>makes the most inadvisable gameplay changes imaginable, becoming derivative to Humankind, a game that flopped
>Game flops
How did no one in the dev team see this coming

>>2028495 (OP)
https://youtu.be/CZx9XHdD5m4
https://youtu.be/gxcRpqUwehg

>>2028506
that warlord trailer is so fucking cringe, what the hell are they thinking

>>2028552
Yeah, even putting the negress aside, it's disgusting corporate "hello fellow kids, ain't we hilarious memesters?" Whenever they try that stuff, it always comes off as pure cringe.

"Toxic positivity" is not just a meme or buzzworld, in a lot of corporate environments being the naysayer for any reasons can be a quick career suicide while being onboard a disaster lets you at least get paychecks for longer.

>>2028552
What they were thinking was "we need to find a new audience to make line go up by making Civilization seem like lmao fanny casual board game" and they didn't care about the grognards because fuck em.

>>2028596
And to add to that, reminder that Warner Bros executives were fully aware and up to date about exactly what Suicide Squad was going to be, and they just kept showering Rocksteady with praise and making billion dollar franchise growth projections. In that atmosphere, would (you) be that one developer who stands up in a meeting and say out loud that enthusiastic and hyped up team leads and suits are being fucking retards?

>>2028552
Imagine doubling down after this.

>>2028495 (OP)
devs got paid to promote globalism either way

>>2028495 (OP)
Errrrrm don't you know, chud? All civ games flopped on launch actually.
Trust the plan and wait two more years and a dozen of DLCs and it will be good.

>>2028607
>9k
in the slow hours it barely reaches 5k

I played Civ 7
Now I have anal leakage

>>2028628
>Or worse they will revamp that game into "Penises and Bumholes".
I don't want to land on either of those.

>>2028495 (OP)
The frontrunner of strategy has failed now too, I can't even think of which old strategy series are still running strong they have all flopped at some point and stop being developed. Only new strategy games are indie shit.

Firaxis, Relic, etc are all shit now just empty husks of what used to be good game devs.

>>2028495 (OP)
The game is shit but that has nothing to do with civ switching, you can read the bad reviews yourself, almost no one outside of autists here actually cares about it.

>>2029378
You became a faggot after your grandfather raped you.
It must have been very traumatic for you.

>>2028608
exactly, it's not about making good games. it's about spreading their message, propaganda is the primary purpose of media for these people

>>2029378
>you can read the bad reviews yourself, almost no one outside of autists here actually cares about it.
Why would a non-faggot want to spend money on faggotry?

>>2028495 (OP)
>all I want is for ships to be able to move along rivers and for multiplayer not to be a desync fest but whatever
>would be fine with the game being a 1:1 copy of Civ 6, Civ 5, or Civ 4 if it just had aquatic units on river tiles
>finally get it
>monkey's paw curls
fuck you you fucking ape cunt

>>2029625
>Why would a non-faggot want to spend money on faggotry?
The game sold well though. Player numbers are bad because it's shit but that has nothing to do with sales.

>>2028495 (OP)
>How did no one in the dev team see this coming
One of the leads is a old man getting high constantly and the other is a woman mobile "dev" . Why do you think?

>>2029787
The game fucking flopped, retard

>>2029841
>nuh uh there are actually billions of players on console you just don't see them

>>2028596
Im sure that 90% of goyslop being released across entertainment industries is because of ultra idealist millenials reaching senior positions

>>2029787
I don't think you know what marginal loss means.

>>2030280
>idealist
They don't believe in half the shit they spout they and their useful idiots only want all right of them to suffer.

>>2028552
I mean it's a commercial style that would've gone over great in the 2000s like this old WoW commercials with the celebrities, but it's a little out if its element nowadays
And also just not funny

>Civ 5 launches
>Various systems are fucked because of UPT being introduced
>Becomes a great game with G&K and BNW
>Civ 6 launches
>Various systems are fucked because of specialty districts
>Becomes a great game with GS & NFP
>Civ 7 launches
>Various systems are fucked because of ages
First time?

>>2031731
I agree with you (And i think Civ 4 was even worse then all 3 of those if i remember right). But at the same time im worried they changed too much with 7 with the civ switching, era's and workers being removed that it will be hard to ever fully clean up before some empty suit is tired of seeing the line go down and forces them to ditch the game for some cash grab garbage.

>>2031731
they are not going to change how civ-switching works, at best you might get a band-aid solution if coporate yells at them.

>>2031762
unless gta6 gets pushed back again and firaxis is left holding the financial bag, I think 7 will have a long tail like the others
>>2031763
i enjoy ages and switching, but some aspects of exploration and modern need some reworking or additional meat

>>2031731
the woke shit pushing away more and more people, playerbase nowhere near civ 5 but Im sure troons like you will love playing as harriet tubman

>>2031864
I'm impressed by how one can write words and yet have nothing to say

>>2031879
>I'm impr-AAAAAACKKKK!!

>>2028495 (OP)
The game was made to farm Civ cucks for cash

This is the Empire Earth 3 of Civilization.

>>2032002
As much of a shit game that EE3 was, at least it was following somehow coherent mechanics design and game loop when you play it.
Civ7 is like a slapdash amalgamation of completely disconected ideas for the game which are crammed into a box with a series logo glued on it and then forced to you. You have no control of what they do and what they do is to pop up at predetermined point, change set of rules established by previous idea that was in play and forcing you to follow the new set of RoE without offering any conection or even basic logic or reason behind why rules changed.

>>2032015
>change set of rules established
They could have forced to change the civ leader (not the civ) when you reach a new era, thus changing the traits and somewhat the strategy. For example Cassivellaunus (ancient) - Lionheart (medieval) - Elisabeth (renaissance) - Victoria (industrial) - George VI (modern). Even you could choose between leaders: "welcome to the renaissance era! do you prefer Henry VIII or Elisabeth?" Similar concept but logic and continuous.
The developers probably don't like history.

