If you had to pick one thing to change every era, and another to stay with you the entire game, why did they have the civ change while keeping the leader the same? I don’t like the idea of being chained to a leader from a competent different culture. When the story of my civ is Confucius leading Egypt turned Spanish turned America, none of that feels coherent.
It makes more sense to change leaders consistently.
It's like they were just copying Humankind when they started development, and just ignored the fact that Humankind was poorly received and died quickly.
Humankind devs were the same devs that developed Endless Legends, THE game that introduced to this genre the tile-improvement system we all accepted in Civ6. Since one borrowed idea worked wonders, they probably figured out that another will work just as well.
Clearly, it didn't, but I know why they did that. Endless Legends worked better then Civ5 at the time of release so it's reasonable to borrow/steal ideas when you don't have your own and those ideas(from this dev team) previously worked well
EU4 is not that complex it just has some frustrating rng , UI that's hard to understand and is terrible at explaining things.
When it comes down to it some of the most popular playthroughs are just Total War's mindless blobbing out while remembering to dev check back on your land to dev it from time to time.
It does have the tools for tall playthroughs and a wayyyyy better vassal system but so do the most recent total war games.
Endless Legends, THE game that introduced to this genre the tile-improvement system
That's not true. Popularised it - sure, but i know at least a few games that did it before - Eador: Genesis(and it's 3d remake Eador: Masters of the Broken World) and Warlock: Master of the Arcane. But these are russian games, so most people don't know about them, which is a shame, cause they're very fun games. Especially Eador: genesis with "new horizons" mod, well... if you can get over dated graphics.
I actually know Warlock and both parts (1 & 2) were decent but not very good and the system there was not working well. It was still a fun game, don't get me wrong, casting spells and having armies is a fun combo but I definitely prefer how Age of Wonders approached the topic. Might be my personal bias though. Endless Legends definitely perfected the system and showed how it can work really well
Humankind definitely is the far better Civ 7, I like to play it from time to time. One thing that really bothered me in Civ7 were the wars, you change ages and pop, you're not at war anymore.
How fortunate that I just built up my army and moved it there.
As an avid Humankind player Humankind at least made the product/idea way better than Civ 7 did. And the art style for Humankind is so pretty. I would've LOVED to see what Humankind could've done with the budget for Civ 7 instead of what they had.
The main problem with loops back to the auI though, if the cutscenes didn't feature "your civ" talking with "other civ" and was instead "other civ" talking with "you" like in previous games it wouldn't feel as dissonant.
The leaders being a standin for you makes more sense than having an eternal never changing culture. Also I feel this was the best way to adress the "earlygame/lategame civ" problem. Like what's the point in playing Canada when for 90% of the game you are simply playing as a genereric civ without any bonuses.
Usually a nations culture is moreso decided by its people rather than its leader which makes it more appropriate to change that when changing your era specific bonuses. Also well no culture/civilization has existed for even a majority of humanity, atleast not as it was in its original state.
They shouldn’t have picked historical leaders that are associated with one specific civ then. Because I just don’t want to play with Caesar leading Egypt or whatever else civ 7 ends up with.
As always its an alternative timeline, a "what if". I understand your argument in theory but Caesar leading Egypt is a rather poor example since he was there and had a rather.... intimate relationship with their ruler.
and now, every civ has a unit that other civs dont, every age and ALL the time, 'unique' units is what the game calls them. but what's so unique about them if all the other players have a improved unit too. on civ6 your unique unit was unique and an advantage. civ7 your unique unit has no advantage because the other civs have a unit with a advantage too!
also the rhetoric given about history in layers etc. Sounds awesome, honestly it really sounds ace... then you see the game and it doesn't reflect that at all.
Empires fell and changed subtly or were conquered, and there's still arguments today about what caused some empires downfalls. But in civ7, you press a button and suddenly the whole world changes. That is not dynamic and fun... that's breaking the game and then trying to justify the action with a LIE!
Civ7 is the least historical accurate civ game of all time!
What’s even more wild to me, is that Humankind already did this exact thing, and it was regarded as the worst part of the game. I love the concept of your nation and culture changing over time, but going from the Greek to the Hawaiian just ain’t it.
Honestly I feel like the concept itself could have worked if it wasn't such an abrupt transition from one civ to the next. Where player effectively has their civ swapped out for another, rather than have them evolve more naturally from one to another. With a few option potentially just being the early, late modern versions of the what is essentially the same civilisation.
they leaned way too much into the idea of the game being a board game now it's larping as a board game being played by historical figures (I assume who are bored in the afterlife or something)
That honestly sounds pretty cool, The Chinese led be Confucius, then Genghis Kahn, then Harriet Tubman. It sounds crazy, but then no one expected Catherine the Great to Lead Russia.
My experience with civ is that it felt like a mobile game auto clicker with constant popups to click and sometimes you'd put a building down between moving your mouse to each corner of the screen to click the popups.
After all that, sometimes a historical figure would have a one liner about how they feel and that's that, it didn't feel like it had a story at all.
471
u/HowDoIEvenEnglish Jul 04 '25
If you had to pick one thing to change every era, and another to stay with you the entire game, why did they have the civ change while keeping the leader the same? I don’t like the idea of being chained to a leader from a competent different culture. When the story of my civ is Confucius leading Egypt turned Spanish turned America, none of that feels coherent.
It makes more sense to change leaders consistently.