The only one I don't like is the settlement caps. To me, the ability to go super wide early was one of the things that distinguished Civ from competitors.
I won't miss it. If they hit the balance and the cities you have matter, that's a better game. Settler spam was too good, especially with AI that couldn't wage effective conquest.
It does not seem to be a hard cap, just a thresshold that comes with a cost if you surpass it, which is not new for Civ. Civilization V was very tall focussed as well, increasing the research cost for techs and policies with every city you founded. But from what I've seen, smaller settlements like outposts will still allow you to expand without exceeding your cap. And I hope Vassalage and Puppets are a thing as well for City States and foreign cities
I was excited after seeing the trailer, that was dashed when looking at the steam page. Looking at these changes I feel like I am skeptical of more than I am excited for.
@@Gilga_broi actually kinda like Milennia’s “builder” system, it’s called Improvement points. Certain buildings generate them and they are exclusively spent on tile improvements. I still prefer 5’s worker system over any others but I would be fine with a Milennia style system in that specific regard.
@@bertdog2119 That's pretty close to what Civilization: Call to Power used back in 1999. You'd allocate some percentage of your production to generating Public Works, which were added to a pool and then expended on improvements near your cities (which took some number of turns to complete)
You mean they fixed Humankind, don't you? Because if it felt like humankind, that would be considered a "copy and paste" and anyone that played this game will tell you, this game does not feel like Humankind and its poor Steam rating.
The settlememt cap and multiplayer cap sounds like bad to me. I can understand the settlememt stuff. The multiplayer one, dear god what are they thinking
I think it's interesting, how the addition of horses, for instance, could wrestle a civ in a different direction, allowing it to "turn" into Mongolia. But it should be gameplay related. An inland civ shouldn't be able to turn into Portugal, you know? (ps , I also inherently don't like the civ change idea)
I personally like it. Think I would have preferred if maybe they just changed their abilities, but no civilization has stood the test of time. This is more accurate and interesting to see how a culture develops and becomes a different civilization over time. Think it’s a step in the right direction, but will need fleshing out.
@@abelgonzalez158 Your leader will still last. There’s now just a layering of civilizations. Like going to any city with a history, there are remnants of past civilizations, some built on top of the other. (I’m sure mods will come out to play one Civ all the way through as well.)
Im open to the idea, historically it does make sense, say, France today is very different from France in the middle ages culturally and totally different from the Francs. Same goes for almost all other countries I know.
i'm fine with no workers, but each tile only having one possible improvement seems a bit restrictive. if you could chose between the multiple improvements a tile could have, like a forest with deer on a river potentially being either a lumber mill, camp or fishing boat depending on what you chose. mostly though i'm gonna trust the devs that it's a good gameplay loop, and honestly the early game in 4X games always feels strategically important and always give you decisions with as little as "where to settle and send my scout?" so i think it's more a question of how the pacing feels and if the late-game is good. not having to micro builders late-game is gonna be nice.
To be fair, even in civ 6 most tiles have 1 base improvement at the start of the game and you gain the ability to build more with tech unlocks/city state suzerainty/or as specific civ bonuses. We may still have these in the final game, as the vertical slice we've seen so far has been really limited. If they don't exist even in later ages or with civs/leaders we haven't yet seen, then yeah I'm gonna be disappointed, too
I think with the culture bombing, each city will be larger and so i would wager it might be that each tile will only have one "resource". It could also be that, if you only have one option, you don't get a window that asks.
You're still trusting devs to make the best decisions? Some of their "features" lately have been on par with Hollywood twists- gotta try something different so let's hope this works and maybe people like it. Instead of just making a game/movie that flows like real life, they force something in there
@@alclay8689well, if they're not going to try something new, then no one is going to buy the game. If civ 7 has the exact same mechanics as civ 6, then what's the point of making a new game?
I’m gonna be honest, I absolutely despised, with a burning passion, the city limit in Humankind and it’s probably going to be just as annoying in Civ 7. I don’t like civ switching but I honestly hate the City Cap even more. It’s such an arbitrary limit on expansion and doesn’t actually address balancing Wide v Tall playstyles. It makes there be only 1 acceptable size.