>>2028495 (OP)
>that logo
Looks like they were trying to do something occult with it.

POZZED net theory people.

>>2032072
>tfw that one politics spreadsheet simulator for the EU could let you turn the whole thing right wing
>succeed in fixing everything wrong with the government and make it a better place
>as a counter to this liberals would riot and kill you or assissinate you by design
>devs are surprised people took the moral lesson that liberals are in control because they will kill you and the right wing won't

>>2032075
...wut?

>>2032196
That dude needs to cut his hair, he looks like a fag

>>2028495 (OP)
Woke devs combined with streetshitting devs to create a buggy mess that disregards what the point of leaders and civs were previously.

>>2031731
>civ 6
>becomes great
Things that never happened.

>>2031731
you're clueless, civ 6 was decent on launch and became bad with the expacks

>>2033399
retard

>>2033399
theres one real problem with civ6. is that the ai becomes way too passive after a certain era. and it seemed ai cant fix it either. otherwise its super fun. but late game sucks

>>2031762
you remember wrong. civ4 was fucking fantastic on launch. plus, it was the first civ game to actually get better with every expansion. civ2 and civ3 had some pretty shitty expansions that were outsourced to different devs.

>>2028506
I consider myself an epic chud but I don’t get the racism in the comments.
Civ is and has always been baby’s strategy game, where history is just an excuse to play a game. You can have Subotai leading an Aztec army invading Georges Washington’s USA. So having a black woman leading mongols isn’t too far fetched. Also many retards give retarded names to their cities.

If this was the trailer of a game that somewhat claims to be historically accurate like a Paradox game I would get the outrage and the “is this Netflix?” comments but civ?
Perhaps I’m just out of touch with the newest generation of racists

bit off topic but does anyone have a good site to get Civ4 mods at? returned to the game after ten years and I can't find half the mods thayt used to exist.

He's posted again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCPJ3tHTpZU

>>2034348
you were never a chud if you think that commercial is anything but cringe.

>>2028552
I was genuinely confused with that shit, it feels like something out of a mobile game ad

>>2034348
>How do you do fellow chuds, I'm as much of a racist pos as anyone but maybe racism is heckin bad huh?

>>2034861
Yeah it’s cringe, but so is the Civ franchise and so are civ players, so I don’t get the issue.

>>2034946
lol, I expected this response, should have >inb4’d

>>2035122
All I’m saying is, if there’s ONE strategy franchise where it’s not that out of place to have a black woman, or, niggress, if you prefer, lead a Mongol army, it’s Civ.
And I also believe that civ is Reddit: the strategy game and therefore it doesn’t surprise me to see a Reddit: the ad for it but that’s almost a different point.

You don’t have to be mad about it sonny.

>>2034268
Civ IV had beyond garbage warfare at launch. Warlords added collateral damage to siege weapons, giving them an actual use and alleviating the problems of dealing with massive defensive stacks.

>>2034348
its black woman screeching nonsense, absolute cringe
if it was Shaka Zulu leading mongols against Ghandi Aztec armed with nuclear weapons - that would be different

>>2035143
Until 7 leaders were at least from the civilization they led. Or at least a cousin culture from the general area; Saladin was a Kurd not an Arab for instance and while the two aren't super closely related they are at least both Middle Eastern. Great People did do a lot of culture scrambling, but until VI, or BNW for the arts crowd, they had generic effects so it was just an out of place name for your walking tech boost or whatever. Because just calling them "Great Scientist 1" or "Great Merchant 2" would have been really lame from the opposite side of the spectrum.

The weird thing about Civ was societies existing in time periods they historically didn't. While ancient civilizations surviving to the modern day isn't too much of a stretch in an AU sense ('what if Rome didn't collapse' seems to make up a fifth or so of Alt History stories after all) modern civilizations existing in the Bronze Age or whatever is a lot more baffling and makes you wonder "How?"

AHAHHAHAHA

>>2035421
The only civ game I played was IV and in it you had historical generals you could attach to your stacks, that’s what I was referring to. Which is why I said Subotai and not Genghis Khan for example

>>2028495 (OP)
half of the devs are probably humankind devs which got fired by fraxxis after their shit flopped so they tried it again
absolutely braindead monkeys

>>2035476
Looking pretty grim. It's outcompeted by most of the Paradox games too and is in the similar league as Vic 3

>>2035476
fuck em, they dug their grave deep

>>2028600
>>2028596
Yep. We just had a major failure, ~20mil euro project completely useless, its systems inoperable. Many saw it coming (it was semi-obvious), but only one manager was warning. She got 0% raise in January and was told to change her attitude or she will be fired. So she shut up.

>>2028495 (OP)
I actually kinda liked humankind.

>>2031731
1upt was not a problem for Civ 5. That was actually a great mechanic which introduced tactics to warfare and made the game more fun.
And districts weren't a problem for Civ 6. Sure there was some balance issues here or there, but those got patched quickly.

The ages system isn't some minor, very tweakable feature like districts, nor a positive feature which adds something without massively changing the formula like 1UPT.
It completely destroys a huge part of what made Civ so iconic. That can't be patched out, unless Firaxis is wont to go back and make Civ 7 v2.0 and remove the most central part of their video game.

>>2031731
civ-switching can't be fixed
look at what they did to the maps to handle exploration-age.

I forsee we'll see the pre-planned updates and a big dlc for a year still and then it's left to rot

>>2028495 (OP)
Possibly started development around the time Humankind was being hyped as a civ-killer. By the time it flopped they were already in too deep and/or just figured they could do it properly.

>>2039898
The problem with reworking the civ-switching, is that the system is the crux of the game's monetization.

>>2039898
>civ-switching can't be fixed

>>2039691
1UPT was and still is a huge problem for 5, stop trying to revise history.

>>2039691
>>2040079
1UPT is fun but only in games exclusively against other human players. The AI is too bad with it.

