Since people are accusing me, NO I have not played Civ 7 early. I was not contacted by anyone or invited to anything early. If I was I'd have to disclose that. Now, this is probably the biggest change in Civ 7 and everyone is kind of surprised, let me break it down a bit and see what you think after. If you want to support the channel, buy games (Civs?) using this GOG referral link: af.gog.com/?as=1715648857 Thank you!
Boo to Octavian wearing a metal breastplate and tunic in 2024 while taking over Las Vegas.......... he'll learn about the dry heat quickly I think. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Civilisation always made it so that I could play with any nation from the invention of writing to the development of space travel. The leaders were much more arbitrary than the nations. From one Civ to the next, it was important that the Romans were playable, whether under Caesar or Augustus. For more immersion and gameplay, it would be better to always play the same nation, even if the characteristics changed from era to era. There would be no difference in terms of game mechanics. Instead, you have one leader across all ages. So while some nations are prevented from playing in all ages, this does not apply to the leaders. However, their style and clothing do not change. This also does not contribute to the feel of the game. However, it gets really weird when Firaxis translates the game mechanics as follows. The ancient Egyptians are not trusted to reach modernity, only antiquity. However, they can only reach antiquity with an American leader like Benjamin Franklin. Personally, I think the idea that any nation can pass the Test of Time is very much lost here.
Egypt into Songhai makes as much sense as China into Turkey. Sharing a continent is not enough of a common trait to evolve into. At this moment, it is half-baked at most, and I am not particularly confident about at launch status of the game seeing this.
Its worse. Egypt to Songhai is equal to Egypt to Mongol. Also this seems like a civilization devolution with not one bit of social complexity being higher. Game forces to make things less developed just because it’s more ancient.
I think the problem is that Civ7 doesn't add things Civ players have been wanting for a while (throne room, palace, etc), and instead adds a ton of things that Civ players have NEVER asked for, from other games that definitely ARE NOT Civ. I watch this video and see very little about what I liked about Civ2/4/6. it seems like I'm watching a completely different game from a completely different series.
There is no direct link between Egypt and Songhai, either politically or culturally. The idea would be fine, if Firaxis included enough directly-related civs to accomplish it, but forcing me to play a different civ and telling me it's the same culture is no different than pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining. It would have made much more sense to change LEADERS (still of the same civ) twice a game instead of changing Civs. But, again, Firaxis would have needed to include at least 60-70 leaders from the start to make it fun and interesting, and we all know they aren't doing that because it would limit their expansion pack cash-cow.
What's interesting is that in the footage firaxis has released the Abbasid Caliphate was a possible option for Egypt to switch to, which is an extremely natural progression and more so than Songhai. I think that Firaxis is kind of messing up the messaging here because when people think about switching civ's, they have the humankind approach of switching to whoever you want with no reason but it seems like sensible progressions exist. By having sensible progression it will in effect feel like your playing one civilization but with that civilization evolving throughout time.
I think the biggest problem with the reveal is they didn't reveal enough specific examples. Basically they've only confirmed 1 full path for civ changes which is Egypt to Songhai to Buganda. Besides that it's pretty much all guessing, so people are guessing in all directions.
They were pretty clear instead. "Prepare yourself to guide modern England as Augustus", they've said something of that, that is of course a complet nonsense, like passing from Egypt to Shongai - no ethnical, cultural, religious, or militaristic link between the two civs, nothing. Only a thing in common: to be either in Africa, like ancient Rome and modern England are in Europe. Do you really think that there will be a sufficient number of civs to make historical plausibile the switch between all the civs? No way, only extremly superficial links like "to be in the same continent", "to have a lot of horses"!! (Egypt-Mongols), ecc. ecc. This is beyond trash, it's stupid as hell and breaks completly any immersion.
@@pisasupayani What is an 'access youtuber'? Like TH-camrs who get special access? Yeah that's not me. Civ never invites me to anything. They didn't even send me a game code for Civ 6's launch when I was the biggest creator channel for Civ 6. For Civ 7, I have received zero communication from them. Why would you think I'm an 'access youtuber'?
I think the approach could work out depending on which civs will be in the game. But some paths always will be less logical than others since they want to give players at least two options when entering the Exploration Age. From what they've shown, Playing as Egypt unlocks two options by default, while Songhai only unlocks one option (Buganda) for the Modern Age by default. It's a mystery to me why they didn't just pick another West African culture for the Modern Age (Ashanti for example) instead of Buganda. Maybe that will be an option at release, but they haven't shown anything to indicate that.
What this mechanic makes me feel is that it forces real life history into a game that rewrites history, creating a weird mix. Lets say you are Cree, game is probably going to suggest u evolve into America, but what if you never fought the british? What if british are not even part of the game you customized? It totally breaks the immersion about the universe youre making. I would have liked a system where if I conquer another civilization, or other civ has influence over me, I can evolve with some of their traits.
I am one of the people pissed off with the requirement to change my nation. It would have made better sense to have us change leaders rather than change cultures. Civ 7 does not get my pre-order and this decision actually lead me to discover ARA. I will wait for a deep, deep discount before I touch Civ 7.
You make a really good call back in that in Civ 3 the leaders change costume. If they really are going to go this "leader will lead different civilizations", they better damn AT LEAST make a costume for each leader in each civilization.
The main reason I've been playing the old games is to remember these details. It gives much better context on how we got here and what's worse or better than before.
For some reason the new civ games invest _so much_ development effort in their leaders. The big 3D models, fully costumed, fully animated, fully voice-acted, etc. I guess they think they are like the mascots of the franchise or whatever, I couldn't care any less. We could have.. say 9 leaders for each civ if they were just a box of text with a few stats assigned and _maybe_ a portrait. Then as you go from age to age, you also pick one of three leaders, each from their own field in science, culture, military, or economy and maybe a "sub-civ" appropiate to each era to rebrand your civ through their rulership duration. Age of Mythology-style.
To me changing Civs in a Civ game is the antithesis of what Civ is about, so yes, I do call that a fundamentally bad idea irrespective of execution. If I had one line to really boil the core of Civ into, it'd be "a civilization to stand the test of time". Well. Now it's ... "three civilizations to stand some tests of some times". Further, the restrictions to eras and the mechanic that constantly basically is there to track everything you do ... urgh, it's such a typical development for modern games. Gotta take the player by the hand, everything you do must be some sort of progress (bar goes up, good boy!), you cannot anymore just say "here's a settler and a warrior, now go survive for 7000 years", no. And irrespective of that it's also a feature that can very quickly become very "meta" (do this thing in that crisis or you got a huge disadvantage) and also very repetitive (eveeeery game going through the same motions at the same time). That it also feels kinda middle-of-the-road for leaders where they don't go so far as to make interesting visuals but then make them generic to everyone and with all that stuff also doesn't hit the spot for me. For me these ideas should have been explored in something like "Call to Power 2". Keep Civ as Civ. But okay. The newer Civs were all more miss than hit for me; I guess I'll stick with 2/3/4.
What happened to the word "fun" for Civ games... Throne Rooms, Wonder Movies, Animated Advisors, Hall of Fame Titles, Animated Workers, etc.. That help lead to immersion. Just immediately flopping down a district is suppose to be fun ? Today it's all about the Graphic Style and Complex civ structures. 😒
@@GamerZakh Yep... appears so.. hehe Oh and I know Civ 7 is compared to Humankind but with Ara History Untold coming out next month that will be it's rival..
Egypt into mongols or songhai is very absurd. It looks like they have a pool of civilizations, they divided them by era and they want to make connections. They can not trace each antiquity civilization historical development and they need to make matches and the result is this absurdity. If you have no escape from absurd transition of a civilization from era to era why not give the player more choices. Let me choose from the entire pool of next era's civilizations and make each one with certain conditions to unlock. So by the end of an era my gameplay could provide me a variety of choices or i can even plan my next civ.
We know that at least some civs can be unlocked by gameplay (the Mongols is the example we know about). We don't know if it's the case with all civs, but I don't hope so. Or at least I hope the conditions aren't easy to meet, otherwise the AI players might pick the more far-fetched options too often.
As civ 7 has changing civ feature, civ transition should be sticked with historical path only like Egypt -> Fatimid/Ayubbid/Mamluk - Modern Egypt Maurya -> Gupta -> India Shang/Zhou/Qin/Han -> Tang/Song/Ming-> Qing/Modern day China Ancient Germanic nation in modern day germany like Cherusci, Suebi or Saxons -> HRE -> Prussia/Austria However, i still prefer the gameplay that playing only one civ until the end game like previous civ games
Egypt -> Abbasids -> Ottomans would make more sense then what they have for a Middle East/North African civ chain. I'm not opposed to the new system, but if they are claiming that its the "historical" choice it doesn't look good. It also makes it look like African cultures are simply interchangeable if they are lumping widely different civilizations from different areas together. Something that would make more sense for Africa would be Ghana/Wagadu-> Songhai ->Nigeria as a West African civ chain.
"There is always a natural more historical accurate option" No, not really. Egypt did NOT evolve into Songhai and Buganda. Those are different people with different cultures. If this is an example of natural succession, I am not optimistic that the rest is much better. I like a lot of the changes, or I am a least curious how they play out - but I really hate this Civ swapping. I wouldn't mind it so much if there was an actual "historical option", but the examples we have seen are already an epic fail in my eyes.
It's 'more' natural, as in more natural than going from Egypt to Poland. Like I suggest in the video, there is an even more actually natural way to do it with Egypt in all 3 ages, but I don't think they'll do that as they would want to focus on more new and different civs rather than developing 3 Egypts.
