Civilization VII - coming February 11th

[MaxPaint]

Well I just watched the video and this is pure decline. First they somewhat turned civ 6 into a board game, now this culture swapping. Because everyone loved this feature in Humankind, right. People play it to see their chosen nation grow throughout history. Lilura some people may call it role playing even. Why did they decide to do it like that? Again, Humankind was not a big hit.

 

[MaxPaint]

Wait, did they also remove workers? For what purpose.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Streamlining and multiplayer focus are probably the reasons in their mind. Also, everyone does it and going against the grain is not in vogue.

 

[MaxPaint]

Streamlining and multiplayer focus are probably the reasons in their mind. Also, everyone does it and going against the grain is not in vogue.

Yeah but stealing workers was a legit strategy in MP. So they removed workers, limit the city number, if I got that right, culture swap + everyone swaps cultures at the same time, only 3 ages, leaders are not connected to cultures to sell more DLCs, city districts again, one unit per tile again. I had almost no hopes and I'm still disappointed. It legit starts feeling like a tabletop game.

 

[Malakal]

Wait, did they also remove workers? For what purpose.

No idea why anyone and seemingly everyone likes workers, what the fuck are they even supposed to represent? A hundred thousand conscripted army of men building roads and mines? Its pointless micro.

Instead cities/provinces/whatever should generate labor that can be spent on buildings in cities or mines farms etc. A simple elegant solution for a grand strategy game.

Wow right now you can build a road to the north pole in ancient times because why not....

 

[MaxPaint]

A simple elegant solution for a grand strategy game.

Yeah, but it's not a GSG. It is micro, sure, but there's also a thrill of building something on the enemy borders (or in the beginning of the game everywhere) knowing well that if you lose these workers you will be pushed back in the development and economy. It gets tiresome in the late game, yes, but I think it's worth it.

We can think of cities and improvements, military units and workers/famous persons as some kind of building chains variables. You need cities to create soldiers and workers, you need workers to create improvements to make cities better and you need soldiers to defend your cities and workers. You can significantly slow your enemy's growth by stealing his workers or interfering with them and vice versa. And now they got rid of one of the variables. It's micro but I don't think it's pointless.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

"Pointless micro" is close to a non-argument as a lot of mechanics can be reduced to it. There are, of course, degrees to it: there's a big difference between "I can manually build a network of roads to prepare for an invasion of neighbor's territory" and "roads are just created automatically between your cities when you spawn a new one and that's it lol". Removing features is usually closer to something like the latter, for very mysterious reasons. And workers as just micro is obviously false in the first place, since it interacts in meaningful ways with other core stuff (build orders, early warfare).

 

[ropetight]

Wait, did they also remove workers? For what purpose.

No idea why anyone and seemingly everyone likes workers, what the fuck are they even supposed to represent? A hundred thousand conscripted army of men building roads and mines? Its pointless micro.

Instead cities/provinces/whatever should generate labor that can be spent on buildings in cities or mines farms etc. A simple elegant solution for a grand strategy game.

Wow right now you can build a road to the north pole in ancient times because why not....

Let's forget for a moment the fact that there was always workers in Civ games until now.

Why don't we remove pointless micro of military units?
Your lands generate military power, like taxes and labor.
When you attack you get animation of two swords clashing and VICTORY or DEFEAT messages.

Still not grand strategy enough?
One huge spreadsheet with macros is the best we can do, I'm afraid.

 

[Malakal]

Wait, did they also remove workers? For what purpose.

No idea why anyone and seemingly everyone likes workers, what the fuck are they even supposed to represent? A hundred thousand conscripted army of men building roads and mines? Its pointless micro.

Instead cities/provinces/whatever should generate labor that can be spent on buildings in cities or mines farms etc. A simple elegant solution for a grand strategy game.

Wow right now you can build a road to the north pole in ancient times because why not....

Let's forget for a moment the fact that there was always workers in Civ games until now.

Why don't we remove pointless micro of military units?
Your lands generate military power, like taxes and labor.
When you attack you get animation of two swords clashing and VICTORY or DEFEAT messages.

Still not grand strategy enough?
One huge spreadsheet with macros is the best we can do, I'm afraid.

Workers were introduced in 3 after being separated from settlers who built stuff in 1 and 2. So you're wrong right from the start.

The rest would remove any semblance of gameplay from the game, not sure if people simply LOVE moving workers around this much or what.

 

[whydoibother]

Let's forget for a moment the fact that there was always workers in Civ games until now.

Workers were already removed in Civ6, and replaced with a different unit with the same name. If anything, this "each city is its own worker" model is more similar to the old workers than the Civ6 charges model.
Not having a unit to move and capture/be captured is a loss of mechanical complexity, but not by much. Of all the things to be mad about, this is the lamest one. I am more upset that the diplomacy screen is third person view instead of first person than about this.

 

[flyingjohn]

Can they at least remove the micro from moving multiple units? 1upt makes this a nightmare.

 

[whydoibother]

Can they at least remove the micro from moving multiple units? 1upt makes this a nightmare.

From the gameplay reveal we see Great Generals can attach to all adjacent units, to move as one.
This, or a terrain supply limit, is a compromise between doomstacks and 1UPT clutter. I think it will work well.

 

[Keshik]

Meh, will stick with Civ 4

 

[Malakal]

Can they at least remove the micro from moving multiple units? 1upt makes this a nightmare.

