Yeah it was being able to wildly change your civ in Humankind that I found jarring, from the dev Q&A it did sound like they were going for a much more logical progression, like Phoenicians into Carthaginians for example, rather than Rome into the USA
***Sid Meier's Civilization VII***
- Thread starter Tombstone
- Start date
Soldato
You know there are Mods available that increase the difficulty level and give you I think another 5 difficulty levels over Deity.
I haven't even considered a Mod. I'll take a look.
Soldato
Steam Workshop::Deity ++
I'll be far happier if the civ progression makes historical sense. As you say, being allowed to transition from something like Polynesians into Germany would kill the franchise for me.
Yeah if they do it right (as they did with Japan in the Q&A) its got lots of potential for some interesting (and the potential for dozens and dozens of..) "mini"-civs..like Imperial Russia changing into Communist Russia , Joseon into Korea or Rome into Byzantines etc
Caporegime
I think they need to make narrative sense, but also not be too tied to history. Just because you're playing Russia shouldn't be a straight jacket progression to the Soviet Union.
All Civ is alt history in a sense.
All Civ is alt history in a sense.
Yeah it seems thats the way they are doing it, seems to be there is a choice of which you change to (or decide not to change at all) but that the choices at least make sense, as opposed to Humankinds one minute I am Egypt and the next minute I am Australia kind of thing
I can't see the changing civs thing as you change era's being an easy thing to get right in game.
It's almost certainly going to be the most divisive change from previous Civs for VII
Playing for 4,000 years + as the same civilisation may not make much sense from a historical viewpoint but from a gameplay perspective made Civ far easy to manage and get players engrossed in the game.
It's almost certainly going to be the most divisive change from previous Civs for VII
Playing for 4,000 years + as the same civilisation may not make much sense from a historical viewpoint but from a gameplay perspective made Civ far easy to manage and get players engrossed in the game.
Caporegime
If Civ ever goes non-turn based it is dead to me.
I concur.
You hope that a series that is on its seventh mainline iteration of turn based titles isn't turn-based. Mmm hmmm
Mind you, I don't see why a system likes Stellaris wouldn't work where it's not turn-based, but you can pause it as often as you want to make it so. Then again, just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Last edited:
Feb 11 2025
You are possibly the only one.
Caporegime
It's certainly a viable way of making a game, but it wouldn't feel like Civ I think.
Just one more turn.
Yeah it's an odd one because when I think about it all it's really doing is automatically pressing enter for me.
Caporegime
Not really, no, the design constraints and feel are really very different. I guess you could just set the times of everything to (turns*10s) but in practice that's not what any designer would do and it'd likely suck if they did.