@@GamerZakh Nonsense, Ancient Egypt has about as much in common with Songhai as with Poland. North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa should not be confused. If Egypt evolved to Greece, Rome or Arabia it would still be dumb, but less dumb than what they showcased.
@@GamerZakh i hear you, I think the whole idea of changing civs like this is bonkers. It didn't work for Humankind and won't work for Civ7. Perhaps if it was implemented differently, such as you can take over aspects from neighboring civs if they are culturally more advanced or you can adapt conquered civilizations, etc. This way it's just half baked.
@audiblesharpness Agreed. Should be a case of a civ adopting cultural aspects, like gaining a steppe nomad perk if you have horses nearby (instead of morphing into the mongols), or else there is no point playing a civ when it's going to change so drastically.
Looking it up a bit, western history is often split to just 3 with middle ages being the middle one. So I'd expect exploration is most likely the middle ages but according to historians 'modern' begins around 1500. It depends when Civ 7 decides what 'modern' is then, it could be renaissance, industrial revolution, or WW1 as the start for that.
Actually, looking at how Eras work in Civ5 and Civ6, the 3 Age structure works fine. Antiquity Age covers Ancient and Classical Eras, Exploration Age covers Medieval and Renaissance Eras and Modern Age covers the Industrial and Atomic Eras....and maybe even the Information Era.
@@tyalikankyIndustrial and modern are both 'modern' in the context of civ games. It would mean the 'agricultural' age would span from 4000bc all the way through the renaissance. And having economic systems as ages is also weird, if it was the capitalistic age it wouldn't make sense if you went communism or autocratic systems.
Just a thought, would it be better if the leader changed between eras instead of the Civ, or some combination of all 3 (Including abstain) but leave the choice to the player? What if they had some type of dynasty system where you can marry other civ or city state leaders you're at peace with to adopt one of their passives in the next era? Historically and from a gameplay sense, both should be able to work. You could go from France -> New France/Canada, or English -> American/South Africa, but also France + Germany, Germany + Russia, Japan + America etc. What do you think? Personally I always wished there was some type of colonization feature where you could found states and they could become semi or fully independent, just for realism. But from a gameplay perspective I can't imagine that being fun especially if you pour resources into some new continent building wonders or something and they just become independent and you lose control over it. My hope is one day that could be achieved, but how could you make that fun or interesting? Think of historical Rome for example, if there was a gameplay feature that shattered your early-game empire into like 100 different states and countries, a player probably wouldn't find that fun outside of some challenge scenario, even though it'd be historically accurate and interesting.
Firaxis until 2024: "Build a civilization that will stand the test of time." Firaxis after 2024:"Build a civilization that will stand the test of age."
@@GamerZakh Yes, this is actually what I meant - as far as I understood: I can't start game as civilization Egypt and end game as civilization Egypt (Except the case I lose the game at the end of first age :D). Yes, we still haven't seen it all - maybe Firaxis will adress this by adding at least some historical options though ages such as Ancient Egypt -> Osman Empire -> Arab Republic of Egypt. I believe in Firaxis because they are were ALWAYS GOOD at polishing ideas. But for now, civilization progress through ages is a lingering question
There absolutely needs to be a way to carry on your older Civs into more modern Eras because so much of the fun of a Civ game is "What if the Aztecs were still around?" The Ages Mechanic also gives some really cool conceptual ideas. What if we got Future Tech expanded to its own age. You could even tie it to victory conditions of the Modern Age so that whatever victory you go for will influence what kind of Future Age you get. For example, Science Victory could essentially give us a Beyond Earth/Alpha Centauri game. If Firaxis doesn't give us this, then I am sure the modding community will.
For my money, Independent Factions are the thing I am most looking forward to. Barbarian Clans was my favourite Civ6 DLC, and Independent Factions sounds like they've taken that DLC concept out to its most logical conclusion.
@@GamerZakh there are mods for the always excellent Civ 4 which do exactly that. Realism Invictus comes to mind, can't remember if Caveman 2 Cosmos does it as well. But for me, after seeing Civ VII's reveal... I opt for ARA all the way 😅
I for one am hoping for a revamped diplomatic system, especially with alliances...wouldn't it be cool to form real blocs (especially in modern ages) and have these delved into more with several nations armies defending common territory / even collective nuclear deterrence? Maybe re-work the Suzerainty mechanics too
Very nice explanation and appraisal. Much appreciated ✅ Yes, we’ll have to play it to see how well it all works. I’m looking forward to playing this game and seeing hire it works. I like this company and think they’ll pull it off … I have confidence in Sid and his team!
Thanks! Yeah as usual there have been a lot of kneejerk reactions to these reveals. People taking a tiny note the devs said and drawing massive conclusions based on almost nothing. It happened a lot with Civ 6 too.
Ancient age - we explore and colonise maine continent flat world and wayte for crisis and defense from crisis. Age 2 we get access all continents, round world, so we explore again but new settlement became colonies of vassal states. Crisis come, colonies declared independence. Final age colonies gone and we play modern world. If this is plan for CIV7 I think that would be awesome.
I think there was an official mod for Civ4 regarding fall of Rome, which also had debuffs that you had to choose (I think there it was tied to technological "progress"). It seems that they are really going back to Civ4 ideas and I cannot complain about that!
The fall of Rome is definitely an inspiration here. They said the crises are meant to be narrative and the one example they gave was like Rome getting too big and things collapsing.
@@3dmaster205 Hear me out. How about we wait and see for more gameplay footage to emerge and importantly footage set further into eras. Then a clearer picture will emerge about the quality of this new feature.
They're trying to guide you through a more historical evolution throughout the game. I'm actually really excited for most of the new changes (I am in the "don't like the leader faceoff, would rather them face you" camp, but it's a very minor thing for me). Simplify the tedious/micro managing so you can focus on the game itself. I very optimistic that this could be a monumental game changer, pun intended, and I can't wait to see the full gameplay to make any actual judgements. 👍
a story based civ game is exactly what I've been wanting. but more so a dynamic and emergent gameplay style story telling. exactly like how they are doing, changing civilisations based on strict criteria
I really think they should put in the work to add versions of the ancient civs into the exploration and modern eras. That way you can start every era as that civ, and you can stay that civ over a whole game but retain relevent bonuses. They could even make it so that this is only an option for civs that actually lasted into those real time periods. Like, Egypt and China are still around, so you should be able to play them in all eras, but if you start the game as Sumeria you will be forced to change (with a logical option) in the later eras.
personallyt I just wish there is a way to stay in one age throughout the entire game. I like to play custom scenarios and i want my entire playthrough in the exploration age but oh well.
A lot of people here just want the same game again in new packaging. Well I for one don’t want that and am happy to see a major evolution of the series. I’m 100% there for them pushing the boundaries and I’ll wait till I play it to judge how well it’s all implemented. So quick to judge something that’s not even out yet is pretty closed minded after all. Imo anyway.
Honestly, I'm taking a wait and see approach. I don't really hate the idea of changing civs as much as others, but I'm also lukewarm to the idea. Plus the first civ I actually bought on release - civ 6 - was the first experience I had with the style of releasing an incomplete civ game requiring 2 expansions to get good. I started with civ 5, and when I got that, I had the complete game available for purchase, with all expansions as I'm fairly late to the civ party, as it were. So for my first game, I didn't have the "need expansions to get good" experience the older civ games apparently had and the experience I got with 6 kind of soured my experience with it, even though I did end up liking civ 6 quite a lot. I'm fine with waiting years down the road to get the whole thing. We've waited more than half a decade for 7, why not a few more years?
What I just realized is that if Firaxis can pull off civ switching then it creates a new dynamic in the community where we try to guess what progressions they will add in the game and which one's should they add.
I think I am all for creating my own civ, picking an early real world civ it is patterned after (like Egypt) and then another that it gets bonuses from in different ages. Same with picking a different leader regardless of origin civ... but I need to be able to call it my own civ and name it myself. It won't be Egypt if I have completely different lands I am building on, a leader from the UK, and just happen to have bonuses that early egypt enjoys. (I would kind of like to be able to name the leader then too... and wish they had different clothes in different eras).
Some of the promises of the changes I really like: Each civ is more powerful in their respective age, no unbalance from playing ancient civ against World War civs. Progressing ages with milestones in each win route rather than sprint through the tech tree. Adaptive progression of your civ's mechanics, not one set of rules for all ages. Governments look more flexible. I'm Skeptical about: How many Civs will there be with only 3 ages? Explorations seems too wide of a range from Middle Ages to Renaissance. Crisis cards, like policy cards will get optimized by good players, so I always question the variety this actually brings. I believe only the examples and wording of 'natural' progression earn you and the devs some flag in this discussion, saying 'reasonable' or 'based on your resources' progression is more understandable than implying what culture relates to which. An answer not even historians could give for all cases, and historical accuracy was never even the point. It is probably fun and interesting to shift and personalize your civs through ages, will see, they should just not say it is natural and own that.
Personally I like most changes and skeptical of others but we need to play the game form beginning to end to truly see if these changes are a net positive. I'm rather positive and excited to see how the game will turn out. Changing civ/cultures didn't work in Humankind because you had no time to actually play with the civ/culture since you could change it every 30-60 turns. Here we have only 3 wide spanning ages and we only get to change our civ 2 times. So we will have more time to play with them and because we play the same ruler we will not have the same problem like with Humankind where the avatars were soulless and was confusing who your neighbor was when they kept changing cultures. Here you will always have for example, Augustus as your neighbor. Even though he will be Rome at start and then X mid game and Y in late game. Its easier to have a relationship with a character whit personality then a muppet of an avatar with 7 changing cultures trough the game. Also, I'm excited for @GamerZakh playthrough videos on civ 7! 😄
@@Ocvirx Yeah a lot of details are still missing for the full picture. When I get a chance to play it I'll definitely do some runs. Most likely gotta wait for launch and buy it though.