From my understanding there are ways to increase your cap if that’s what you want to do, and it’s not a hard cap. You can go over, you just have slightly less happy population like having too few amenities.
Wrong, one of the game's core victory paths in the Antiquity Age is to literally gain 12 settlement points. In other vids creators have mentioned that you can increase the cap with certain civs & techs, so if you want to go wide there is absolutely still a path for it.
@@malmasterson3890how does that make sense tho? Does Rome at least get a positive happiness buff for expanding? Bc that was their fetish. Hell even America, Mongolia, Britain, France had manifest destiny in mind. In fact can you name one empire that said "oh no we're too big 😢"? I can't. Why even be earth based with historical nations if you're not gonna try and reflect earth, it's nations, and it's people
@alclay8689 Mongolia and Rome literally collapsed under their own weight. Hell the Mongolian empire pretty much began collapsing the minute Ghengis died. France & Britain eventually had to give up oversea empires. Our massive size in the US has come with countless issues despite it's economical benefits making us the superpower, and we were an exception since we had hardly any real threats. There were countless limitations to expansion, and in Civ we're living out a fantasy cause most civilizations throughout history never expanded much at all save for a couple generations. Like the mongols. Ultimately though, that doesn't even matter. What matters is that civ should be trying to support all players, and A LOT of people were sick and tired of the forced wide-play of civ 6. We want tall players to have an incentive to play the way they want to play too. If both parties have limitations & bonuses then that's a good thing for the game.
Only 5 people? Are they stupid? Big lobbies in early game has always been the most fun! Nothing beats starting out a game with like 10 people just to have 3-4 strong civs after.
Ok, there must be some sort of way to massively increase or exceed settlement cap, otherwise domination victory will become impossible. They wouldn't cut out such an elementary victory condition, would they?
Domination Victory was just capturing all the original capitals on the map (which was also a strangely arbitrary condition.) If they stick with that, that would make Dom victories easier, not harder.
In the Antiquity Age the domination goal is to get to 12 settlements, and there are a number of ways to increase the settlement cap. If you want to go wide it is still possible, just not the only way to play the game correctly anymore like in civ 6.
@@malmasterson3890wow, remember how the great Axum empire conquered the world when they had 12 settlements? Me neither. Idk why you're trying to defend a useless feature no one asked for
@alclay8689 That's just wrong. People may not have asked it in this exact form, but MANY players miss the tall vs wide play of Civ 5 especially. Micro managing is a pain in the ass and I should be able to gain benefits from making a consolidated power like many nations throughout history have done. Also, you don't win when you get 12 cities. You get big bonuses for the rest of the game towards domination. You can easily even exceed it. That means it's clearly built in to be easily doable. You're literally complaining about something that will barely play a factor unless you somehow liked just spamming 60 cities in the ancient era and not doing anything else.
Yeah same but thats also one of those things you can never get right for everyone and im sure over the hundreds of hours i inevitably spend playing it it’ll grow on me
The settler cap is a big turn off for me, only three eras is also a very minor slight i have against it, from what ive seen it feels so weird from what im used to, idk if ill get it
@olafjansowidz Then go play YOUR civ game. I'm glad Firaxis is one of the few who actually tries to mix things up with their games, and it gives other people an opportunity to find THEIR civ game.
@@malmasterson3890 One other turn off for me is that, well, I'm a switch player, and my switch can BARELY handle civ 6 graphics or complexity. Last night Saladin became sheets of different colors stretching across the screen. I'm not sure how well Civ VII will run on my Switch, given some features were removed and some were added, so, I'm already naturally disadvantaged when it comes to any civ game sadly.
The different nations through the eras thing is a huge turn off for me and the city cap. I don’t mind a happiness penalty cause that’s how it’s always been but they’re basically just making a humankind dlc. If I want to play rome and fight against the Americans the entire game then they should stay that way. It also takes away the unique play styles of the different civs. Sure they have different and unique perks but the appeal was that I had to watch out for the Macedonians early game and watch out for the Chinese mid to late game ect. Idk just feels kinda lame.
I really like the civ changes with each era. More unique units and infrastructure for every game! So many interesting combinations and permutations. Lots of replayability!
