My biggest issue with switching civs is that I don’t want my choice of civ based on optimal gameplay. I feel that it’s going to ruin the immersion when you have to pick a civ because it offers the best bonuses for your current game, instead of simply because you want to play that civ
Civ VI killed immersion play for me, which is why I still play IV and V even though I own it. I feared VII would continue the trend of making this a series for spreadsheet nerds and it looks like I was right.
Hmm, should I go Greece -> Zulu -> Mexico because it has better science bonus or Greece -> Brazil -> Russia for more culture... What if don't meet the criteria to unlock Russia and then I will be stuck with sub-par Greece -> Brazil -> Korea :(.
Uhm, you don't have to switch. Roleplay any way you want. But that's how civilizations were formed - civilization is historically made by its environment, thus if I could, I would remove civilizations like Rome, Egypt, England, Russia, etc., completely and let players build their own civilization without presets. So to me Civ7 much better in its concept than any previous Civs.
@@Wysch Civilizations were built and formed by the people and only ever influenced by the environment. You build culture as you age and add identity, experiences, and go through life. You don’t flip culture because some magical time frame elapses… they almost had it figured out and then they went right instead of left at Albuquerque.
I think a bit of de-linking names to concepts would be better received. Egypt doesn't become Mongolia, but Egypt becomes a Light Cav nation styled after the Mongolians, but called something more Egyptian. Egypt: Raiders from the Desert, or something I dunno. Easier to receive than Egypt->Mongolia.
I was about to suggest exactly this. It's what Millennia did with National Spirits, and it works perfectly. Still Egypt, but... whoops, I guess we became horse raiders!
@@PravusGaming Do you believe them?? A strategy game doesn't usually need that much development time, I believe, and after seeing the reception of humankind, did they really thought that was to be pushed forwards anyways??
@@nehemiasgroppi4397 I don't have any reason not to believe them. I think it's totally plausible that their creative director started writing ideas on a white board years ago and that early vision has informed the rest of its development.
@@PravusGaming and you believe it was a good decision? I mean there were other alleys to revitalise and improve the franchise or being influenced by humankind like it's combat, and then just being 3 ages... Maybe they are greatly implemented and balanced but the idea just doesn't appeal to me, honestly
Maybe they should split this into two modes. Historic mode: - only the antiquity age civs can be picked at the start, and they can evolve only into historic accurate ones (Rome -> Italy/Spain/etc.) - only historic accurate leaders can be picked for these civs - options are built with historic accuracy in mind Dreamworld mode: - you can start as anything and have a larger pool of civs to evolve into - civs can choose to maintain their identity instead: you can take the Aztec Empire from antiquity all the way to the modern age
This actually sounds better when you think about them splitting the ages into three. If you start in antiquity you get a choice of civilizations that flourished in antiquity, when you change to the age of exploration since apparently the entire world changes with you not just your civilization, you can still pick the civilization you started from but progress to the civilization closest to it. Like start with Persia in antiquity and then culturally shift to a civilization close to it like Iran or some other nation, or any of the nations that formed when the persian empire fell or keep continuing into Persia and what it would have become had it flourished to the exploration and the modern era, which also means shifting leaders to someone else, historically and navigating what that leader brings to the table and how best you can use it to build your civilization.
As long as there are enough civs to assure a historic path for every civ (which they should do anyway) this should be easy to develop. If there is modding support, this might even be in the scope of a mod, though I think this should be in the base game. Maintainig your civ through the ages might be difficult to balance, or you'd have to change bonuses through the ages wherein you'd also loose historic accuracy.
I won't know until I see it - but I don't like the Civ transition so far. I somewhat agree that keeping them on a line makes historical sense (kinda) - Like Persia, Parthian, Iran...(and a few more in between) or even various Middle Eastern empires. At the same time, I want more control - to make my own civ based on a particular civilization. I don't play on Earth, so I don't want the same story. So using your example: Egypt to Mongolia might be more my style even though it is awkward. It seems to me that if they simply said the attribute of the civs rather than the civilization itself would be a simple fix (not too different earlier functions) - so for example Egypt doesn't become Mongolia (nor the modern Buganda tribe, for that matter) but rather it gains a horse culture attribute! But I'll wait to see.
It's possible that the game MIGHT only have the culturally connected Civs at the start, but I am near certain that there will be a toggleable game mode that allows any Civ to evolve into any Civ, like Apocalypse mode or Barbarian Clans in Civ 6.
Yeah I think civilisation should stay, It was always about playing one civ, but developing culture would be better, something like Crusader Kings III. I get that they want more historical accuracy but that ain't going from Egypt to Mongolia
I'm personally fine with turning from Egypt into "Mongolia." If I have horses around me, I should be able into turn into a horse-based empire. What I do have a problem with is changing the names of cities and the empire as a whole. Seeing the names of my cities change makes me instantly lose all investment in them. Being able to keep the same name list throughout the game would help greatly with my investment.
@@Tytoalba777 I totally agree - is that what happens? Wait, I'm still going to be able to name my cities myself right? What planet would be worth conquering that didn't have at least one Jasonopolis?