A lot of people had been criticizing civ 7 for copying humankind's civilization switching mechanic. I in the other thinks that it is the one good thing about humankind worthy of being adopted. Humankind has so much abstract mechanics meant to force players on only use the same strategy and I don't like that at all
I do hope that, from a structural standpoint, they'll consider subdividing the Civics and Tech trees into eras within each age-so in the Antiquity Age you'd have the Ancient and Classical Eras, in the Exploration Age you'd have the Medieval and Renaissance Eras, and in the Modern Age you'd have the Industrial, Atomic and Information Eras. I just think the tech and civic trees look much nicer when they're subdivided that way.
So far it is divided, when looking at the tech tree it's actually under a tab for 'Antiquity techs'. Full details unclear but it seems like they are splitting techs and civics by age too. Don't know how it'll work if you move on to the next age but haven't researched something in the last ages though.
I think one thing if done right is this could fix one of the biggest problems with 4x games and that's Late Game. If they pull this off it could be one of the first games that successfully pulled off Late Game at least in the Civ franchise. Having 3 "mini Civ games" in one could do it. My only concern with the Crisis events is what kinda crisis event happens at the end of the Modem Age? Or is there one? I think removing The standard endings and end the game with a "Global Crisis Event" could be interesting. And if the world comes together and survives you win.
There's lots of concerns that changing civs will break the continuity of the game but on the plus side you'll always be playing a civ with strengths and abilities suited for that age. I'm hoping this also prevents some civs from getting an early lead and running far ahead of the pack in terms of tech and culture.
They haven't confirmed but I have to imagine city names stay the same. It'd be too confusing if city names all changed automatically. The base idea should be that 'Rome' has been 'Rome' since founding until today, even though modern Italy is not Ancient Rome.
The change of civilizations idea sounds good so long as they can ground you in something that stays the same and ancient civs be used by multiple players at once. Especially as they added more and more civs in the series, the really irritating "historians" would write dissertations in comments sections about how their people are the true inheritors of whomever. Firaxis then gives us Frankenstein's monsters of civs that make no historical sense, meanwhile Greece has three variations from antiquity.
If that were the case, it'd be very weird that they're showing off Napoleon and Benjamin Franklin. What it means is you can pick those leaders for antiquity, and the 'more natural' historical choice is meant to be the predecessor civ of their historical country. Not confirmed, but one example could be you pick Napoleon and in the Antiquity age you are meant to start as the Gauls.
The Civ series has always been a 4X board game with bonuses, and those bonuses have had a historical theming. Civ has never been a "historical strategy game" in any meaningful sense of the word, as the core gameplay is independent of the theming, as can be seen by Alpha Centauri which is the same core game with bonuses presented in a new style. If the Egyptians "become" the Mongols you can just view it as your current culturing embracing horse based combat. I'm sure you can create a headcanon that makes it work.
I have 2 questions. 1) If I want to play USA and therefore take the American president, does this ensure that I can also vote for USA in the last age, or can it happen that someone else takes it away? 2) If I get all the techniques of the previous age in the next age ... won't everyone stop focussing on science towards the end of the age, and instead only focus on economy, production and units? The missing sciences will soon be given away.
Those are very good questions! Thank you for pointing those out. I don't think they've confirmed for either, but I have to assume even if you go to the next age you still have to research the last age techs you haven't gotten. That's how it worked in previous Civ games, even though you go to the next era you don't get the last era techs for free.
from Ancient Egypt (Afro-Asiatic language) to Songhai (Songhay language, possibly Nilo-Saharan) to Buganda (Bantu language, Niger-Congo). Makes sense to me! (s/) I bet we can transition from Maurya to a Southeast Asian one like the Khmer. I guess it makes more sense that Egypt to Songhai to Buganda.
I really hope they make a clear path for civ swtiching that makes historical sense, like gaul to franks to the republic of france and make the next era civ benefit from earlier being another civ for example italy could benefit from romes unique buildings in a way other civs would not
I would prefer more historical options like that too, Gaul to Franks to France makes perfect sense but with the limitation on how many civs they can make for the game, it's not likely they can make '3 Frances'. It'd be great if they did, but I'm not expecting it.
People like to play the same game over and over again. Look at League of Legends, Call of Duty, etc. I thank Firaxis for their innovation in games like the XCOM series and the Civilization series. Even Nintendo often comes up with new ideas. I think new formulas, gives us new experiences and inspiration for new games and even new genres.
The idea is to adapt, but in practice from what I've seen, it's more of a switch. You don't have your unique unit modified and updated for a new age, you get a new unique unit from your new civ in the new age. At the moment, that doesn't feel like adapting to me.
Aww i was hoping George Washington could return. I kinda miss him. The last time I saw him in Civ games is in Civilization 5 and I always play as him (well next to Augustus Caesar and Napoleon).
Don't hate the idea of Civs changing. On the contrary I love it. But I think it should happen within reason. And I think this is a missed opportunity for "micro Civs", which is a certain civ/culture being able to change and evolve over time. But within its cultural sphere of influence. Like Egypt can become other northern African and middle eastern Civs it influenced. But can not become the Mongols. If You focus on horses as Egypt a natural progression should be to become the Mamluk sultanate in the next age. Huns on the other hand can become either Seljuks or Mongols in the next age. Seljuks can become Ottomans but the Mongols can not. Mongols can become Manchurians, and Manchuria can become China. But if a China already exists that route on the "civ tree" is locked unless China is wiped out from the map or conquered by the Mongols. Another simpler solution to keep Civs relevant but still believable in every age would simply be to give each Civ unique units, tech and abilites in every age. But I like the idea of changing Civ/nation, but is sceptical of the current build.
What? Why would you think my honour is tied to Ara's quality or success? All I've done for Ara is host a Q&A show, why would you think I'm all in on Ara?
@@heisenheisen9483 What are you even talking about? Are you trying to accuse me of something? I criticise so much stuff but you seem to be in some kind of delusion where you're trying to 'gotcha' me for something.
Lincoln leads Native American tribes, Philips leads Inca, Japan finally wins WW2 in a virtual world and leads China and Korea? What hell jokes are these😮
I'm sort of double checking my own notes there haha. Despite what some people are accusing me of, I haven't actually been invited to play the game early, so it's all research from what I can find.
This ages and civ swapping mechanic makes me cautiously optimistic because it was a really jarring experience in Humankind. However, Civ needs to evolve, and if they do this correctly and in a fun way, I see playing this game for hours with enjoyment. The one concern I have right now is how many leaders and civs do we get in the base game. The structure of decoupling leaders to their civ opens up big room and opportunity for more DLC which means we have to shell out more just to get extra leaders and civs than before.
With the split, they're going to have to release a lot more starting civs. You can't just launch with 12 and have just 4 each age. If they did that it'll be really limited and people would complain a lot.
I am really skeptical about these changes. History is all about chronology. The concept of ages is very artificial and only makes sense in the real history that we know about. If you're making an alternate history, this should be fluid. The thing I always loved about Civ, is that it teaches the mechanics of history and the cause and effect that brings the story about. Since Civ4 I feel like we've been getting away from that.
It should have started with 4 ages/era Ancient Era Classical Era Renaissance Era Modern Era Like in Civilization 2. The rest (Medieval, Industrial, Atomic, Information, Future) will be in DLC.
They only made three eras because having to change your civ too many times was the problem other games had for this kind of mechanic. One era is going to last 150-200 turns, according to youtubers that played a demo.
@@markos50100 Just to note (I haven't played Civ 7 myself), the number of turns is also probably going to be linked to game speed. 150-200 turns per era could be Epic game speed or Normal. Or in the cases of some preview demos, they set a specific number of turns just so you don't go too far. I heard they had 3 hours to play? So the devs could set it to 150-200 turns so that in 3 hours they don't get a chance to go to the next age or something.
@GamerZakh according to some, they expect around 150~200 turns on normal speed if everyone plays fast and hard towards the legacies. So yeah, gamespeed will definitely affect total turns.
CIV really needs to revoluationize, my biggest gripe is how fast things went, and how fast and easy it was to go through the eras. Even on harder difficulties, it was too easy to spam science, and get so far ahead in tech you were fighting muskets vs tanks. With things being split up into ages more, slowing it down, etc. I'm optimistic with these changes.
First video I have seen on this, I am kinda worried. Changing Civs ala Humankind is not what I would have wanted from Civ 7. A lot of other concepts shown in this video reminded me of Humankind too. I found Humankind to be really boring so getting that impression from the details I've heard about is worrying to say the least.
Well, I hope for us that there will be more ages in expansion packs. Following the antiquity age should be the classical age, the medieval age, THEN exploration, followed by the industrial age, then modern, but also followed by atomic, then information, and finally future. That’s what Civ 6 had, it seems like a gyp that we’d get a downgrade.
It's because frequently changing civs is what made things confusing. Every age will now need a whole new set of civilizations. And that set would have to be balanced with all the civs that came before. Fewer ages isn't necessarily a downgrade, ages in Civ 6 didn't really matter too much did they? But besides what's good or bad, main thing is don't expect them to add more ages. The whole of Civ 7 is built around this 3 age system.
@@GamerZakh I figured the more depth the better… and maybe the change would come with certain ages whereas you could stay as Rome in the antiquity and classical age but need to transition during the medieval age. And it could vary to many others based on historical context.