>>2040294
The AI can be good with it. It works in Panzer General and in Old World. The thing is that in order for it work, it requires both a lot of mobility and a lot of space. Civilization cripples the AI both by lack of mobility and by the chokepoint rich map generation which turns wars into traffic jams.

>>2040356
It requires programming the AI to use it properly. Your examples do work because the devs put in the effort, firaxis never did.

I tried playing a game again recently and I just couldn’t fucking do it. The Ancient Era is bearable if extremely fucking barebones, but the moment it hits Exploration the entire game is fucked. There’s just no way to salvage this. Eras needed to have been the same as they were previously, with around 7-10 eras. Each of them should have added VERY minor gameplay mechanics for theming (e.g. medieval age gives new mechanic to draft knights using food production), with civ-changes being either entirely axed or arranged in such a way that the pkayer has complete control over finer details (like Romans adopting Egyptian units but retaining Roman fashion snd culture, etc.).

There are so many fucking ways just thinking of cool ideas that they could have avoided creating this abortion. This is the worst of both worlds. Miss out on 1000 years of history and morph into a completely alien culture. All to better align with history, as though it’s remotely historical for a cuvilization to grow for millennia, then freeze in place for 9 centuries and magically and instantaneously become another peoples.

>>2040384
If the Civ switching happened organically or was the result of generating points over time it would feel a lot better. Gradually morphing your culture by your own actions would feel much better. Spend all your time in war, looting and pillaging? Congratulations, you get to be the Visigoths instead of the Byzantines. Turtle up and focus on internal development? Now you're Korean or Swiss. Having this start developing early on with plenty of time for the player to course correct would do a lot to make it feel better.

>>2028607
This is such a brutal mogging

>>2028495 (OP)
>game priding itself on the ability to take your favourite nation from the dawn of humanity to actual space colonization era
>their great grand new feature is the mandatory civ switching and tech/army reset three times during the game
>wtf why did our game flopped?
Truly a fucking mystery...

>>2039691
They could go the Stelarris route and completely overhaul the entire game every year or so. That would be pretty funny because they'd most likely just be throwing money into dumpster fire over and over.

>>2040407
It would have to be a hidden system that works like the map seeds. Like Inca have a mountain bias, Hungarians have a river bias etc. The game would just keep track of what you were doing and then give you a choice of three civs I guess. You could obviously influence it by mining more, having more ships, more land military, more culture, whatever. I would prefer this, as it means people wouldn't be either locked into extremely limited civ choices and/or not beelining meta picks. One of humankinds biggest problems were a ton of civs simply were not good so you saw the same ones over and over.

>>2035476
The graph is even funnier if you take the chart comparison, it's just a straight line to the bottom while it's superior counterparts are completly stable.

>>2040525
It could also add a sort of balance to the game. Behaviors that are strongest result in mediocre or, in some cases, bad civs while generalist or niche behaviors unlock the true powerhouses.

As an example, say you're the Romans and you're really Roming around the map and ruling the world and all that. Well, looks like you're locked into the HRE for the next era, good luck keeping your state intact. By contrast, someone dealing with wave after wave of barbarian raiders pillaging their shit gets rewarded for keeping it together by becoming the Spanish to reconquista.

>>2040569
It could also lead to some actually interesting applications of ecological damage. Oh, you mined a lot in ancient age? That's fine, you can be an industrialist nation like the UK. Oh you mined even more? Well, maybe you get the soviet union, or china, or india and have an ecological malus or negative event. That's just one idea, you could do tons of bonuses for following a pattern both good and bad. Have food production below a certain threshold for two ages? Somalia for you!

>>2040079
>>2040294
1UPT is great.
If you're problem is that it is too easy to win wars against the AI then, newsflash, once you've played Civ 5 or other Civ games for thousands upon thousands of hours, it *should* be easy. You've beaten the game. It's done, you have to move on to multiplayer, mods, or a new game if you want a challenge. Or you can accept that now that you've played God only knows how many hours into Civ, that it's no longer going to be a challenge and that's fine.

Games should not be balanced for the handful of super hardcore geeks who master them, they should be (and are) balanced for new players and average players. And for them 1UPT made the game more intuitive and made warfare more fun.

>>2040516
That would be the only way to salvage the game at this point, I think.
If they just abandoned the eras and civ switching then they could get back thousands of players who are sticking to 5 and 6. And make it more likely that later DLCs could make those players start to prefer 7.

They made their design decisions and they are being forced to deal with the inevitable outcomes. The game is FINISHED. I read a lot about how more DLC and expansions will 'fix' things with the game. It won't - it can't. The game is broken at a fundamental design level. Them adding the Qajar and Silla and Genghis Khan in the next DLC won't salvage the player numbers.

>>2028506
fucking disgusting
"one more turn"
skinwalkers

>>2040611
1 unit per tile is fucking awful in the civ genre

>>2040621
yea
i mean what are people even hoping to see changed that isnt "scrap this idea and use x instead"

You will never be a real civilization game. You have no test of time, you have no Gandhi, you have no Aztecs. You are Humankind 2 twisted by Firaxis and Take-Two into a crude mockery of Sid Meiers’s perfection.
All the “support” you get is two-faced and half-hearted. Behind your back even redditors mock your civ-switching. Firaxis is disgusted and ashamed of you, your “fans” laugh at your terrible player count in the discord channels.
Veterans are utterly repulsed by you. Thousands of hours of playing Civ have allowed fans to sniff out "civ-killers" with incredible efficiency. The disgusting "game” look uncanny and unnatural to any Civ fan. Your awful UI is a dead giveaway. And even if you manage to get a casual gamer to play with you, he’ll turn tail and bolt the second they gets a taste of your annoying, obnoxious age resets.