So the changing of empires mechanic from Humankind and the 'Settlement cap' mechanic from Endless Space, interesting times indeed What's not nice tho is that absurd pre-order price with literally both a "deluxe edition" and a "founders edition", both of which is just _Day 1 DLC_ on top of an already high price of base game Not to mention the fact you can already pre-order the game _now_ despite it not coming out before FEBRUARY 2025 smh (Its literally like 5-6 months away, dafuq)
Great summary! I think this is going to be an interesting change that will bring some really interesting things to the game. Your indepth video is so helpful and so detailed!
Everything seems like a huge improvement except for the no builders and workers that could ruin the feel of the game. And I'm really concerned about changing civs mid game but if its implemented well it could be good.
I am glad Gwendolyn Christie got the narration role, she has a soothing voice, and it is about time for a female narrator for the game. I'd have preferred Gillian Anderson, but Gwendolyn was an excellent second choice.
I don't like the idea of settlement limits. I hope it'll be better than civ 5, but I'd really rather mechanics that make it easier to manage large numbers of cities.
That's actually what they did though, and the settlement limits are only a soft cap that you can actually increase in a number of ways. It's clear going wide is still a supported strategy since the goal for Domination in the Antiquity Age is to have 12 settlements (captured count as 2).
@@malmasterson3890 I mean I want mechanics to make managing large empires easier INSTEAD of mechanics to discourage large empires, not both. Also, Civ 5 also had a soft cap, and it wasn't great. Ursa also made the penalties sound significant in this video.
@shmojelfed9664 If it makes it so that every game doesn't come down to just who has the most cities regardless of victory type, then I'm for it personally. You have to put some kind of restriction in for going wide, cause even when they spent much of the 6 expansions giving more and more bonuses to going tall it did nothing to stop the fact that going wide was the only real option. As long as there's support for both strategies I don't see the issue.
Maybe i missed something here. Everyone who played civ7 has said the same thing. But they dont mention how wonders work. I guess natural wonders are back. But how does building wonders work?
I hope they limit civ swaps to only ones that make sense like gaul to france or vikings to norway etc not egypt to mongolia or something like that Also this is the perfect moment to add a finland civ
From what has been shown, there will be more historical paths to take & more strategic paths to take depending on what choices you made in each age. I'm diggin it honestly.
The only one I don't like is the settlement caps. To me, the ability to go super wide early was one of the things that distinguished Civ from competitors.
I won't miss it. If they hit the balance and the cities you have matter, that's a better game. Settler spam was too good, especially with AI that couldn't wage effective conquest.
Same! I hate this mechanic. Any mechanic that limits a playstyle is not my thing
Also, it makes conquest waaaaaaay weaker
There have been defacto settlement caps since 4, at least
It does not seem to be a hard cap, just a thresshold that comes with a cost if you surpass it, which is not new for Civ. Civilization V was very tall focussed as well, increasing the research cost for techs and policies with every city you founded. But from what I've seen, smaller settlements like outposts will still allow you to expand without exceeding your cap. And I hope Vassalage and Puppets are a thing as well for City States and foreign cities
I was excited after seeing the trailer, that was dashed when looking at the steam page. Looking at these changes I feel like I am skeptical of more than I am excited for.
Same! im thinking stayin on civ6. Mayby i buy civ7 70% sale
Yup. I'll buy the whole thing when it's on a discount. I'll try Ara before this I think.
Same
Yeah, the workers and the changing civilizations just kind of feels like humankind
Not to mention the city cap
@@Gilga_broi actually kinda like Milennia’s “builder” system, it’s called Improvement points. Certain buildings generate them and they are exclusively spent on tile improvements. I still prefer 5’s worker system over any others but I would be fine with a Milennia style system in that specific regard.
@@bertdog2119 That's pretty close to what Civilization: Call to Power used back in 1999. You'd allocate some percentage of your production to generating Public Works, which were added to a pool and then expended on improvements near your cities (which took some number of turns to complete)
Humankind learns from Civ, Civ learns from Humankind. Free market.
Congratulations, you unlocked capitalism civic.
You mean they fixed Humankind, don't you?
Because if it felt like humankind, that would be considered a "copy and paste" and anyone that played this game will tell you, this game does not feel like Humankind and its poor Steam rating.