@@CPT85 The thing about depth is it tends to be less broad. Fewer but deeper ages is depth. More shallow ages is the opposite of depth. That is IF they actually make the ages feel deep. I haven't been able to play the game, so I don't have personal experience.
i always hated games that rushed through the ages.u never got time to enjoy it. its like you just started unlocKing techs and starting to enjoy them then bye new era
It's not the problem of ages per se but the tech cost which is too low. CIV 6 tech cost was so ridiculous low that you would jump the ages very fast. That is why when I do play civ 6 I play with longer ages mod.
@@Stonehengoo I've never had a full British accent, but good thing with running a TH-cam channel is you can just check. Go to my videos and sort to oldest and check my first ever video.
I for one dont see the appeal here, good graphics sure, but not sure how this system would be more fun/enjoyable than civ 5. I think 3 ages in a game such as civ is silly, and changing civ when you age up ?? O.o Sadly dont see myself buying or playing this
People say they don't see the appeal of Civ 6 but then Civ 6 sold 50% more than Civ 5 and has way more players. Every negative comment I'm seeing about Civ 7, I can literally search back and find the same comment about Civ 6, but Civ 6 became the most successful Civ game ever. With each game they're hitting bigger and bigger audiences, which also means the more niche audiences tend to get left behind.
@@melak01 That's exactly what they said about Civ 6, but by the end people were saying "Civ 6 is too complicated", "Civ 6 is too complex", "Civ 6 is too confusing!". I can go back to my Civ 6 videos from 2016, SO many people saying it's 'simple', 'less depth', 'baby game for babies'. But in the end it's 'too complicated'. It's crazy how much the reaction to Civ 7 is exactly the same as Civ 6.
@GamerZakh I also bought civ 6 barely play this game because of lackluster late game and shitty world congress mechanics. Saying that Civ 6 was a big success only by the meaning of how many copies have been sold is just funny. There are many people that bought it and disliked the direction which was chosen. On steam Civ 5 96% reviews positive, Civ 6 manages only 86%.
This is amazing, a civ game that plays different compared to other civ games, but still relies on the same concepts of this particular genre of a game, maybe that is good, that is what it is trying to do , but Im not sure if it will be as good enougth as older civ games back then when I was feelling funny about it.
So, sadly, this game has so many changes I don't like. I hoped there would be no more districts, but there are even more (this is one of the main things I didn't like in Civ 6). Next, is the changing civ in different eras. For me, the point of Civ games is to bring YOUR civilization from the ancient age to the last age and survive, not different Civs With the same leader. To change your leader while you are within the same civilization is logically more reasonable than Caesar ruling the US. It looks like, for me, unfortunately, Civ 6 will be the last Civ game I purchased. And I don't like Civ 6 mainly because of district mechanics (and some other small stuff). I'm ok with Civ 6 visual style. I found the style "issue" after I already deleted the game. Unfortunately, I can't get a refund because I played for around 20 hours (I hoped it would get better in time, but it didn't). It's all my own opinion and maybe someone else will like these changes. Ps. If it wasn't named a "Civilisation" game but a "Leaders" (or something else) it would be fine, But they are trying to make a different game while sticking to "Civilization".
@@bushmonster1702 I too like the complexity of games (when it is not just complexity for more complexity), but starting from Civ 6 the series is going further and further from the original concept. Civ 7 does not look like a Civ game anymore. For example, Humankind was called a "Civilizationlike" game, and now Civilization 7 will be called "Humankindlike" game. Every new "Civilization" game (starting from 6) is less "Civilization" than the previous one. Some will like it, some will not.
Maps look too busy, too many things on close hexes. Ages sounds ok if they are historically correct - makes sense. Rome evolves into Venice trading state, evolves into Italy ? maybe ? Not exactly correct but feasible. Starting factions may go extinct and new ones appear, how does that work ? I'm still addicted to CIV 5 and it's modding, but I'm a dinosaur so ignore me. :D
Yeah right now I'm struggling to parse cities in particular. It looks like everything is depicted, but there's so much detail I don't think I could really tell what a city is at a glance. My assumption is they will make important gameplay things disproportionately bigger, so city walls need to be big and fat if they have a strong impact on attacking a city. Also rivers need to not be hidden by city sprawl. Things like that.
Having one leader all all throughout history seems like a mistake (given changing civilizations). Changing leaders connected to era and/or civilization would be more interesting. I do hope they will change it or there will be mods for it. At least their clothes would change.
Just for a loose reference, it was said for Civ 6 that each new civ and leader cost a quarter of a million dollars to make, when put everything together. That tends to give perspective on why they make some decisions when adding civs.
@@GamerZakh That does make sense. However, this iteration of Civ seems a little desperate. It's like they entered into the development pretty late, maybe they were pressured from the publisher, and then just decided to take a shortcut by literally copying concepts from other games. They have invested into Civ 6 for a long time, so, for me, Civ 7 is even early. I was expecting some really groundbreaking concepts. Navigable rivers? Not gonna cut it for me. How about a civ that can have camel units ONLY IF you actually have camels as a majority of your "riding resources"? Or, you can only build Petra if ALL of your cities are desert cities? OR you can build a manufactory if you have a large cotton trading network? So basically, the terrain in which you start defines your choices, you pick a civ, get some basic bonuses, which may also be powerful, and then get unique buildings or units based on your surrounding and research, which is actually historically accurate. If you want navigation, and you don't have a coastal city, you can't have it UNLESS you either capture a coastal city, found it, steal the technology or capture a deep sea vessel, for example. The possibilitiess would be really endless if a map is done right. So I thought of this in like 5 minutes, for me Firaxis has no excuse. Cheers Zakh, enjoying your videos!
@@RemusKingOfRome Nobody told them to make such "detailed" animations with avatars interacting with each other. While CIV4 is not my favourite I do like their approach with leaders portraits and wish that was the style they would use everywhere forward. Sadly CIV5 kinda ruined and bloated it with detailed leader animations.
@@GamerZakh Myself I wouldn't mind them cheapening out on leaders. Then again I am a special case who prefers to play in strategic mode in CIV5 and CIV6, no animations and details for me :P
Since people are accusing me, NO I have not played Civ 7 early. I was not contacted by anyone or invited to anything early. If I was I'd have to disclose that. Now, this is probably the biggest change in Civ 7 and everyone is kind of surprised, let me break it down a bit and see what you think after. If you want to support the channel, buy games (Civs?) using this GOG referral link: af.gog.com/?as=1715648857 Thank you!
Boo to Octavian wearing a metal breastplate and tunic in 2024 while taking over Las Vegas.......... he'll learn about the dry heat quickly I think. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
hey Zakh what about ARA coming out on next month?
@@icoborg I'll check it out when I can actually play it. I've hosted some Q&As on their channel which goes over the mechanics of that game.
@@GamerZakh people need to CHILL :P Love your vids man
Is it posaible to play just ine era, it was possible in Civ VI in some mode.
Civilisation always made it so that I could play with any nation from the invention of writing to the development of space travel. The leaders were much more arbitrary than the nations. From one Civ to the next, it was important that the Romans were playable, whether under Caesar or Augustus.
For more immersion and gameplay, it would be better to always play the same nation, even if the characteristics changed from era to era. There would be no difference in terms of game mechanics.
Instead, you have one leader across all ages. So while some nations are prevented from playing in all ages, this does not apply to the leaders. However, their style and clothing do not change. This also does not contribute to the feel of the game.
However, it gets really weird when Firaxis translates the game mechanics as follows. The ancient Egyptians are not trusted to reach modernity, only antiquity. However, they can only reach antiquity with an American leader like Benjamin Franklin. Personally, I think the idea that any nation can pass the Test of Time is very much lost here.
Egypt into Songhai makes as much sense as China into Turkey. Sharing a continent is not enough of a common trait to evolve into. At this moment, it is half-baked at most, and I am not particularly confident about at launch status of the game seeing this.
Its worse. Egypt to Songhai is equal to Egypt to Mongol.
Also this seems like a civilization devolution with not one bit of social complexity being higher. Game forces to make things less developed just because it’s more ancient.
I think the problem is that Civ7 doesn't add things Civ players have been wanting for a while (throne room, palace, etc), and instead adds a ton of things that Civ players have NEVER asked for, from other games that definitely ARE NOT Civ. I watch this video and see very little about what I liked about Civ2/4/6. it seems like I'm watching a completely different game from a completely different series.
There is no direct link between Egypt and Songhai, either politically or culturally. The idea would be fine, if Firaxis included enough directly-related civs to accomplish it, but forcing me to play a different civ and telling me it's the same culture is no different than pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining.
It would have made much more sense to change LEADERS (still of the same civ) twice a game instead of changing Civs. But, again, Firaxis would have needed to include at least 60-70 leaders from the start to make it fun and interesting, and we all know they aren't doing that because it would limit their expansion pack cash-cow.
What's interesting is that in the footage firaxis has released the Abbasid Caliphate was a possible option for Egypt to switch to, which is an extremely natural progression and more so than Songhai. I think that Firaxis is kind of messing up the messaging here because when people think about switching civ's, they have the humankind approach of switching to whoever you want with no reason but it seems like sensible progressions exist. By having sensible progression it will in effect feel like your playing one civilization but with that civilization evolving throughout time.
I think the biggest problem with the reveal is they didn't reveal enough specific examples. Basically they've only confirmed 1 full path for civ changes which is Egypt to Songhai to Buganda. Besides that it's pretty much all guessing, so people are guessing in all directions.
They were pretty clear instead.
"Prepare yourself to guide modern England as Augustus", they've said something of that, that is of course a complet nonsense, like passing from Egypt to Shongai - no ethnical, cultural, religious, or militaristic link between the two civs, nothing. Only a thing in common: to be either in Africa, like ancient Rome and modern England are in Europe.