You will never make T2 happy. You wrench out a new Civ/Leader Pack every couple months and tell yourself it’s going to recover the playerbase, but deep inside you feel the player count bleeding down like Concord, with nobody to buy the Expansion packs.
Eventually it’ll be too much to bear - you’ll try to stop the civ-switching, enter a sale, give some free dlcs, and stop adding content. Firaxis will cease development, heartbroken but relieved that they no longer have to pay the expensive Denuvo tax and fees. They’ll leave you with a steam account marked with news of the upcoming Civ VIII, and every gamer for the rest of eternity will know Civilization VII flopped there. Your youtube shills will go away and go move to another game, and all that will remain of your legacy is a the civ-switching that never worked.

This is your fate. This is what you chose. There is no turning back.

>>2028495 (OP)
tl;dr non tinfoil: a whole fuckload of "media" (games, movies, tv shows, whatever the fuck) have been in production and will continue to be released based on outright wrong information and market data gathered from social media such as twitter and things related which we all know is wrong due to only like 2% of trannies creating 98% of the engagement

tl;dr: tinfoil: blackrock

>>2040569
>game punishes you for playing well
>have to intentionally play shitty to get a good civ
Aaaaand into the trash it goes

It flopped for many reason. A lot of people weren't into the civ switching and age changing mechanics first of all, which are too big of a change for a civ game.
Then on top of the wokeslop the game was just so blatently designed to churn out DLCs, I believe it's why they took so many controversial decisions in the first place. One civ per era? Now instead of buying yourself one civ that will last you the whole game you're gonna have to buy 3 civs for one game. Leaders being independent from civs? So you're more encouraged to buy that leader pack even if the civ that comes with it is shit - those leaders might not even have an associated civ actually. The screen when you interact with another civ is both your dudes looking at each other like morrons? That means you don't need to work on leader backgrounds and your payp-player is more incentivised to buy skins for his leader, since he's gonna be able to see them very often. An age blatently missing, many aspects of the game undercooked, civs that were there in pretty much every game not here? Easy DLCs.
I wouldn't even be surprised if there were serious talks of battlepasses and making you roll for your civ leaders at some point. You need to actually balance your monetization schemes with delivering something good, especially when you're selling your game for 70 dollars. This screams of the studio trying to please their investors way too hard

What the actual fuck happened to this thread?

>>2042355

>>2042355
vic 3 guy ate taco bell and came in here

>>2042355
Retarded bots funded by WEF happened.

>>2042355
mods not giving a fuck, apparently

I wonder what will the shill's excuse for when it drops to the 3000s

>>2044589
-5 points for stealing someone else's shitpost

>>2040666
I disagree. I think it's a good idea, it could just use some modification. I only ever had a problem with the system when building a super large military. I think they could modify it such that a hex can only hold a few units, like one infantry, one cavalry, and one artillery, or something suitably similar. That way you would be incentivized to keep units together to control a pass, or separate them to try and control a wider area. This way it avoids the headache of entire fucking carpets of units but also avoids the headaches of death stacks.

>>2043759
They're already in full damage control. There's a few dudes on the Steam forums that go to bat for this game in literally every thread. Their excuse at the nosediving numbers is that the numbers on the console are where all the people are at. Yeah, I'm sure the PS5 has 50,000 people playing RIGHT NOW because they just can't get enough of this stellar gamepl-- whoops sorry age just ended now everything's all FUCKED up

>>2042355
people REALLY dont like civilization7

>>2031731
6 never became great and vanilla 1.0 civ 5 was much better than vanilla 1.0 civ 7

>>2045232
Funny thing is that you need like 10 sec to check that calamity of a game on PSN and see that there's barely more than 3K ratings, and it's rated like 2.7/5, with over 50% or ratings giving it only 1 or 2 stars...

>>2045330
I have pointed that out to these NPCs multiple times and they just regurgitate the point again in future topics. The funny thing is these shills almost certainly do it all for free, one of them has played the game less than I have and I fucking hate the game.

>>2028495 (OP)
If they wanted to introduce this system, they should have done it gradually and made it optional, by say first giving the option of changing the leaders of nations around (e.g. playing France as Elizabeth for the entire game). I am sure no one would have complained then and both min-maxers and normies would have something new to fuck around with

>>2039330
I liked humankind but the territory system is too immersion breaking and the battles being instanced was super lame. And obviously the culture swapping had issues

>>2041122
>You have no test of time
fuck I loved TOT
midgard campaign was peak comfy

>>2032025
seriously, this is such an obvious and logical thing to do, and yet they fucked it up
it even makes it easy to sell more DLC

>>2046015
Its not logical because they would have nothing to do with their precious brownoids.
That mechanic only works for White civilizations that have continuity and written record, not with every shitty nog tribe they added.

>>2046101
>only the chinese are white

>>2033399
I like 6. Id say its almost great. Not being able to remove districts is the only thing i can think of rn that makes me hate it. And i guess barbs being techs ahead on deity . And i guess ai sucks

>>2046250
>I want to remove districts
Anon?

>>2040666
Are doomstacks better?

>>2046151
>he bought into the "chinese are one continuous culture" meme
It's like pretending the English weren't fundamentally altered when they were conquered by the Normans. It's pure cope

>Take away the ability to incite wars between civs through gold from CIV 5
>Take away the ability to gift units to turn the tide of a war between two civs in CIV 6.

>>2049517
Civ II got doomstacks right, we've been going backwards since.

>>2049593
>there are no white civilizations (as defined by the comment I was mocking) because civ continuity is a nebulous concept
Thanks for helping my point, nigga

>>2028599
Civ has been a funny casual boardgame since 5

>>2035183
False. Civ4 had collateral damage on siege weapons from the start. Warlords added "Flanking" which allowed cavalry units to do it too.

>>2050850
>Funny casual boardgame
Mate Civ has been that since 1. Other 4x's have always done what it does but better.

Paradox fucking won.

>>2050025
>take away the ability to cheese the AI by having them fight each other over pocket money
pic related. you're genuinely retarded if you thing this is a bad change.