The settlememt cap and multiplayer cap sounds like bad to me. I can understand the settlememt stuff. The multiplayer one, dear god what are they thinking
Yeah, what ARE they thinking? Why would you do that?
I like the idea of actual proxy wars
At first I wasn’t impressed, but after watching your in-depth discussion about your experience playing, I’m looking forward to it!
@@lauras6762 🤡
I really dislike civs changing mid game
I think it's interesting, how the addition of horses, for instance, could wrestle a civ in a different direction, allowing it to "turn" into Mongolia.
But it should be gameplay related.
An inland civ shouldn't be able to turn into Portugal, you know?
(ps , I also inherently don't like the civ change idea)
I personally like it. Think I would have preferred if maybe they just changed their abilities, but no civilization has stood the test of time. This is more accurate and interesting to see how a culture develops and becomes a different civilization over time. Think it’s a step in the right direction, but will need fleshing out.
@8Arachne8 I disagree, the enjoyment for me was making a civ that didn't last, to last
@@abelgonzalez158 Your leader will still last. There’s now just a layering of civilizations. Like going to any city with a history, there are remnants of past civilizations, some built on top of the other. (I’m sure mods will come out to play one Civ all the way through as well.)
Im open to the idea, historically it does make sense, say, France today is very different from France in the middle ages culturally and totally different from the Francs. Same goes for almost all other countries I know.
i'm fine with no workers, but each tile only having one possible improvement seems a bit restrictive. if you could chose between the multiple improvements a tile could have, like a forest with deer on a river potentially being either a lumber mill, camp or fishing boat depending on what you chose. mostly though i'm gonna trust the devs that it's a good gameplay loop, and honestly the early game in 4X games always feels strategically important and always give you decisions with as little as "where to settle and send my scout?" so i think it's more a question of how the pacing feels and if the late-game is good. not having to micro builders late-game is gonna be nice.
To be fair, even in civ 6 most tiles have 1 base improvement at the start of the game and you gain the ability to build more with tech unlocks/city state suzerainty/or as specific civ bonuses. We may still have these in the final game, as the vertical slice we've seen so far has been really limited. If they don't exist even in later ages or with civs/leaders we haven't yet seen, then yeah I'm gonna be disappointed, too
I think with the culture bombing, each city will be larger and so i would wager it might be that each tile will only have one "resource". It could also be that, if you only have one option, you don't get a window that asks.
You're still trusting devs to make the best decisions? Some of their "features" lately have been on par with Hollywood twists- gotta try something different so let's hope this works and maybe people like it. Instead of just making a game/movie that flows like real life, they force something in there
@@alclay8689well, if they're not going to try something new, then no one is going to buy the game. If civ 7 has the exact same mechanics as civ 6, then what's the point of making a new game?
@@Bpstudent To satisfy emotionally underdeveloped fanbois who are fundamentally incapable of adapting to change?
AI replaced builders and workers! It's happening!
I’m gonna be honest, I absolutely despised, with a burning passion, the city limit in Humankind and it’s probably going to be just as annoying in Civ 7. I don’t like civ switching but I honestly hate the City Cap even more. It’s such an arbitrary limit on expansion and doesn’t actually address balancing Wide v Tall playstyles. It makes there be only 1 acceptable size.
From my understanding there are ways to increase your cap if that’s what you want to do, and it’s not a hard cap. You can go over, you just have slightly less happy population like having too few amenities.
Wrong, one of the game's core victory paths in the Antiquity Age is to literally gain 12 settlement points. In other vids creators have mentioned that you can increase the cap with certain civs & techs, so if you want to go wide there is absolutely still a path for it.
Right? I love earlier civs bc they at least tried to reflect real life. This is just.. idk it feels plastic and forced.
@@malmasterson3890how does that make sense tho? Does Rome at least get a positive happiness buff for expanding? Bc that was their fetish.
Hell even America, Mongolia, Britain, France had manifest destiny in mind. In fact can you name one empire that said "oh no we're too big 😢"? I can't.