Do you really think that there will be a sufficient number of civs to make historical plausibile the switch between all the civs? No way, only extremly superficial links like "to be in the same continent", "to have a lot of horses"!! (Egypt-Mongols), ecc. ecc.
This is beyond trash, it's stupid as hell and breaks completly any immersion.
@@pisasupayani What is an 'access youtuber'? Like TH-camrs who get special access? Yeah that's not me. Civ never invites me to anything. They didn't even send me a game code for Civ 6's launch when I was the biggest creator channel for Civ 6. For Civ 7, I have received zero communication from them. Why would you think I'm an 'access youtuber'?
I think the approach could work out depending on which civs will be in the game. But some paths always will be less logical than others since they want to give players at least two options when entering the Exploration Age. From what they've shown, Playing as Egypt unlocks two options by default, while Songhai only unlocks one option (Buganda) for the Modern Age by default.
It's a mystery to me why they didn't just pick another West African culture for the Modern Age (Ashanti for example) instead of Buganda. Maybe that will be an option at release, but they haven't shown anything to indicate that.
@@pisasupayaniWhy are you lying about that? I haven't gotten to play the game. Civ doesn't invite me for things, I have not touched Civ 7.
What this mechanic makes me feel is that it forces real life history into a game that rewrites history, creating a weird mix. Lets say you are Cree, game is probably going to suggest u evolve into America, but what if you never fought the british? What if british are not even part of the game you customized? It totally breaks the immersion about the universe youre making. I would have liked a system where if I conquer another civilization, or other civ has influence over me, I can evolve with some of their traits.
I am one of the people pissed off with the requirement to change my nation. It would have made better sense to have us change leaders rather than change cultures. Civ 7 does not get my pre-order and this decision actually lead me to discover ARA. I will wait for a deep, deep discount before I touch Civ 7.
You make a really good call back in that in Civ 3 the leaders change costume. If they really are going to go this "leader will lead different civilizations", they better damn AT LEAST make a costume for each leader in each civilization.
The main reason I've been playing the old games is to remember these details. It gives much better context on how we got here and what's worse or better than before.
@@GamerZakh Just like humankind, I want to play as gamerzakh and see him wear different clothes. Civ devs, get on it.
And they'll sell DLC outfits
For some reason the new civ games invest _so much_ development effort in their leaders. The big 3D models, fully costumed, fully animated, fully voice-acted, etc.
I guess they think they are like the mascots of the franchise or whatever, I couldn't care any less. We could have.. say 9 leaders for each civ if they were just a box of text with a few stats assigned and _maybe_ a portrait. Then as you go from age to age, you also pick one of three leaders, each from their own field in science, culture, military, or economy and maybe a "sub-civ" appropiate to each era to rebrand your civ through their rulership duration. Age of Mythology-style.
To me changing Civs in a Civ game is the antithesis of what Civ is about, so yes, I do call that a fundamentally bad idea irrespective of execution. If I had one line to really boil the core of Civ into, it'd be "a civilization to stand the test of time". Well. Now it's ... "three civilizations to stand some tests of some times".
Further, the restrictions to eras and the mechanic that constantly basically is there to track everything you do ... urgh, it's such a typical development for modern games. Gotta take the player by the hand, everything you do must be some sort of progress (bar goes up, good boy!), you cannot anymore just say "here's a settler and a warrior, now go survive for 7000 years", no.
And irrespective of that it's also a feature that can very quickly become very "meta" (do this thing in that crisis or you got a huge disadvantage) and also very repetitive (eveeeery game going through the same motions at the same time).
That it also feels kinda middle-of-the-road for leaders where they don't go so far as to make interesting visuals but then make them generic to everyone and with all that stuff also doesn't hit the spot for me.
For me these ideas should have been explored in something like "Call to Power 2". Keep Civ as Civ. But okay. The newer Civs were all more miss than hit for me; I guess I'll stick with 2/3/4.
What happened to the word "fun" for Civ games... Throne Rooms, Wonder Movies, Animated Advisors, Hall of Fame Titles, Animated Workers, etc.. That help lead to immersion. Just immediately flopping down a district is suppose to be fun ? Today it's all about the Graphic Style and Complex civ structures. 😒
You can see from the comments on this video, a lot of the Civ community aren't looking for 'fun' anymore haha
@@GamerZakh Yep... appears so.. hehe Oh and I know Civ 7 is compared to Humankind but with Ara History Untold coming out next month that will be it's rival..
Egypt into mongols or songhai is very absurd. It looks like they have a pool of civilizations, they divided them by era and they want to make connections. They can not trace each antiquity civilization historical development and they need to make matches and the result is this absurdity. If you have no escape from absurd transition of a civilization from era to era why not give the player more choices. Let me choose from the entire pool of next era's civilizations and make each one with certain conditions to unlock. So by the end of an era my gameplay could provide me a variety of choices or i can even plan my next civ.
We know that at least some civs can be unlocked by gameplay (the Mongols is the example we know about). We don't know if it's the case with all civs, but I don't hope so. Or at least I hope the conditions aren't easy to meet, otherwise the AI players might pick the more far-fetched options too often.
As civ 7 has changing civ feature, civ transition should be sticked with historical path only like
Egypt -> Fatimid/Ayubbid/Mamluk - Modern Egypt
Maurya -> Gupta -> India
Shang/Zhou/Qin/Han -> Tang/Song/Ming-> Qing/Modern day China
Ancient Germanic nation in modern day germany like Cherusci, Suebi or Saxons -> HRE -> Prussia/Austria
However, i still prefer the gameplay that playing only one civ until the end game like previous civ games
Egypt -> Abbasids -> Ottomans would make more sense then what they have for a Middle East/North African civ chain. I'm not opposed to the new system, but if they are claiming that its the "historical" choice it doesn't look good. It also makes it look like African cultures are simply interchangeable if they are lumping widely different civilizations from different areas together. Something that would make more sense for Africa would be Ghana/Wagadu-> Songhai ->Nigeria as a West African civ chain.
"There is always a natural more historical accurate option"
No, not really. Egypt did NOT evolve into Songhai and Buganda. Those are different people with different cultures. If this is an example of natural succession, I am not optimistic that the rest is much better. I like a lot of the changes, or I am a least curious how they play out - but I really hate this Civ swapping. I wouldn't mind it so much if there was an actual "historical option", but the examples we have seen are already an epic fail in my eyes.
It's 'more' natural, as in more natural than going from Egypt to Poland. Like I suggest in the video, there is an even more actually natural way to do it with Egypt in all 3 ages, but I don't think they'll do that as they would want to focus on more new and different civs rather than developing 3 Egypts.
@@GamerZakh Nonsense, Ancient Egypt has about as much in common with Songhai as with Poland. North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa should not be confused. If Egypt evolved to Greece, Rome or Arabia it would still be dumb, but less dumb than what they showcased.
@@audiblesharpnessI didn't say Egypt to Songhai makes perfect sense, but saying Egypt to Songhai is as crazy as Egypt to Poland is weird to me.
@@GamerZakh i hear you, I think the whole idea of changing civs like this is bonkers. It didn't work for Humankind and won't work for Civ7. Perhaps if it was implemented differently, such as you can take over aspects from neighboring civs if they are culturally more advanced or you can adapt conquered civilizations, etc. This way it's just half baked.
@audiblesharpness
Agreed. Should be a case of a civ adopting cultural aspects, like gaining a steppe nomad perk if you have horses nearby (instead of morphing into the mongols),
or else there is no point playing a civ when it's going to change so drastically.
There should have been 4 ages. It feels weird if they're gonna lump up middle ages to either antiquity or exploration.
Probably they wanted to split it into an expansion
Looking it up a bit, western history is often split to just 3 with middle ages being the middle one. So I'd expect exploration is most likely the middle ages but according to historians 'modern' begins around 1500. It depends when Civ 7 decides what 'modern' is then, it could be renaissance, industrial revolution, or WW1 as the start for that.
Actually, looking at how Eras work in Civ5 and Civ6, the 3 Age structure works fine. Antiquity Age covers Ancient and Classical Eras, Exploration Age covers Medieval and Renaissance Eras and Modern Age covers the Industrial and Atomic Eras....and maybe even the Information Era.
@@GamerZakh I'd make agricultural, industrial and modern instead. Or slavery, feudal and capitalistic.
@@tyalikankyIndustrial and modern are both 'modern' in the context of civ games. It would mean the 'agricultural' age would span from 4000bc all the way through the renaissance. And having economic systems as ages is also weird, if it was the capitalistic age it wouldn't make sense if you went communism or autocratic systems.
This video made me feel a bit better about the Civ switching. Looking forward to seeing how it plays out.
Just a thought, would it be better if the leader changed between eras instead of the Civ, or some combination of all 3 (Including abstain) but leave the choice to the player? What if they had some type of dynasty system where you can marry other civ or city state leaders you're at peace with to adopt one of their passives in the next era? Historically and from a gameplay sense, both should be able to work. You could go from France -> New France/Canada, or English -> American/South Africa, but also France + Germany, Germany + Russia, Japan + America etc.
What do you think?
Personally I always wished there was some type of colonization feature where you could found states and they could become semi or fully independent, just for realism. But from a gameplay perspective I can't imagine that being fun especially if you pour resources into some new continent building wonders or something and they just become independent and you lose control over it. My hope is one day that could be achieved, but how could you make that fun or interesting?
Think of historical Rome for example, if there was a gameplay feature that shattered your early-game empire into like 100 different states and countries, a player probably wouldn't find that fun outside of some challenge scenario, even though it'd be historically accurate and interesting.
Firaxis until 2024: "Build a civilization that will stand the test of time."