>>2046101
yeah like savage germanic, french and anglo barbarians which ransacked rome and then proclaimed themselves romans depsite romans continued to live in ere for 1k years till barbarians finally finished killing themselves and banded up with turk and venice (((merhcants))) to end roman civilization once and for all
>>2049593
you are not only a clown, you are a whole circuis
no civilization has better continuity than chinks which had civilization when you lived in mudhuts, subhuman

>>2050860
I always disliked in 4 how your siege units always had to suicide themselves into an enemy city stack to do anything. Imo Civ V did siege units better in that regard by letting them shoot over shit without seemingly being on the front lines in any engagement

>>2055843
By the time germanic tribes toppled Rome they were already romans themselves, with roman customs, institutions and beliefs and it extends throught the entire history of Europe you retarded chink.

>>2055843
>like savage germanic, french and anglo barbarians which ransacked rome
None of those tribes ever ransacked Rome. Rome was sacked by Vandals, Goths, and Gauls at different points in history. Technically Vandals and Goths are germanic tribes, but neither remained in Germany thus they're not considered to be ancestral to the modern German people, who are descended from groups like the Suebi, Saxons, etc.

The Germans who invaded the Empire toward the end of the Western Empire's collapse, in the 5th century, were essentially Romans in all but name. The reason they were able to easily overrun the imperial border is that they effectively were the imperial garrison on the border, were intimately familiar with the territory on both sides of the border from their time serving with the legions, and already spoke the Roman language, and most of them were also already Christian.

>>2028495 (OP)
did it flop, though? didn't people say the exact same shit about civ 6?

>>2058223
>did it flop, though?
Not, it's flourishing of course. Reported numbers of players are noting else than nazi homofobic, white priviledge propaganda. There are litteral quadrilions of players that immensely enjoys that game, they are just, uh... invisible and etheral that's it!

How the hell do you release a civ game with no hotseat?

>>2061218
the 5 zoomers we polled were interested in diversity, skins and being able to finish a game in under 2 hours. hotseat wasn't mentioned so we no include et.

>>2034348
Retard

>>2034796
Civ fanatics

>>2035183
Incorrect.

>>2035514
You played the best one

>>2039691
1upt was a trainwreck of an idea. You're a retarded zoomer.

>>2040611
Retards like you ruined civ. P

I always thought CIV was gay and lame and people who are not gay,retarded and lame should just play Paradox games instead, I'm glad lately my opinion is also supported by the devs of civilization
Feel vindicated you know, like when I said that VR is shit and only had tech demos and got called a poorfag and now VR is completely forgotten

>>2046250
Yeah I think some form of urban renewal to remove districts would've been nice. Also I only played the base game, but I felt there was some unneccesary redundancies with districts; like the entertainment district shouldn't exist but there should be building options for religious or cultural districts for entertainment specialization instead.
>>2055862
Civ3 had indirect fire too, I don't know why Civ4 went backwards on combat so badly.
>>2061388
>Civ is gay!
>play Paradox!
LOL LMAO EVEN. Is this guy fucking serious?

>>2054930
>>2050025

You now remember that peace deals in civ 7 are just trading cities. No money, no resources, just cities or white peace.

WHAT WENT SO WRONG

>>2063202
WTF
What they were thinking?

People are not liking civ 7 because of the nation changing mechanica through eras they copied from humankind (which is exactly why that game flopped), NOT because of bipoc leaders and nations like nazi chudcel losers here claim

>>2055843
Turks are Romans, chud, they called themselves Rûmi in Ottoman times and the term "Turk" was reserved to the central asian steppe nomads

>>2064775
The problem with Civ 7 is there's so many problems that everybody has something they can point out. I have a friend that doesn't mind the civ switching but hates the UI so much he doesn't want to play it. Im not a fan of the switching but what i hate the most is how the era's are handled and how it makes every game feel disjointed and weird. Its clear now that they were forced to release the game at least half a year early cause empty suits at 2k forced them to in order to make the line go up a little bit.

>>2064775
It's just convenient that humankind did DEI shit too (primarily in marketing) and also flopped.

>>2046151
>only the chinese are white

>>2064795
>I have a friend that doesn't mind the civ switching but hates the UI so much he doesn't want to play it.
I can get behind a lot of the changes too. The civ series has never been shy about shaking things up. The UI is genuine fucking dogshit though. I tried booting it up the other day to see if they've fixed anything over the past months and nope. It's downright unplayable.

>>2065439
Give this modpack from civmods a try. The artstyle is still lifeless modern minimalist garbage but it adds enough qol that its at least playable.

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/1j8xiq4/list_civ_7_mods_that_make_the_game_and_ui_more/

(Sorry for linking to reddit but the dumb site kept thinking the direct link to the pack was spam even with a tinyurl)

I don't hate Civ VII, but its flaws are too many to want to jump back in for another game. There's lots of interesting ideas, bits and pieces, but it doesn't gel into a good time. Even the age-switching mechanic isn't terrible. The idea of there being a big shake up you have to prepare for is neat and it tweaks some goofy shit like sending out tanks to crush spearmen...but the loss of having a through-line identity for your Civ, something that's existed since game one, turned out to be a bigger detriment than any gain.

What's going to be real interesting is the course-correction when the next Civ game hits.

>>2061388
>I always thought CIV was gay and lame and people who are not gay,retarded and lame should just play Paradox games instead
imagine typing out a comment like this in complete unironicness

>>2064757
They gutted the core appeal of the game to push globohomo WEF message.

Fun Fact: This was the first weekend that VII didn't reach 10k players.

>>2068286
quick release some dlc

>>2068488
And a free weekend + talking head shilling campaign + paid journos saying it's an unpolished diamond + blame it all on chuds

Whats so frustrating to me is if not for the forced switching and era stuff i would really like it. Combat has never been more fun with the generals and while i do miss workers i dont mind the way things work. Ive played a bunch of Antiquity era games and had fun. But the switching and stuff after kinda disconnects everything to me.