Why even be earth based with historical nations if you're not gonna try and reflect earth, it's nations, and it's people
@alclay8689 Mongolia and Rome literally collapsed under their own weight. Hell the Mongolian empire pretty much began collapsing the minute Ghengis died. France & Britain eventually had to give up oversea empires. Our massive size in the US has come with countless issues despite it's economical benefits making us the superpower, and we were an exception since we had hardly any real threats. There were countless limitations to expansion, and in Civ we're living out a fantasy cause most civilizations throughout history never expanded much at all save for a couple generations. Like the mongols.
Ultimately though, that doesn't even matter. What matters is that civ should be trying to support all players, and A LOT of people were sick and tired of the forced wide-play of civ 6. We want tall players to have an incentive to play the way they want to play too. If both parties have limitations & bonuses then that's a good thing for the game.
11 - They will be microtransactions in full-price game, yeaaaa
He is paid to omit that, hard pass on civ vii
Brother there's been micro transactions since civ 4 lmao. Why you still here then?
@@declaringpond2276 you are dum dum
@@declaringpond2276 There is the difference between DLC or expansion and Microtransactions
@@declaringpond2276what micro transactions did civ 4 have? It had full expansions.
5 mixed map packs and civ packs in between their full expansions
His face at the beginning went from 😀 to 😯 to 😲 to 😮 lol
They gotta have to fix the multi-player limit
Im so excited especially for the music in civ 7, its just something about the sid miers series music that is fire 🔥
i like that your civ changes but your leader is still an immortal
Yeah you liked the most disgusting feature of this game.
Only 5 people? Are they stupid? Big lobbies in early game has always been the most fun! Nothing beats starting out a game with like 10 people just to have 3-4 strong civs after.
Me still chilling back on Civ 5
Ok, there must be some sort of way to massively increase or exceed settlement cap, otherwise domination victory will become impossible. They wouldn't cut out such an elementary victory condition, would they?
Domination Victory was just capturing all the original capitals on the map (which was also a strangely arbitrary condition.) If they stick with that, that would make Dom victories easier, not harder.
In the Antiquity Age the domination goal is to get to 12 settlements, and there are a number of ways to increase the settlement cap. If you want to go wide it is still possible, just not the only way to play the game correctly anymore like in civ 6.
@@LoneWolf343capturing the capitals at least makes sense for domination. You'd have to fight everything a country has to offer to get it's capital
@@malmasterson3890wow, remember how the great Axum empire conquered the world when they had 12 settlements? Me neither. Idk why you're trying to defend a useless feature no one asked for
@alclay8689 That's just wrong. People may not have asked it in this exact form, but MANY players miss the tall vs wide play of Civ 5 especially. Micro managing is a pain in the ass and I should be able to gain benefits from making a consolidated power like many nations throughout history have done.
Also, you don't win when you get 12 cities. You get big bonuses for the rest of the game towards domination. You can easily even exceed it. That means it's clearly built in to be easily doable. You're literally complaining about something that will barely play a factor unless you somehow liked just spamming 60 cities in the ancient era and not doing anything else.
SETTLEMENT CAPS??? Good lord they are fucking this up so bad
First it's Ned Stark and now it's Brienne of Tarth😂
Don’t know if I’m used to the aesthetic yet.
I wasn't sure either at first but those troop animations look amazing. Kinda rome total war esque in how they navigate around one another.
Yeah same but thats also one of those things you can never get right for everyone and im sure over the hundreds of hours i inevitably spend playing it it’ll grow on me
I'd be surprised if you were used to the aesthetic of a game that hasn't come out.
I didnt know Ursa was on youtube wtf ive only known you from your drawings wtf thsi feels so surreal
The settler cap is a big turn off for me, only three eras is also a very minor slight i have against it, from what ive seen it feels so weird from what im used to, idk if ill get it
It's only a soft cap, and there are multiple ways to increase it if you want to go wide.
@@malmasterson3890 don't care, hard pass on civ vii
@olafjansowidz Then go play YOUR civ game. I'm glad Firaxis is one of the few who actually tries to mix things up with their games, and it gives other people an opportunity to find THEIR civ game.