Firaxis after 2024:"Build a civilization that will stand the test of age."
In Civ 7 it specifically doesn't stand the test of age. At the end of the age, there's a crises that causes your civ to collapse and change.
@@GamerZakh Yes, this is actually what I meant - as far as I understood: I can't start game as civilization Egypt and end game as civilization Egypt (Except the case I lose the game at the end of first age :D). Yes, we still haven't seen it all - maybe Firaxis will adress this by adding at least some historical options though ages such as Ancient Egypt -> Osman Empire -> Arab Republic of Egypt.
I believe in Firaxis because they are were ALWAYS GOOD at polishing ideas. But for now, civilization progress through ages is a lingering question
There absolutely needs to be a way to carry on your older Civs into more modern Eras because so much of the fun of a Civ game is "What if the Aztecs were still around?"
The Ages Mechanic also gives some really cool conceptual ideas. What if we got Future Tech expanded to its own age. You could even tie it to victory conditions of the Modern Age so that whatever victory you go for will influence what kind of Future Age you get. For example, Science Victory could essentially give us a Beyond Earth/Alpha Centauri game.
If Firaxis doesn't give us this, then I am sure the modding community will.
For my money, Independent Factions are the thing I am most looking forward to. Barbarian Clans was my favourite Civ6 DLC, and Independent Factions sounds like they've taken that DLC concept out to its most logical conclusion.
That is one thing I've seen people ask for since forever. Barbarians developing into cities and even empires has been talked about for a long time.
@@GamerZakh there are mods for the always excellent Civ 4 which do exactly that. Realism Invictus comes to mind, can't remember if Caveman 2 Cosmos does it as well. But for me, after seeing Civ VII's reveal... I opt for ARA all the way 😅
Great explanation GamerZakh
Thank you!
I for one am hoping for a revamped diplomatic system, especially with alliances...wouldn't it be cool to form real blocs (especially in modern ages) and have these delved into more with several nations armies defending common territory / even collective nuclear deterrence? Maybe re-work the Suzerainty mechanics too
The more I read about the game, the more concerned I get.
It may be good or it may be bad, but just remember that exact feeling you have was also felt for Civ 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.
@@GamerZakh i know, i know ^^
Really enjoy your reviews, Zakh. Cheers!
Thanks! I'm glad you liked it.
Time to achieve Macedonia’s dream. Tatars transitioning into Bulgarians.
😅 savage
Very nice explanation and appraisal. Much appreciated ✅
Yes, we’ll have to play it to see how well it all works. I’m looking forward to playing this game and seeing hire it works. I like this company and think they’ll pull it off … I have confidence in Sid and his team!
Thanks! Yeah as usual there have been a lot of kneejerk reactions to these reveals. People taking a tiny note the devs said and drawing massive conclusions based on almost nothing. It happened a lot with Civ 6 too.
Ancient age - we explore and colonise maine continent flat world and wayte for crisis and defense from crisis. Age 2 we get access all continents, round world, so we explore again but new settlement became colonies of vassal states. Crisis come, colonies declared independence. Final age colonies gone and we play modern world. If this is plan for CIV7 I think that would be awesome.
I think there was an official mod for Civ4 regarding fall of Rome, which also had debuffs that you had to choose (I think there it was tied to technological "progress"). It seems that they are really going back to Civ4 ideas and I cannot complain about that!
The fall of Rome is definitely an inspiration here. They said the crises are meant to be narrative and the one example they gave was like Rome getting too big and things collapsing.
You are the man Zakh
Thank you!
How they implement the Era system and swapping of Civs will make or break the game.
@@pisasupayani You keep saying 'access youtuber' referring to me. How about not lying about that?
@@pisasupayani Still leaving this lie here huh?
No, the presence of it straight up breaks the game.
@@3dmaster205 Hear me out. How about we wait and see for more gameplay footage to emerge and importantly footage set further into eras.
Then a clearer picture will emerge about the quality of this new feature.
They're trying to guide you through a more historical evolution throughout the game. I'm actually really excited for most of the new changes (I am in the "don't like the leader faceoff, would rather them face you" camp, but it's a very minor thing for me). Simplify the tedious/micro managing so you can focus on the game itself. I very optimistic that this could be a monumental game changer, pun intended, and I can't wait to see the full gameplay to make any actual judgements. 👍
a story based civ game is exactly what I've been wanting. but more so a dynamic and emergent gameplay style story telling. exactly like how they are doing, changing civilisations based on strict criteria
I am excited to see how the implementation of these new mechanics will pan out. I know that at least by the second expansion we will be alright 😅
CIV7 will have less ages , then Age of empires games 😂😂🤣🤣
It’s the pacing that matters.
I really think they should put in the work to add versions of the ancient civs into the exploration and modern eras. That way you can start every era as that civ, and you can stay that civ over a whole game but retain relevent bonuses. They could even make it so that this is only an option for civs that actually lasted into those real time periods. Like, Egypt and China are still around, so you should be able to play them in all eras, but if you start the game as Sumeria you will be forced to change (with a logical option) in the later eras.
The artwork on the civ leaders is atrocious. It's almost criminal. :(
personallyt I just wish there is a way to stay in one age throughout the entire game. I like to play custom scenarios and i want my entire playthrough in the exploration age but oh well.
They could introduce ag changes and boni etc by keeping the Civ. Or they migth try ahistorical cultures, would give more freedom
Looking forward to it. Thinking about buying the collectors edition because this could be the last CIV we ever see.
😂
@@oj8976I’ll buy you one too.
@@oj8976I’ll buy you one as well.
@@oj8976I’ll buy one for you as well.
A lot of people here just want the same game again in new packaging. Well I for one don’t want that and am happy to see a major evolution of the series. I’m 100% there for them pushing the boundaries and I’ll wait till I play it to judge how well it’s all implemented.
So quick to judge something that’s not even out yet is pretty closed minded after all. Imo anyway.
Finally a take not based in hysteria, thank you!
I always do that, and then I get hate for 'hating' and 'shilling' the game at the same time haha. Glad you enjoyed it!
Honestly, I'm taking a wait and see approach. I don't really hate the idea of changing civs as much as others, but I'm also lukewarm to the idea. Plus the first civ I actually bought on release - civ 6 - was the first experience I had with the style of releasing an incomplete civ game requiring 2 expansions to get good. I started with civ 5, and when I got that, I had the complete game available for purchase, with all expansions as I'm fairly late to the civ party, as it were. So for my first game, I didn't have the "need expansions to get good" experience the older civ games apparently had and the experience I got with 6 kind of soured my experience with it, even though I did end up liking civ 6 quite a lot. I'm fine with waiting years down the road to get the whole thing. We've waited more than half a decade for 7, why not a few more years?
What I just realized is that if Firaxis can pull off civ switching then it creates a new dynamic in the community where we try to guess what progressions they will add in the game and which one's should they add.
I think I am all for creating my own civ, picking an early real world civ it is patterned after (like Egypt) and then another that it gets bonuses from in different ages. Same with picking a different leader regardless of origin civ... but I need to be able to call it my own civ and name it myself. It won't be Egypt if I have completely different lands I am building on, a leader from the UK, and just happen to have bonuses that early egypt enjoys. (I would kind of like to be able to name the leader then too... and wish they had different clothes in different eras).
Hey Zakh, can you post some video of the next heroes of might and magic Olden era game? people are hyped about it and sure I am also.
@@wulf_ace If I could make a video on everything I would haha, it's hard to keep up with so many games.
@@GamerZakh that is good, there is always something to do.
Yea not gonna lie, I'm actually somewhat excited for the new HoMM game, even if it comes with ubisoft attached.
Some of the promises of the changes I really like:
Each civ is more powerful in their respective age, no unbalance from playing ancient civ against World War civs.
Progressing ages with milestones in each win route rather than sprint through the tech tree.
Adaptive progression of your civ's mechanics, not one set of rules for all ages.
Governments look more flexible.
I'm Skeptical about:
How many Civs will there be with only 3 ages? Explorations seems too wide of a range from Middle Ages to Renaissance.
Crisis cards, like policy cards will get optimized by good players, so I always question the variety this actually brings.
I believe only the examples and wording of 'natural' progression earn you and the devs some flag in this discussion, saying 'reasonable' or 'based on your resources' progression is more understandable than implying what culture relates to which. An answer not even historians could give for all cases, and historical accuracy was never even the point.
It is probably fun and interesting to shift and personalize your civs through ages, will see, they should just not say it is natural and own that.
The game is beautiful! Final scenes got me amazed
Only the leaders don't look good
Never had a need to organize a game a bit more, to be honest. It just flows.
Now I feel like the flow would be broken up.
Personally I like most changes and skeptical of others but we need to play the game form beginning to end to truly see if these changes are a net positive. I'm rather positive and excited to see how the game will turn out.
Changing civ/cultures didn't work in Humankind because you had no time to actually play with the civ/culture since you could change it every 30-60 turns. Here we have only 3 wide spanning ages and we only get to change our civ 2 times. So we will have more time to play with them and because we play the same ruler we will not have the same problem like with Humankind where the avatars were soulless and was confusing who your neighbor was when they kept changing cultures.
Here you will always have for example, Augustus as your neighbor. Even though he will be Rome at start and then X mid game and Y in late game. Its easier to have a relationship with a character whit personality then a muppet of an avatar with 7 changing cultures trough the game.
Also, I'm excited for @GamerZakh playthrough videos on civ 7! 😄
@@Ocvirx Yeah a lot of details are still missing for the full picture. When I get a chance to play it I'll definitely do some runs. Most likely gotta wait for launch and buy it though.