>>2070302
Personally I don't hate the switching in of itself, it makes sense to me that a nation would change and develop over time as it grows over thousands of years. The problem is the disconnect between nations, nevermind Greece becoming the Incans because they settled next to a few mountains, even the default paths like the Maya becoming Hawaiian and then Japanese are incredibly stupid and take me out of the game.
More restrictive paths would be better, something like starting as the Gauls, becoming the Franks and then the French, or Saxons-English-British could be good, there can still be a degree of openness, with nations like the Normans allowing the Vikings to become Italian or the Gauls become British for instance, but nothing so stupid as the Maya becoming Japanese.
Now that they've split countries and leaders they have much less of an excuse as to why there can't be tons of nations like these, since they no longer need to create, animate and record individual leaders for every single one.

Will we ever see a Trump or Hitler leader DLC? Even if they were spiteful hitjobs it'd still be fun to play as them.

>>2070592
>More restrictive paths would be better,
This is what i thought as well. They went too wild with it at the start and i think it would've been received much better if they started conservative with a couple wildcard options like Mongols, Hawaii or something like that. Then when you had the core options you can add the goofy shit like Buganda later. I would also like them to add the option to have city names tied to the leader if you wanted. I know its minor but it kinda stinks that i cant play Franklin and have my core cities i play throughout the game be American cities. And im sure French, English, etc. players feel that same way.

>>2070302
>>2070592
>>2071007
I really hope a cure for autism is invented one day. You lot must suffer so much.

>>2070302
>>2070592
>>2071007
troll?
shill?
retard?
some combination of the three?

>>2068488
they already showed some black woman mongol kino
we are going to the moon with that one

>>2028495 (OP)
>How did no one in the dev team see this coming
why would they?

Its like asking a rock why it sinks.

>>2070592
Ah. The whole system stand in position to core Civ message aka taking Civ and testing it against time
And how you even do extinct or small cultures like Zulu?
If you want switching you could implement switching not civs but leaders

>>2058243
They simply play on xbox, the superior platform for a 4X

>>2039691
>1upt was not a problem for Civ 5. That was actually a great mechanic which introduced tactics to warfare and made the game more fun.

>muh deathstacks

People who repeated this bullshit should be fucking shot. There is absolutely nothing fun about moving AT MOST a dozen units across the continent, spending countless turns trying to maneuver through one or two tile choke points only for a war to be over in a few turns. It was fucking annoying, there isn’t anything strategic about it and it limits what the player can do. Oh, and mountains are suddenly impassable now btw.

Deathstacks were never a real issue, and civ3 and 4 gave you plenty of reasons to sometimes split your armies into a few different stacks to get terrain bonuses. Allowing unit stacking felt more immersive because you could have big armies and big battles. This got exponentially worse with civ 6 where each unit had like 4 or 5 actual models max and movement points got absolutely cucked in addition to the hex issues. You were also better able to respond to the rock paper scissors because you didn’t have to move your fucking archer out of the way before you could move your warrior up.1UPT was just a really, really piss poor way of reflecting the real world reality that two objects can’t occupy the same space in a fucking video game.

Hexes with 1UPT maybe could have work if map sizes were bigger and city settlement worked more like it did in civ 3. But it’s underwhelming and finds multiple ways to break immersion.

>it’s not a fantasy 4x it’s a board game

No, it’s not. Shut the fuck up. Prior to civ 5 it was always a game you get could immersed in via alternate history. That was always a major part of the appeal. Anyone pretending otherwise is being dishonest.

>>2040611
>1UPT is great

Go fuck yourself stop ruining my franchise.

>>2045213
>my idea for making 1UPT better is making it not 1UPT

>>2049517
Civ3 deathstacks are certainly better than this faggot ass mobile game shit we have now.

>>2073049
>And how you even do extinct or small cultures like Zulu?
The Zulu weren't even really a thing until the 19th century, so they can be a modern civ. Antiquity could be the Bantus and then the Mutapa Empire for exploration, or something like that
The thing is ages are so vaguely defined that I don't think it particularly matters. You've already got the Mughals in the modern age, despite them basically ceasing to really exist in the mid 18th century and Khmer in Antiquity, an empire founded in the year 800 AD. I think there's enough give there to guarantee you'll pretty much always find a empire/culture that'll fit.

>>2028495 (OP)
>Humankind
why cant it be called mankind?

>>2073478
peoplekind tho

>be me
>play civ 2
>play civ 3
>stop playing civ
Feels good man

>>2073609
sounds gay

why are you even acknowledging this shit existance retards

>>2073365
>Prior to civ5
>Deathstacks were never a real issue
>1UPT broke immersion, and not a million armies in one tiny locale
Uh huh. Your arguments fall flat out of the gate.

>>2073783
While I agree with you about the deathstacks, he's right about the mountains.

>>2073864
Oh I'll agree with that too. It was a pain in the ass.

>>2073680
if people laugh at it enough maybe they cut their losses and go straight to civ8

>>2073979
It's owned by take two. If it doesn't make money they just put it out behind the shed.

The madman just posted.
An end to the 1 unit per tile drama.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7qGB3JSYTw

Civ II got deathstacks right, why did it change.

>>2075496
>Civ 3 autist thinks the solution to civ combat is civ 3
fuckin' knew it he's right btw

>>2028495 (OP)
Devs are a bunch of low IQ negrophiles

>>2028495 (OP)
The devs don't play their games

Is the 15% discount on Civ 7 large or small considering that it only came out 4 months ago?

I really wonder if there was a more ill advised and stupid decision ever made by someone releasing strategy game sequel than this fucking civilization changing reset entire game era bullshit..

>>2078085
it's small considering how dogshit the game is.

>>2078085
Anon, a "discount" that puts the game at 60eurodollars is not a discount. It's just the end of the pre-order period.

>>2078085
Wait for at last for 60%

>>2078085
It'd be funny if we see the discount increase over the next couple of sales that by the time we reach the 2026 Summer sale it's at like a 95% discount.