@@malmasterson3890 not gonna ru crying 🤡
@@malmasterson3890 One other turn off for me is that, well, I'm a switch player, and my switch can BARELY handle civ 6 graphics or complexity. Last night Saladin became sheets of different colors stretching across the screen. I'm not sure how well Civ VII will run on my Switch, given some features were removed and some were added, so, I'm already naturally disadvantaged when it comes to any civ game sadly.
I wonder how our world would look like now if not for the Roman's discovery of army teleportation.
The different nations through the eras thing is a huge turn off for me and the city cap. I don’t mind a happiness penalty cause that’s how it’s always been but they’re basically just making a humankind dlc. If I want to play rome and fight against the Americans the entire game then they should stay that way. It also takes away the unique play styles of the different civs. Sure they have different and unique perks but the appeal was that I had to watch out for the Macedonians early game and watch out for the Chinese mid to late game ect. Idk just feels kinda lame.
Civ continues its habit of each new game taking one step forward, three steps that way, and 5 steps backwards...
Only Ursa makes me excited for this mess called Civ 7
I like playing on slow speed but large maps and Diety. Settlement caps will ruin my ability to play wide and fun I’m afraid
I just don't really know how I feel about the civilizations changing. I mean I get it, but I get attached to things. 😭
I really like the civ changes with each era. More unique units and infrastructure for every game! So many interesting combinations and permutations. Lots of replayability!
Have you played Humankind?
Paid bot begone
@@olafjansowidz It's not a bot, he joined 8 years ago. No bots last for that long.
@@spam-el3ee ok bot
@@olafjansowidz AYO??? 😭 I'm not even saying I agree with the comment it's just not a bot making it
So the changing of empires mechanic from Humankind and the 'Settlement cap' mechanic from Endless Space, interesting times indeed
What's not nice tho is that absurd pre-order price with literally both a "deluxe edition" and a "founders edition", both of which is just _Day 1 DLC_ on top of an already high price of base game
Not to mention the fact you can already pre-order the game _now_ despite it not coming out before FEBRUARY 2025 smh (Its literally like 5-6 months away, dafuq)
I hope they bring back Geoff Knorr. His civilization-specific soundtracks are pure genius
Bring back tall and wide play. like it was all we wanted
No workers just feels wrong imo
Yeah. It will definitely take some getting used to, for me at least
Yeah, I'm iffy on a few other things but that one has me really feeling out of sorts towards this
I have 2430 hours on civ 6, the only 3 era thing does bother me but iv been wanting those kinda rivers for 4 and half years now
Me? I wait for the day Ursa can show us what he's learned and (whoopsy)what he didn't.
Great loop. 👍
Sorry but the changing civs between ages thing just feels so silly
I learned more for this 30 second short than when watching 30 minute TH-cam stream. Thanks
I think I might save my money and wait for the next one
It just seems like a mix between humankind and old world now
oh dear i loved the start of this short
That brazilian maxixe instrumental music on the background though 😅
Great summary! I think this is going to be an interesting change that will bring some really interesting things to the game. Your indepth video is so helpful and so detailed!
I remember sneaking on to my dads pc to play civ 3 when I was a kid 😂😂
I think Ara is gonna kill Civ 7 if it gets enough attention. To me, Ara seems like the route Civ should have gone in.
Nobody has even heard of that game
That multiplayer thingy is a bit weird ...
And no workers ? I hope the game is not getting ultra simplified by removing those ones.
Does eras and ages both exist at the same time, or will that be added later
I hope in the future they’ll let you change your leader when you change civs. Maybe a mod
I bet there is gonna be something to negate the happiness penalty for expanding to big but that sounds booty cheeks
MP restrictions of number of players? Hmm 🧐
Baba Yetu, baby!
I have a feeling that this will be the odd one out of the civ games
Does this mean that now there are *only* 3 ages or these are 3 additional ages
I guess I’ll go back to Civ 3 and 4
The multiplayer thing is really concerning for me since my friend groups loves hosting really big civ games
Only thing I’m not keen on is the changing civs if I choose a civ I would want to stay as them for the full game
*Navigable rivers?????* Damn I already love this game
The promo vid said OUR Civ changed.
Everything seems like a huge improvement except for the no builders and workers that could ruin the feel of the game. And I'm really concerned about changing civs mid game but if its implemented well it could be good.