A lot of people had been criticizing civ 7 for copying humankind's civilization switching mechanic. I in the other thinks that it is the one good thing about humankind worthy of being adopted.
Humankind has so much abstract mechanics meant to force players on only use the same strategy and I don't like that at all
Off topic but I was thinking March/April would be the earliest we’d see it.. I’m surprised
Yeah I was guessing March too, didn't think they'd hit the February rush.
I do hope that, from a structural standpoint, they'll consider subdividing the Civics and Tech trees into eras within each age-so in the Antiquity Age you'd have the Ancient and Classical Eras, in the Exploration Age you'd have the Medieval and Renaissance Eras, and in the Modern Age you'd have the Industrial, Atomic and Information Eras. I just think the tech and civic trees look much nicer when they're subdivided that way.
So far it is divided, when looking at the tech tree it's actually under a tab for 'Antiquity techs'. Full details unclear but it seems like they are splitting techs and civics by age too. Don't know how it'll work if you move on to the next age but haven't researched something in the last ages though.
I think one thing if done right is this could fix one of the biggest problems with 4x games and that's Late Game. If they pull this off it could be one of the first games that successfully pulled off Late Game at least in the Civ franchise. Having 3 "mini Civ games" in one could do it. My only concern with the Crisis events is what kinda crisis event happens at the end of the Modem Age? Or is there one? I think removing The standard endings and end the game with a "Global Crisis Event" could be interesting. And if the world comes together and survives you win.
So I can be Abraham Lincoln with modern outfit starting as leader of China in the age of antiquity ? thats cringe
they really need to work out the look of the leaders, that is very bad for a 2025 game.
There's lots of concerns that changing civs will break the continuity of the game but on the plus side you'll always be playing a civ with strengths and abilities suited for that age. I'm hoping this also prevents some civs from getting an early lead and running far ahead of the pack in terms of tech and culture.
What happens to city names when choosing a new civ in a new era? Will Thebes become Gao all of a sudden and other cities switch too?
They haven't confirmed but I have to imagine city names stay the same. It'd be too confusing if city names all changed automatically. The base idea should be that 'Rome' has been 'Rome' since founding until today, even though modern Italy is not Ancient Rome.
The change of civilizations idea sounds good so long as they can ground you in something that stays the same and ancient civs be used by multiple players at once. Especially as they added more and more civs in the series, the really irritating "historians" would write dissertations in comments sections about how their people are the true inheritors of whomever. Firaxis then gives us Frankenstein's monsters of civs that make no historical sense, meanwhile Greece has three variations from antiquity.
Because the first leader will stay, will this mean that you can not choose later era leaders like Bismarck for instance?
If that were the case, it'd be very weird that they're showing off Napoleon and Benjamin Franklin. What it means is you can pick those leaders for antiquity, and the 'more natural' historical choice is meant to be the predecessor civ of their historical country. Not confirmed, but one example could be you pick Napoleon and in the Antiquity age you are meant to start as the Gauls.
@@GamerZakh ahhh... good to hear 🙂
The Civ series has always been a 4X board game with bonuses, and those bonuses have had a historical theming. Civ has never been a "historical strategy game" in any meaningful sense of the word, as the core gameplay is independent of the theming, as can be seen by Alpha Centauri which is the same core game with bonuses presented in a new style. If the Egyptians "become" the Mongols you can just view it as your current culturing embracing horse based combat. I'm sure you can create a headcanon that makes it work.
But what about Genghis khan? how will you play him from antiquity?
I have 2 questions.
1) If I want to play USA and therefore take the American president, does this ensure that I can also vote for USA in the last age, or can it happen that someone else takes it away?
2) If I get all the techniques of the previous age in the next age ... won't everyone stop focussing on science towards the end of the age, and instead only focus on economy, production and units? The missing sciences will soon be given away.
Those are very good questions! Thank you for pointing those out. I don't think they've confirmed for either, but I have to assume even if you go to the next age you still have to research the last age techs you haven't gotten. That's how it worked in previous Civ games, even though you go to the next era you don't get the last era techs for free.
from Ancient Egypt (Afro-Asiatic language) to Songhai (Songhay language, possibly Nilo-Saharan) to Buganda (Bantu language, Niger-Congo). Makes sense to me! (s/) I bet we can transition from Maurya to a Southeast Asian one like the Khmer. I guess it makes more sense that Egypt to Songhai to Buganda.
Crises policy cards is like the Dark Age Policy cards from Civ6.
I really hope they make a clear path for civ swtiching that makes historical sense, like gaul to franks to the republic of france and make the next era civ benefit from earlier being another civ for example italy could benefit from romes unique buildings in a way other civs would not
I would prefer more historical options like that too, Gaul to Franks to France makes perfect sense but with the limitation on how many civs they can make for the game, it's not likely they can make '3 Frances'. It'd be great if they did, but I'm not expecting it.
Eternal vampire leaders, while nations are changed makes it all ridiculous.
Vampire teeth mod for all leaders incoming (just add 2 little fangs to everyone)
@@GamerZakh It's More Likely Than You Think
Need a future era
I don't think I have played 6, not because of hate, but because of life. I have played all, not much with 1, I started with 2, mostly played 3 and 4.
I think they could have used a way better example than Egypt into Shonghai if they want to make a point that transitions must make sense….
Yeah that's why I suggested an actual historical transition in the video.
People like to play the same game over and over again. Look at League of Legends, Call of Duty, etc. I thank Firaxis for their innovation in games like the XCOM series and the Civilization series. Even Nintendo often comes up with new ideas. I think new formulas, gives us new experiences and inspiration for new games and even new genres.
so this means Romans change to Britain and then change to US??
I keep hearing "changing civs" but isn't it closer to adapting civs?
The idea is to adapt, but in practice from what I've seen, it's more of a switch. You don't have your unique unit modified and updated for a new age, you get a new unique unit from your new civ in the new age. At the moment, that doesn't feel like adapting to me.
Seems to be more of a culture evolution rather than a civ change.
Aww i was hoping George Washington could return. I kinda miss him. The last time I saw him in Civ games is in Civilization 5 and I always play as him (well next to Augustus Caesar and Napoleon).
We don't know the leader lineup, so he might be an option.
@@GamerZakh Or he might be not cause we already have Ben Franklin as the leader of America.
Don't hate the idea of Civs changing. On the contrary I love it. But I think it should happen within reason. And I think this is a missed opportunity for "micro Civs", which is a certain civ/culture being able to change and evolve over time. But within its cultural sphere of influence. Like Egypt can become other northern African and middle eastern Civs it influenced. But can not become the Mongols.
If You focus on horses as Egypt a natural progression should be to become the Mamluk sultanate in the next age. Huns on the other hand can become either Seljuks or Mongols in the next age. Seljuks can become Ottomans but the Mongols can not. Mongols can become Manchurians, and Manchuria can become China. But if a China already exists that route on the "civ tree" is locked unless China is wiped out from the map or conquered by the Mongols.
Another simpler solution to keep Civs relevant but still believable in every age would simply be to give each Civ unique units, tech and abilites in every age. But I like the idea of changing Civ/nation, but is sceptical of the current build.
well explained
Thanks! I'm trying to do even better than my Civ 6 coverage.
I am not sure that Songhai and Buganda is historically accurate for Egypt, rather than Mamluk and Ottoman for example
Maybe they could link the choices according to religion emergence in the civ
I didn't say they were historically accurate transitions, it's just not as crazy as it is in Humankind.
There's a screen showing they can become the Abbasid
If ARA doesnt goes as planned, will you commit riutal Seppuku to keep your honor?
What? Why would you think my honour is tied to Ara's quality or success? All I've done for Ara is host a Q&A show, why would you think I'm all in on Ara?
@@GamerZakh And if you commit it, then you will see all the X4 games and say "They where all perfect"
@@heisenheisen9483 What are you even talking about? Are you trying to accuse me of something? I criticise so much stuff but you seem to be in some kind of delusion where you're trying to 'gotcha' me for something.
@@GamerZakh you never watch the movie, The Last Samurai? It was all a reference about it
@@heisenheisen9483 It's been quite a few years since I've watched The Last Samurai. That's a 20 year old movie.
How much more can they add to this game? It's pretty much the same thing over and over for the last 30 years.
Every time they make a new one it sells exponentially better than the last, so whatever they add it works for people so far.
Lincoln leads Native American tribes, Philips leads Inca, Japan finally wins WW2 in a virtual world and leads China and Korea? What hell jokes are these😮
Trying to innovate is good. I hope they also improved the AI, Civ 6 was unplayable at release.
Right? Right!
I'm sort of double checking my own notes there haha. Despite what some people are accusing me of, I haven't actually been invited to play the game early, so it's all research from what I can find.
@@GamerZakh im actually emphasizing your tendency to use this stop word, its very noticeable.
Your content coverage here is great otherwise
This ages and civ swapping mechanic makes me cautiously optimistic because it was a really jarring experience in Humankind. However, Civ needs to evolve, and if they do this correctly and in a fun way, I see playing this game for hours with enjoyment. The one concern I have right now is how many leaders and civs do we get in the base game. The structure of decoupling leaders to their civ opens up big room and opportunity for more DLC which means we have to shell out more just to get extra leaders and civs than before.
With the split, they're going to have to release a lot more starting civs. You can't just launch with 12 and have just 4 each age. If they did that it'll be really limited and people would complain a lot.
I am really skeptical about these changes. History is all about chronology. The concept of ages is very artificial and only makes sense in the real history that we know about. If you're making an alternate history, this should be fluid. The thing I always loved about Civ, is that it teaches the mechanics of history and the cause and effect that brings the story about. Since Civ4 I feel like we've been getting away from that.
