Civilization 7 is in development

[Chevalier Mal Fet]

Beat Deity the other night and I feel like I've pretty much seen everything civ 7 has to offer until a big update/DLC drops. 

The AI just doesn't compete, I've seen them put up triple my stats but they just don't do victories (maybe they can't? They always turn their cities into huge sprawling slums, they might literally not have a tile to put the victory cons on). 
The revamped city defenses let's them push a city on the edge of your empire on occasion (particularly with their disgusting combat strength bonus) but it just doesn't ever get a big enough army that isn't spread all over as well.

I've heard rumours that Hotseat (and therefore PYDT) might be added in the patch that drops in a few days. So maybe the game holds up better against people actively pursuing the era goals? (I've seen a few MP streams and seems fun, but I don't have the time to sit in a lobby 5 hours in a row...) Anyone up for that?

I'd be up for filling out a multiplayer test game roster if they get hotseat functional - same as you, live MP just isn't how I play Civ. My biggest MP worry is the legacy path system funneling all the players into One True Meta strategies, but I guess I need experience to see if htat actually shakes out.

I admit, I haven't touched it since winning a couple of Deity games, not even with a few civs added. Not that I wasn't having fun, but each game was becoming same-y and I had other things on my list.

[LKendter]

I am more concerned about how limiting the game is. The settlement limit especially just prevents you from expanding, be it by settling new cities or conquering them. So just go play the boring mini games the game tells you to. One one the worst ICS control mechanisms ever.

WOW, that is horrid. I don't want to be told # cities is my limit.
Civ3 overloaded you with corruption, but irrigate like crazy and you can at least run a bunch of specialist. Later on you can get the FP for some corruption help.
Civ4 was tough to get a lot of early cities. However, snagging a high income spot like gold was a way to get a bit more early cities while waiting for wealth, more trade routes, courts, etc.
Civ5 I played a little. That seemed to force small empires, but eventually you could work on getting a bit bigger.

Everything I've ready so far says at least wait till Civ7 is in bargain bin. I've got more other games to play, including GaliticCiv4 (from bargain bin in future), so no rush at all.

[haphazard1]

I've really appreciated this forum's reaction to Civ7, because I thought I was going insane lol. They've really messed this up - I can't fathom how so many game development and mechanics lessons that were learned 20 years ago have seemingly been completely forgotten.

It is surprising how much of their own games' history they seem unaware of; the hyping of unrestricted leaders as a big new thing, for example. I would guess some of it is lack of continuity in the lead dev/dev team. But having to once again deal with design issues and problems that were handled better in previous games in the series is certainly disappointing.

[T-hawk]

It is surprising how much of their own games' history they seem unaware of; the hyping of unrestricted leaders as a big new thing, for example. I would guess some of it is lack of continuity in the lead dev/dev team. But having to once again deal with design issues and problems that were handled better in previous games in the series is certainly disappointing.

Game developers often don't play much of their own games. Playing and developing are different sets of skills and interests. Our own patriarch Sirian said that here, that after he was on board developing for Civ 4, he couldn't take much interest in playing it since he was always seeing past to the curtain to the mechanics. They often don't remember what stuff made it into a game's release (and never mind all the expansions and patches); for every feature like that that we see, there's ten others that were proposed but not followed through somewhere along the line.

Also in this case, the unrestricted leaders option dates from 18 years and three major franchise iterations and several dev teams ago; neither they nor most of today's players ever knew anything about it. And also famously in this case, Jon Shafer with Civ 5 was deliberately ignoring Civ 4 and trying to make the next Civ 3.

[yuris125]

I think one other factor is that for many players, especially purely SP players, the unrestricted leaders checkbox in Civ4 was nothing but a fancy-sounding option they saw no reason to try. In Civ7 the leader changing nations during the game is a core mechanic. So while the claim that Civ7 is the first game to uncouple leaders from civs is disingenious, it is not entirely baseless

[MJW (ya that one)]

Leaders were just a pair of traits in Civ4 so that doesn't count. Well the AI is different but if you are playing a leader that doesn't matter.

[luddite]

Leaders were just a pair of traits in Civ4 so that doesn't count. Well the AI is different but if you are playing a leader that doesn't matter.

It's funny you say that. Maybe to us on this website that's true, because we've played the game inside and out and mostly focus on the strategy game part of it. But I thought their target audience was the more casual players who just want to have fun? For them, role playing as "Genghis Khan" or "Confucious" or whoever is a big part of the fun. Playing as something like Hatshepsut of the Americans is immersion-breaking, so it's strange to me that they made it the default way to play, instead of leaving it an option that only the more dedicated players use.

[MJW (ya that one)]

Leaders were just a pair of traits in Civ4 so that doesn't count. Well the AI is different but if you are playing a leader that doesn't matter.

It's funny you say that. Maybe to us on this website that's true, because we've played the game inside and out and mostly focus on the strategy game part of it. But I thought their target audience was the more casual players who just want to have fun? For them, role playing as "Genghis Khan" or "Confucious" or whoever is a big part of the fun. Playing as something like Hatshepsut of the Americans is immersion-breaking, so it's strange to me that they made it the default way to play, instead of leaving it an option that only the more dedicated players use.

Unlike the AI you can do whatever you want. So you are not playing as a leader you are playing as you. The + and - diplomacy system and other factors also make it clear that you are playing a different game than the other leaders so don't feel like another leader at all. You also don't get to see your leaderhead while playing them. You don't in 5 or 6 even but those games have a different gimmick for each leader. I also believe Trip intentionally got rid of the +/- system because it was immersion breaking.  

The civ switching system ruins the immersion anyway so they might as well give you the option to play as whatever leader. This also allows them to split the Civs and Leaders in the DLC to make more $$$.

[Sullla]

I finished typing up an intro game report for Civ7 which is over at my website. It's a long report in four parts designed to walk a newcomer through what a typical game might look like now that I have a better understanding of the gameplay. Consider this a continuation of Chevalier's excellent game writeup from last month when Civ7 first came out:

https://www.sullla.com/Civ7/civ7.html

[Chevalier Mal Fet]

I finished typing up an intro game report for Civ7 which is over at my website. It's a long report in four parts designed to walk a newcomer through what a typical game might look like now that I have a better understanding of the gameplay. Consider this a continuation of Chevalier's excellent game writeup from last month when Civ7 first came out:

https://www.sullla.com/Civ7/civ7.html

Thanks for taking the time for the writeup. I've only finished chapter 1 so far, but I endorse most of what you say. There's good points to Civ7's design - the bespoke culture trees, city-building - but at the immediate moment that's overshadowed by the abysmal AI which can't play the developer's own game, and I'm sure later you'll hit on the Age splitting & Legacy paths, which was my biggest complaint about the game.