource and, thus, only countries with those resource stockpiles being able to afford them.
Wait... you tag-out of civs? Uff... no thanks. If it was the natural evolutions of those civs, I'd get it, but I deeply dislike the idea of abandoning a civ such as SPQR purely because irl they didn't last past the 4th century (unless you count the Ottomans as Rome, then Rome disbanded in 1922).
As a roleplayer, this is entirely counter to my enjoyment.
I was convinced Napoleon was being held back for DLC for Civ 6. I'm still waiting.
Also Portugal was in the last Civ 6 DLC.
Finally I can play the definitive edition of civ6.
Hope It won't be have to wait so much for civ7 to finish.
I mean, fair!
Civ7's release will surely stand testament to the importance of thoughtful and polished UI design in videogames.
Btw, I feel like your complaint about the civ roster is kinda invalid, since we do, in fact, have the USA at launch, and the Normans are very clearly a stand-in for post-1066 Medieval England with a Modern Great Britain civ being announced for a DLC several days before this video came out.
I did miss the USA in fairness that’s on me: but the fact that England of all things is a day 1 DLC to me looks too much like they took it out of the base game to sell separately since they knew people would want to buy England
@@LemonCake101 I wouldn't say the English people are omitted from base game Civ7, since the Normans very much represent Medieval England post-Norman conquest. I do agree that you shouldn't have to buy a separate DLC to be able to play as the Brits at the height of their historical power, but it's not exactly new for the series to remove mainstay civs to sell them separately.
I miss the old lemoncake who didnt sell out. Just kidding obviously. Its been cool the see your development and amazing growth. Congratulations.
Thanks! Its been a grind, and hopefully the growth continues!
ngl never have I been unexcited for a sequel to a franchise I like.
Informative review, hope the game is very moddable.
I think settlement limit here is more compareable to governing capacity than over extention
That fair, just moreso a comparission of 'capping debuffs' vs 'capping buffs'
The reason i will not be playing on launch is it does seem to feel that they have chopped a lot out to sell later.
3:30 but you are, crucially, riding a *fresh* horse into battle. More horses in society really does correspond to better cavalry. The best cavalry in history all came from societies that were swimming in horses.
I wish the level up was part of a unique single player or coop only mode
I do not know why, but I cannot see this video on my subscription feed. I was still recommended it by TH-cam but that is quite strange. I have heard others talk about this before, but I think this is the first time in 10+ years on YT that it has happened to me.
To be fair since this wasn’t Eu4 or even Paradox and so on I specifically told TH-cam to ‘not notify subscribers’ so this one makes sense
Did they substantially improve the UI and input efficiency to play Civ 7 compared to previous versions or is Civ still objectively behind early-mid 1990s games in "# of inputs to do something" design?
Solid video (as always) but technically masteries of techs are not new to Civ. They’ve got a new name but they were first seen in Civ: BE. They had a leaf and web system in that game
So tl:dw basically is that the game is clearly unfinished and will be sold in parts as per usual.
Maybe in a few years when denuvo is gone.
fair take honestly
5:37 speak for yourself I ❤ worker micro
again, I did too, and I wasn't a conceptual fan of the change, but after playing the game, I am convinced they made a good decision here.
As someone who started with civ 1 i feel so so ancient. I enjoyed the review thanks- it is not for me (i cant get around the mix match leaders and civ changes ) and i am annoyed that GB is in a DLC, but maybe in a sale.
Fair!
Just a heads up, you said there were some big names missing like the USA, but there is an American civilization in the game, it's a modern age civ which iirc, you need to have a certain amount of cities located in plains to unlock or something like that.
There is a USA I missed that one. Still no England though!
@@LemonCake101 Yeah, I heard Ingerland is gonna be in the first free update or something like that, no idea when that's coming though
It's in a paid dlc lol @@ChristineBoari
@ Oh really? We already have announcements on dlc? I didn't catch that, only the preorder bonuses and things like that
@@ChristineBoari if you look at the roadmap they posted it's a part of the crossroads dlc that comes with the deluxe edition
Microing workers and pops is the definition of civ v, reckon there’s now a lot less strategy involved without that mechanic?
I do believe it’s very firmly moved into the direction of picking the actual tiles to expand to/improve, and army micro if anything is even higher now due to the new commander unit
Every Civ we stray further from what made Civ be Civ.
Seems I’m in the minority, but I honestly don’t care at all about civ switching and am actually a fan of it. People are comparing it to humankind which I’ve never played, but I have played the board game small world and that board game is fantastic and completely centered on the declining civilization and rise of a new civilization concept.
There were no "workers" in early Civs. Settlers could settle or improve tiles.
Yeah good point I forgot it took until civ 3
Bought civ 6 last summer after playing civ v for a decade. I’ll do the same with 7. Seems ideal imo
Good ideas, but the infestation of predatory DLC is quite troubling. I suppose Civ has always been somewhat known for that, but still.
Thanks for the overview.
I've not seen anything worth buying the game for.
Your call and one you are more then welcome to make!
@@LemonCake101 Sure. Hopefully Johan can give a more impressive display.
Wait there is leader experience gain? That sounds like such a broken system, especially for multiplayer
Yup!
It can be turned off for multiplayer, FWIW.
@@benabaxter that's good to know to be fair
Idk it looks weird. Kinda bland
I will have to admit I do wish on the map at least it looked more distinct
@@LemonCake101 The map looks very lifeless in a way. This feels like a downgrade after playing Ara and looking at their map where your citizens are running around your empire while getting hunted by crocodiles
I like the end of districts but come why can’t do they 3-5 to buildings per tile? And have some wonders take building slots and have others take up a tile.
I loved Civ 6 on my Switch, and I was extremely skeptical about Civ 7 when it was announced. On further looking into it, it's not as bad at it was at first glance, but I'm still cautiously optimistic. I'm going to wait for Switch version reviews, and if those are good, I'll grab it if it has a physical. Although I don't think I'll buy the DLC this time around, seems to have more than base Civ 6 and I don't have a lot of money nor do I want to support the greedy monetization practices.
i think this civ kinda lost me a bit. 3-4 were honestly my favorites and 5 didnt grab me the way i thought it would. heck, i still miss building that silly palace in the super early civs. Honestly, i kinda have to un-endorse a lot of the major changes too, i think they change too much what civ felt like on some level. its like theyre trying to copy a copy of themselves like Millennia or Humankind or whatever that other civlike was at the time
Yeah I feel you, although from the sounds of it Civ as a series has lost you long ago