I’ve always disliked civ after about the half way point of a game and just start new ones - so open to these new mechanics to change it up.
It should have started with 4 ages/era
Ancient Era
Classical Era
Renaissance Era
Modern Era
Like in Civilization 2. The rest (Medieval, Industrial, Atomic, Information, Future) will be in DLC.
They only made three eras because having to change your civ too many times was the problem other games had for this kind of mechanic. One era is going to last 150-200 turns, according to youtubers that played a demo.
@@markos50100 Just to note (I haven't played Civ 7 myself), the number of turns is also probably going to be linked to game speed. 150-200 turns per era could be Epic game speed or Normal. Or in the cases of some preview demos, they set a specific number of turns just so you don't go too far. I heard they had 3 hours to play? So the devs could set it to 150-200 turns so that in 3 hours they don't get a chance to go to the next age or something.
@GamerZakh according to some, they expect around 150~200 turns on normal speed if everyone plays fast and hard towards the legacies. So yeah, gamespeed will definitely affect total turns.
CIV really needs to revoluationize, my biggest gripe is how fast things went, and how fast and easy it was to go through the eras. Even on harder difficulties, it was too easy to spam science, and get so far ahead in tech you were fighting muskets vs tanks.
With things being split up into ages more, slowing it down, etc. I'm optimistic with these changes.
First video I have seen on this, I am kinda worried. Changing Civs ala Humankind is not what I would have wanted from Civ 7. A lot of other concepts shown in this video reminded me of Humankind too. I found Humankind to be really boring so getting that impression from the details I've heard about is worrying to say the least.
I love this change, I think they will implement it very well.
In civ 4 it was an option. Make it an option in civ 7 also. Problem solved
That's one reason why I specifically said it was an option before and that this is the first time it's compulsory. To present the idea of an option.
Well, I hope for us that there will be more ages in expansion packs. Following the antiquity age should be the classical age, the medieval age, THEN exploration, followed by the industrial age, then modern, but also followed by atomic, then information, and finally future. That’s what Civ 6 had, it seems like a gyp that we’d get a downgrade.
It's because frequently changing civs is what made things confusing. Every age will now need a whole new set of civilizations. And that set would have to be balanced with all the civs that came before. Fewer ages isn't necessarily a downgrade, ages in Civ 6 didn't really matter too much did they? But besides what's good or bad, main thing is don't expect them to add more ages. The whole of Civ 7 is built around this 3 age system.
@@GamerZakh I figured the more depth the better… and maybe the change would come with certain ages whereas you could stay as Rome in the antiquity and classical age but need to transition during the medieval age. And it could vary to many others based on historical context.
@@CPT85 The thing about depth is it tends to be less broad. Fewer but deeper ages is depth. More shallow ages is the opposite of depth. That is IF they actually make the ages feel deep. I haven't been able to play the game, so I don't have personal experience.
@@GamerZakh I guess we’ll just have to see how the final product turns out… 🤷🏻♂️
This sucks man, if I play as Rome, I want to play as Rome until the end of the game!
i always hated games that rushed through the ages.u never got time to enjoy it. its like you just started unlocKing techs and starting to enjoy them then bye new era
It's not the problem of ages per se but the tech cost which is too low. CIV 6 tech cost was so ridiculous low that you would jump the ages very fast. That is why when I do play civ 6 I play with longer ages mod.
You no longer have a British accent? I swear you did before 🤣
@@Stonehengoo I've never had a full British accent, but good thing with running a TH-cam channel is you can just check. Go to my videos and sort to oldest and check my first ever video.
He's Malaysian. He has a Malaysian accent. I have relatives living in Malaysia and Singapore and my parents were born there.
I for one dont see the appeal here, good graphics sure, but not sure how this system would be more fun/enjoyable than civ 5. I think 3 ages in a game such as civ is silly, and changing civ when you age up ?? O.o Sadly dont see myself buying or playing this
People say they don't see the appeal of Civ 6 but then Civ 6 sold 50% more than Civ 5 and has way more players. Every negative comment I'm seeing about Civ 7, I can literally search back and find the same comment about Civ 6, but Civ 6 became the most successful Civ game ever. With each game they're hitting bigger and bigger audiences, which also means the more niche audiences tend to get left behind.
@@GamerZakhthe way I see is that they make the game more simple , less depth - to attract more players.
@@melak01 That's exactly what they said about Civ 6, but by the end people were saying "Civ 6 is too complicated", "Civ 6 is too complex", "Civ 6 is too confusing!". I can go back to my Civ 6 videos from 2016, SO many people saying it's 'simple', 'less depth', 'baby game for babies'. But in the end it's 'too complicated'. It's crazy how much the reaction to Civ 7 is exactly the same as Civ 6.
@@GamerZakhmaybe because it’s a continuation / following the same trend. Either way the trailer made me completely turned off by this one.
@GamerZakh I also bought civ 6 barely play this game because of lackluster late game and shitty world congress mechanics. Saying that Civ 6 was a big success only by the meaning of how many copies have been sold is just funny. There are many people that bought it and disliked the direction which was chosen. On steam Civ 5 96% reviews positive, Civ 6 manages only 86%.
i always used that option in civ IV, but dont see the the point of this forced way to change civilization, especially in this way.
I forgot it was an option, and I think a lot of people haven't played Civ 4 at this point.
This is amazing, a civ game that plays different compared to other civ games, but still relies on the same concepts of this particular genre of a game, maybe that is good, that is what it is trying to do , but Im not sure if it will be as good enougth as older civ games back then when I was feelling funny about it.
So, sadly, this game has so many changes I don't like.
I hoped there would be no more districts, but there are even more (this is one of the main things I didn't like in Civ 6).
Next, is the changing civ in different eras.
For me, the point of Civ games is to bring YOUR civilization from the ancient age to the last age and survive, not different Civs With the same leader.
To change your leader while you are within the same civilization is logically more reasonable than Caesar ruling the US.
It looks like, for me, unfortunately, Civ 6 will be the last Civ game I purchased. And I don't like Civ 6 mainly because of district mechanics (and some other small stuff).
I'm ok with Civ 6 visual style. I found the style "issue" after I already deleted the game. Unfortunately, I can't get a refund because I played for around 20 hours (I hoped it would get better in time, but it didn't).
It's all my own opinion and maybe someone else will like these changes.
Ps. If it wasn't named a "Civilisation" game but a "Leaders" (or something else) it would be fine, But they are trying to make a different game while sticking to "Civilization".
And yes I played every civ game.
Really played. Starting with my DOS pc with civ 1.
I liked the complexity of 6. I hope Clive 7 isn’t like 5.
@@bushmonster1702 I too like the complexity of games (when it is not just complexity for more complexity), but starting from Civ 6 the series is going further and further from the original concept. Civ 7 does not look like a Civ game anymore.
For example, Humankind was called a "Civilizationlike" game, and now Civilization 7 will be called "Humankindlike" game.
Every new "Civilization" game (starting from 6) is less "Civilization" than the previous one.
Some will like it, some will not.
I will not buy civ7, only bc there will be NO HOT SEAT 😒😒😒😒
Maps look too busy, too many things on close hexes.
Ages sounds ok if they are historically correct - makes sense. Rome evolves into Venice trading state, evolves into Italy ? maybe ? Not exactly correct but feasible. Starting factions may go extinct and new ones appear, how does that work ? I'm still addicted to CIV 5 and it's modding, but I'm a dinosaur so ignore me. :D
Yeah right now I'm struggling to parse cities in particular. It looks like everything is depicted, but there's so much detail I don't think I could really tell what a city is at a glance. My assumption is they will make important gameplay things disproportionately bigger, so city walls need to be big and fat if they have a strong impact on attacking a city. Also rivers need to not be hidden by city sprawl. Things like that.
Having one leader all all throughout history seems like a mistake (given changing civilizations). Changing leaders connected to era and/or civilization would be more interesting. I do hope they will change it or there will be mods for it. At least their clothes would change.
Tooo many leaders otherwise, and all their animations. Nightmare
Just for a loose reference, it was said for Civ 6 that each new civ and leader cost a quarter of a million dollars to make, when put everything together. That tends to give perspective on why they make some decisions when adding civs.
@@GamerZakh That does make sense. However, this iteration of Civ seems a little desperate. It's like they entered into the development pretty late, maybe they were pressured from the publisher, and then just decided to take a shortcut by literally copying concepts from other games. They have invested into Civ 6 for a long time, so, for me, Civ 7 is even early. I was expecting some really groundbreaking concepts. Navigable rivers? Not gonna cut it for me. How about a civ that can have camel units ONLY IF you actually have camels as a majority of your "riding resources"? Or, you can only build Petra if ALL of your cities are desert cities? OR you can build a manufactory if you have a large cotton trading network? So basically, the terrain in which you start defines your choices, you pick a civ, get some basic bonuses, which may also be powerful, and then get unique buildings or units based on your surrounding and research, which is actually historically accurate. If you want navigation, and you don't have a coastal city, you can't have it UNLESS you either capture a coastal city, found it, steal the technology or capture a deep sea vessel, for example. The possibilitiess would be really endless if a map is done right. So I thought of this in like 5 minutes, for me Firaxis has no excuse. Cheers Zakh, enjoying your videos!
@@RemusKingOfRome Nobody told them to make such "detailed" animations with avatars interacting with each other. While CIV4 is not my favourite I do like their approach with leaders portraits and wish that was the style they would use everywhere forward. Sadly CIV5 kinda ruined and bloated it with detailed leader animations.
@@GamerZakh Myself I wouldn't mind them cheapening out on leaders. Then again I am a special case who prefers to play in strategic mode in CIV5 and CIV6, no animations and details for me :P