From the gameplay reveal we see Great Generals can attach to all adjacent units, to move as one.
This, or a terrain supply limit, is a compromise between doomstacks and 1UPT clutter. I think it will work well.

Meh just add back ARMIES like in Call to Power. 1UPT is way worse than doomstacks ever were.

 

[Saldrone]

for very mysterious reasons.

Nope it isn't mysterious at all. Modern devs design these kind of automated stuff because they think that players aren't patient enough and will get upset that they have to manually manage every single action and drop the game. (Look at HoI IV automated battle plan)

Just imagine you are playing chess and an AI automatically does the London System opening enterely for you

 

[Taxnomore]

They also removed Barbarians which improve nothing, remove tension in the beginning, and make sure it's even more streamlined.

I'm one of the few who appear to like Civ 6 (besides the art style), I'm not one to whine about important changes in gameplay, it's always what new iterations of civs were about. But I absolutely struggle to see any positive change in what they announced.

 

[spectre]

The rest would remove any semblance of gameplay from the game, not sure if people simply LOVE moving workers around this much or what.

One man's pointless micro is another man's essential gameplay. While I didn't exactly love manually covering entire continents with a cobweb of road+irrigation, workers represented how you focus your national effort in building
infrastructure - this function, I agree, can be served by just accumulating points and clicking on a tile, but there are other nuances - they were a resource (back in the day they consumed a population point, or at least slowed down food production and growth when built) that could change hands during a war and also retained their nationality, which enabled the game to represent raiding and taking captives, but also forced labor.

 

[ropetight]

Combat is way better.

Granted it's not ES 1/2 card-RPS gimmick level dogshit, but it's one of the least enjoyable/most pointless tactical battle systems I have encountered if not the worst. The hybrid (phase-based? wego? not sure what best describes it, it's been 6 years since I touched EL) system looked like they tried to find a compromise between having tactical battles and multiplayer not taking too long, the end result for me wasn't very appealing. Also I remember the army composition and unit designer being pretty brainless apart from strategic resource usage (make cheap unit to spam/fill in ranks, make stronk unit to use up resources).

In any case they should have either went full real time or turn based for the tactical battles, or just give up trying to make it work with multiplayer and abstract away the combat civ-style on the strategic map. I honestly find CiV 1upt or the Civ IV doomstacks prefferable to what Amplitude did.

Doomstacks added to the realism. One square is kilometers

Wait, did they also remove workers? For what purpose.

No idea why anyone and seemingly everyone likes workers, what the fuck are they even supposed to represent? A hundred thousand conscripted army of men building roads and mines? Its pointless micro.

Instead cities/provinces/whatever should generate labor that can be spent on buildings in cities or mines farms etc. A simple elegant solution for a grand strategy game.

Wow right now you can build a road to the north pole in ancient times because why not....

Let's forget for a moment the fact that there was always workers in Civ games until now.

Why don't we remove pointless micro of military units?
Your lands generate military power, like taxes and labor.
When you attack you get animation of two swords clashing and VICTORY or DEFEAT messages.

Still not grand strategy enough?
One huge spreadsheet with macros is the best we can do, I'm afraid.

Workers were introduced in 3 after being separated from settlers who built stuff in 1 and 2. So you're wrong right from the start.

The rest would remove any semblance of gameplay from the game, not sure if people simply LOVE moving workers around this much or what.

Let me then rephrase it for you - you always had the units that build things, they were called different and were mechanically different.

What you are proposing is exactly removing gameplay from the game by replacing those units with attribute or stat.
Which is not that different from replacing military units with stats, event screen with spreadsheet, two rotating dices, or whatever.

 

[Saldrone]

They also removed Barbarians which improve nothing, remove tension in the beginning, and make sure it's even more streamlined.

Yup. A huge redflag to what this digital goyslop is going to be and not worth a single cent.

 

[whydoibother]

They also removed Barbarians which improve nothing, remove tension in the beginning, and make sure it's even more streamlined.

Yup. A huge redflag to what this digital goyslop is going to be and not worth a single cent.

Barbarians were a mechanic mostly relevant to workers and improvements, and with those changed, barbs had to change too. I'm guessing they will now be part of those crisis events, or other civs paying city states to raid you or some such.

 

[ArchAngel]

Combat is way better.

Granted it's not ES 1/2 card-RPS gimmick level dogshit, but it's one of the least enjoyable/most pointless tactical battle systems I have encountered if not the worst. The hybrid (phase-based? wego? not sure what best describes it, it's been 6 years since I touched EL) system looked like they tried to find a compromise between having tactical battles and multiplayer not taking too long, the end result for me wasn't very appealing. Also I remember the army composition and unit designer being pretty brainless apart from strategic resource usage (make cheap unit to spam/fill in ranks, make stronk unit to use up resources).

In any case they should have either went full real time or turn based for the tactical battles, or just give up trying to make it work with multiplayer and abstract away the combat civ-style on the strategic map. I honestly find CiV 1upt or the Civ IV doomstacks prefferable to what Amplitude did.

I do not care about MP in 4x civ games and I do not think any time should be wasted balancing or designing for that shit.
Saying that all Civ games have shit combat and EL one is endlessly better. It is more complex and more interesting while not going overboard so it gets too much focus.

 

[Space Satan]

Sweet mother of the internet this is some bland mobile shit

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Hellraiser]

It is more complex and more interesting while not going overboard so it gets too much focus.

Explain how it is more complex.

 

[Space Satan]