>>2073376
I mean, even 1UPT in Civ V isn't REALLY 1UPT. If I must accept to rename it then I would call it LUPT (Limited Units Per Tile), but yes I do believe a suitable compromise between the deathstacks of Civ IV and the absolute carpets of units in Civ VI is a process where there is some consolidation of units into a central area, but spread out enough to allow for strategic depth.

I hate how useful diplo ideas are. I wish some of the other options were better early game.

>>2080298
The game could have balanced unit stacks by having stuff like artillery weapons being able to hit every unit on a tile at once, or troops in large stacks suffering attrition from disease (as in real life)
1UPT feels like a cop-out.

>>2080298
No it's more like one military unit per tile, or muppet for short.

>>2078602
Wait for the eventual humble bundle.

>>2081249
Or having some form of combat width depeding on terrain, coordination being a stat, COMMANDERS..
Anything would be fucking better than 1UPT bullshit.

>>2028506
The Civ franchise is dead. There will not be a number 8. They doubled down on their death spiral. It´s impossible to turn it around at this point.
You need a brand new studio making a brand new turn based civilization game. Maybe another studio making a new game can borrow the name Civ and get some added sales and attention that way, but maybe it´s better not to be associated with the turd that is Civ 7.
They did everything wrong.
They took
What is a single player game and focused on the multiplayer experience. You can have multiplayer, but people didn´t buy Baldurs gate, RDR2 or GTA for the multiplayer, that comes after the success.
What is a pc game and focused on people playing with gameboys or whatever.
They fucked up the very core of Civ. I saw one of the developers explaining how it was part of the recipe, before he was ever involved in making a civ game, changing 35% of the game from one game to the next. The retard took a metric as a goal in itself. The changes in Civ 7, making a earthmap impossible, the retarded fucking leaders no one wants to play or look at, the game is dead! DEAD DEAD DEAD!
No one is playing it, no one is buying it, it´s a failure wrapped in disaster buried in catastrophe. Only the most delusional persons who would deny reality, even when they are lined up against the wall in front of a firing squad, will defend this monstrosity of a turn based civilization game. The game is dead, the franchise is dead and the studio that made this shitshow is dead, if not already, soon to be. Because if you fuck up a slamdunk like Civ, you sure as fuck ain´t making other good games.

>>2078085
I wouldn't touch Civ 7 for anything more than $10.

jsut let it fucking die, stop replying to this shit thread
let civ8 be erased from people mind, banished from board, consigned for oblivion it so sorely needs

If they were going to borrow features from humankind, why the parts no one likes instead of the starting as a nomad or the combat. Both those would fix a lot of civ's issues.

>>2028495 (OP)
>>2028506
is Ara any good?

people who assumed you where playing as the actual genghis khan or washington in earlier games instead of the leaders being personifications like uncle sam are such redditmidwits.
but thats the type of person that gets DEI-hired.

>>2084161
If its still micromanagement hell and unbalanced as fuck no. I had more fun playing Millennia then I did Ara.

>>2084497
Same. Both are too boardgamey (pejorative), but at least Millennia goes on for an hour or two before it becomes too tedious to even bother attempting to continue. Ara's entire gameplay loop is tedious unfun bullshit. Somehow it's even worse in that regard than fucking Victoria 3, the tedious micromanagement simulator.

>>2083726
>Civ8
I wish Civ 8 was out already. I'm sick of playing Civ IV/V/VI. I don't even like Civ IV. I fucking hate squares.

In hindsight Civ3 was peak.

>>2084169
>you where playing
sums up the IQ of this entire comment pretty well

In hindsight civ2 was peak.

In hindsight Civ IV was peak.

>>2028608
Advertising for one thing or another. They have really lost their touch, they forgot that it's a trick, you can't force feed entertainment to people. But as you say, they aren't interested in entertainment.

Ay caramba, what happened lil friend?

kek

>>2089216
Looks like the sale didn't do jack shit to increase the player count.

>>2028495 (OP)
>How did no one in the dev team see this coming
Several probably did, but there's a class of person you just aren't allowed to disagree with, and that class of person is also the sort to push for these kinds of changes. Separating civs from leaders allows them to feature leaders who "deserve it" like Harriet Tubman, without requiring that they actually led anything or even existed. You'll unironically see Wakanda in Civ 8, available only on iOS.

>>2089632
>15% off
Might as well not go on sale

Leaders were a mistake in Civilization to begin with. They were trash when introduced in Civ3, although at that point they were just civilization traits at best; but Civ4 started pushing them more to the point where they have gameplay considerations which can restrict or be an unneccesary obstacle to players.
The series needs to go back to the basics. Civ2 didn't have leaders beyond the ruler titles in diplomacy screens and that was all that was needed; even with that "simplicity" the game was much more dynamic with the civil wars mechanic and which I don't think has been in any Civilization since.

>>2084550
Only thing Civ3 really did the best was population migration via workers and settlers being able to join existing cities to up their population.
It's combat and unit attribute system was also best in the series, but the vanilla unit tree was trash and the AI was too stupid to really use the system to it's fullest. Firaxis also cockblocked modders with limiting hardcaps for a lot of values in the editor with the second or third patch.
>>2084606
It was indeed. Main thing I liked about Civ6 was it brought caravans back. Still no civil wars or unhappy cities declaring independence from you yet (messy mechanics with the leader bullshit).
>>2085683
Civ4 went too into leaders and it's combat system and unit attribute systems are atrocious and possibly worst in the series. Religion was pretty good and culture aspects got improved from 3.
>>2089632
Nobody who is on the fence about Civ7 is going to pay 60 bucks still for it so yeah it wouldn't. Half off you might see an uptick.

>>2089216
>fucking Shitstellaris has more concurrent players than the last Civ
P*ratrash-sisters we finally won.

>>2089683
Might as well pirate.