I am glad Gwendolyn Christie got the narration role, she has a soothing voice, and it is about time for a female narrator for the game. I'd have preferred Gillian Anderson, but Gwendolyn was an excellent second choice.
I agree I'am gonna miss Sean Bean though. His voiceover work in games is legendary.
I'd like the Narrator from Fable 2, but I don't know if she is still alive.
@@LordThomasPassionGreat idea, she'd fit perfectly!
@@LordThomasPassion that's Zoe Wanamaker - she's still alive. Better known to Doctor Who audiences as the Lady Cassandra.
Agreed. They should just keep getting Game of Thrones actors
I just hate the diplomacy screen, it’s just so weird watch diplomacy stuff happen in third person
I think Humankind pulled off the civ-switching better, as it doesn't have a set leader
just hoping the game size isnt that large, I barely have enough Storage for most games nowadays
Can I navigate my battleship up river if I find another civ that has oil?? 🦅
Everyone out here crying about changing civs and not mentioning the player limit in multiplayer...
I fucking hate the city cap. I love expanding and building cities
Yeah, switching* Civs every age is a big turn off for me.. but ill probably buy it on sale eventually
Ara looks more promising than whatever this is.
I am going to miss REX. They have been trying to stop it for 3 Civ games.
I LOVE the changes, now just let me create my own leader and be the sultan of the ottoman I was born to be!
*cough*humankind*cough*
I really don't think I am going to enjoy the worker and civ changes, and definitely not the city limits.
Only reason to keep the leaders in the game is to charge you for them later.
I think you played Humankind 2
Builder expansion for 4.99
Feels similar to the game paradox released (last year?) Cant remember the name.
Damm how do they do that, 👏👏👏
Most important. How did they improve the AI? Civ6 AI was horribly stupid. If you survived first 40 turns you won the game
You say 3 new ages, does that imply there are more than 3 ages? I certainly hope they don't charge DLC for more ages 😭
I don't like the idea of settlement limits. I hope it'll be better than civ 5, but I'd really rather mechanics that make it easier to manage large numbers of cities.
That's actually what they did though, and the settlement limits are only a soft cap that you can actually increase in a number of ways. It's clear going wide is still a supported strategy since the goal for Domination in the Antiquity Age is to have 12 settlements (captured count as 2).
@@malmasterson3890 I mean I want mechanics to make managing large empires easier INSTEAD of mechanics to discourage large empires, not both. Also, Civ 5 also had a soft cap, and it wasn't great. Ursa also made the penalties sound significant in this video.
@shmojelfed9664 If it makes it so that every game doesn't come down to just who has the most cities regardless of victory type, then I'm for it personally. You have to put some kind of restriction in for going wide, cause even when they spent much of the 6 expansions giving more and more bonuses to going tall it did nothing to stop the fact that going wide was the only real option. As long as there's support for both strategies I don't see the issue.
Guess I'm sticking with 5
Wouldn't it make more sense for the civ to stay the same and the leader to change?
Mate can you upload a new series? I have tot talk to my gilfriend now in the evening :(
Maybe i missed something here. Everyone who played civ7 has said the same thing. But they dont mention how wonders work. I guess natural wonders are back. But how does building wonders work?
HUH MULTIPLAYER CAPPED AT 5???!??!??
I have a mixed reaction to this...
I hope they limit civ swaps to only ones that make sense like gaul to france or vikings to norway etc not egypt to mongolia or something like that
Also this is the perfect moment to add a finland civ
Japan for example has that sort of thing, from what I have seen from interviews, it goes ancient japan, medieval japan and modern japan.
From what has been shown, there will be more historical paths to take & more strategic paths to take depending on what choices you made in each age. I'm diggin it honestly.
Seems very similar to humankind
Modem Age already exists???
Beep boop
They annihilated MP???
does faith exist in the game?
I will stick with 5 and 6.
Dead game on start 💀
Are... Are you certain you didn't get a key to Humankind by accident?
huzzah!
Bro you look like mike posner 😂
Babayetu time
Settlement cap HAS TO GO
Idk why civ is just turning into humankind, there’s a reason everyone played civ and no one played humankind
So it's humankind
Why is Ursa baaaaald? But Rivers are cool