>>2089748
Might as well play any other civ

>>2089706
You're retarded. The only thing that Civ4 added to leaders was favorite civics & religion. Civ3 added mechanical traits, and personalities were always in the game from the beginning in Civ1, but they weren't visible.

Civ4's combat system is also fantastic, only comparable to Civ3's. It's also a good thing that siege units (or ranged units for that matter) can't be used do zero risk damage to enemy stacks. What's next, are you going to defend Civ3 bombers? If anything, Realism Invictus has probably the best mechanical solution for Civ combat, but I personally don't like the mod's balance.

>>2089712
Of course it does, its a better fucking game than Civ7.
For all its flaws it can be somewhat fun, it looks better, it has mods and it doesnt fucking change my faction every 100 years and deletes all of my progress.

>>2073783
How many men died at Paschendale? Stalingrad?

>whaaaaa civ3 makes it to where I can have two dozen units on a tile this breaks my immersion

1UPT is about as tactical as shoving a carrot up my ass.

>>2080298
> but yes I do believe a suitable compromise between the deathstacks of Civ IV and the absolute carpets of units in Civ VI is a process where there is some consolidation of units into a central area, but spread out enough to allow for strategic depth.

So, copy endless legend? That system doesn’t exactly work well in that game either.

>>2084582
Don’t you have a discord to moderate or something?

Civ 2 and 5 were the only good ones, who gives a shit

>>2089957
I am going to defend civ 3s bombers.

a while ago i saw a proof of concept for a civ 4 mod that soft nerfed doomstacks by limiting which units could possibly defend against an attacker. the premise was that anytime a unit attacked, it would grab 4 or 5 random units from the stack and designate those as the possible defending units then it would pick the best defender from those for combat. each attacker most likely ends up with a different set of defenders so the attacker might be able to avoid fighting a counter unit, and so you'd have to have way more counters in your stack to ensure you had a good chance at responding to counterattacks. i like to imagine the mechanic represents an army that's so big that the attacker can attack a small part without the entire army being able to respond. wonder if it would work well in practice

>>2089957
>the only thing that Civ4 added to leaders was favorite civics & religion.
Regarding Leaders, Civ4 added potentially multiple leaders to each civilization, which was new and distinct, why I said Civ3 Leaders were essentially "civilization perks" with their generalized traits. Civ4's leader traits and multiple potential leaders for individual Civs made more distinction between Leader triats, which I argue was always a mistake and it was a shitty shallow meta that was increased every game.
>Civ4's combat system is also fantastic
Civ4s combat system was boring and atrocious and yes indirect fire isn't a bad thing considering they were absolutely fucking weak in direct combat and required a guard unit to be effective. Civ4's promotion system was also ass, rock paper scissors is trash for brainlets (why AoE is also overrated shit), and it's worse in Civ4 because the promotion RPS perks don't even matter because with the stack gameplay you never get to use your promotion specializations anyway because the stack picks the best counter by default.
>wah Civ3 bombers are OP
No they weren't considering they were hardcapped at 8 tile max operational range or some stupid bullshit by Firaxis in the second or third patch.
>>2090088
Still doesn't fix the shit attributes or the shit promotions where 80% of them are effectively useless because the game has no tactical considerations within stacks anyway. Throwing a random chance of what units are chosing is as bad as autobest in stack, it doesnt fix the fact there is no tactical decisions or choice by the players within the tile stack engagements.

>your entire civilization just changes two fucking times while you play
I mean who even thought that idea is good, even on paper it sounds ass...
Imagine playing any other game like that
>yeah its cool that you coached Manchester Utd for half a season, now let us swap the team you picked to FC Boogerville have fun
>whats that? You reached lvl 10 as Paladin? Time for your mandatory swap to other class, you get to choose between wizard and bard, go on play
Fucking lunacy.

>>2090256
>whats that? You reached lvl 10 as Paladin? Time for your mandatory swap to other class, you get to choose between wizard and bard, go on play
To be fair, double-class MMOs and RPGs are the shit. But yeah I agree with your general sentiment and Civ7 seems to be ill-advised from the drawing board.

>>2090258
Double class is okay if its optional and under player control.
Not fucking mandatory and has to be done twice..

>>2089748
Not worth pirating either really, might as well pirate 6 or 5 instead

>>2090025

>>2090018
I bet you know all about showing stuff up your ass don't you

>>2031731
6 was never great, it's just zoomers' first Civ game.
5 was barely great at the end with all DLCs and still a downgrade from 4.

>>2090020
No, I am not proposing copying any game. I simply think that 1UPT is needlessly restrictive, and the alternative to it is not doom stacks but a compromise of the two. It's important to simulate some sort of a frontline to allow for both tactical and strategic depth. For the record I am also not a fan of Endless Legend, I wouldn't want Civ to copy it.

>>2089957
>>2090031
Bombers genuinely wouldn't have been a problem if air defense wasn't complete dogshit in civ 3.

Humankind's solution to 1UPT and stacks was the best one.

>civ gets a good start
>has the most production
>has the most tech
>has the most money
>hast the most food
>has the most land
>has the strongest army
This series always fucking sucked

>>2091321
While that's basically true, it's hard to find the sweet spot between useless bombers and OP bombers. If air defense is too easy, then air is useless. Bombers unfortunately are a critical component of late game offensives into railroaded enemies. Without them, it just becomes a numbers game of whether you brought enough troops in your initial push to overwhelm the enemy's entire army plus reinforcements from their entire empire. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely adore super railroads, but their asymmetrical implementation has serious implications. Perhaps if you could send military engineers into enemy territory to refit enemy rails to support your troops (in other words just give you move speed instead of the enemy). Heck, make rail gauges an actual mechanic where you can agree to use gauges compatible with other civs as a diplomatic/military agreement.

>>2028495 (OP)
Part of the cultural "Great Reset" psyop.

>>2090346
How can you pirate something that's free?

>>2094030
outsourced to the same glown- luminescent-americans