@@PravusGaming Will you? Guess it depends on what late game has. One would assume there will be new game interaction to replace them. I we assume it is planned for so much time for turn, then the two minutes of workers becomes something else. Perhaps more engaging non combat management.
Personally, I do think that there need to be more ages. 3 seems too small and it could have worked with Antiquity, Classical, Exploration, Industrial and Modern ages. The more layers I think it would actually be more beneficial but I can’t say until I get my hands on it 🙂
Antiquity and Classical is the same thing. So is Exploration and Industrial. If anything we could have Medieval because that's like an entire millenium that separated antiquity and renaissance.
i think its fine antiquity combines with all pre-gunpowder age, then explo combines till early industry, then modern combines ww2 -> future age. Having big chunks could work well with a antiquity only mod, always wanted a classical conquest than dropping nukes.
@@JohnDoe-vv9zpThe Greeks differentiated between the two! The Thebes in Egypt (Waset) was known as “Thebes of the Hundred Gates” (Θῆβαι ἑκατόμπυλοι, Thēbai hekatómpyloi); Whilst the Thebes in Greece/Boeotia was “Thebes of the Seven Gates” (Θῆβαι ἑπτάπυλοι, Thēbai heptápyloi).
@@mcgeedarion Interesting! I’m presuming you’re suggesting it was the Greek Thebes that was settled? The earliest excavations we have from Thebes (Greece) are from about 1750-1050BC, whilst Thebes in Egypt was inhabited around 3200BC. We know that the Greek Thebes was definitely in contact with Egypt during the reign of Amenhotep III approx. 1386BC-1350BC.
They are showing Egyptians as Black Africans and evolving them into sub saharan culture. What about the actual Egyptians who are neither white nor black?
Would be better if for every civ they picked a few leaders for every era (or indeed if the country in question changed names maybe even "civs" but only for those) EG, lets say you pick Iberian. Then on the middle ages that could let you pick between the various kingdoms (castille, navarra, aragon, Portugal) depending on your achievements. Then in the next era lets say you picked castille, then you're gonna get Spain but it might let you choose between different kings from that era with different priorities. (or hell for modern era you could even have kingdom of spain with canovas/sagasta, the 2nd republic with azaña, or well the funny moustache club with I-don't-wanna-trigger-the-censor) It gets even better if you add the various governments that were ex-colonies for more variety. Say putting Spain as an example again, you might be able to turn into mexico or grand colombia. That way you get a LOT of variety without being unrealistic.
i feel like it could be cool if you could shape your own empire from the roots of your old one and make your own civilization with your own build and differences Like you start as the Egyptians then you become the holy Egyptian empire or something and depending on what culture you create you become the democratic peoples of egypt or communist Egypt or something like that
I'm personally glad to see some gameplay changes. Civ V and VI will always be there to play, so I'm glad its not just the same game with a different skin.
Great video but man this killed my hype. Civ switching is just bad. The elegant way to handle this is allow people to change leaders not civilizations. They can present you with multiple leader options each era that tailor to your gameplay and you don’t completely lose your immersion in the way you will when you go from Egypt to Mongolia for example. Yeah you can chose to not do it but… if it’s suboptimal it isn’t a choice
I feel like old world handled this way better. In that game it was basically like civ and crusader kings had a child. You had the 4x elements however you had to deal with your empires politics. You had to make you had an heir, you had to deal with the other families that are apart of your empire, and you had to manage relationships with other rulers.
@@JohnDoe-vv9zp that’s exactly what I’m outlining and better yet - when you do it that way you could potentially include multiple leaders so everyone is happy. Maybe someone likes George Washington, Someone like Lincoln, someone like Thomas Jefferson. All of them could be choices.
Civilization has used the 1/3 rule for every game they made. They'll be around long before we are gone. Don't approach a game with skepticism and pessimist, you'll never enjoy yourself.
@@Cashinn_Outt1754 My suggestion was two options reflecting golden age vs dark age. Have progression vs a revolution. A progression gives you that legacy. Revolution has the change (so say Washington) or conquered (mongols) Where you get a good bonus but comes with negative. A good negative could be reset of diplomatic relations, both good and bad. All go to neutral in exchange for a strong era reformation bonus. Perhap government tied to leaders as well. To add variety. So no tribal leader becomes suddenly a democracy.
I cannot get over the new Civ system, it's a deal breaker for me. I simply want my civs to be themed on their historical counterparts, if they wanted variations then offer for example eqyptian themed choices for Eqypt. Even if I roleplayed Eqypt, my opponents will not. Unless there is game rule to restrict Civs to stay their lane or someone make the angry-old-man mod I shall not partake. I grew to dislike the system in humankind, a more limited venue of options in civ selections does not save it for me. I wish I could overlook it as the Crisis system seems fun. I wish the very best for the people who are excited, may many many nights of yours be lost to: "Just one more turn..."
We're still 6 months out, and we've not seen everything. Maybe you can take Egypt or Rome into their next ages as is, depending on gameplay choices or whatever.
@@1337-Nathaniel Yes you will definetly be able to continue as rome/egypt etc whatever the starting civ is. They just give you the option to change into something else. If you don;t want to ruin your immersion, just stay in line. I suspect there probably will be a game mode / option when setting the game to restrict it only to historical path.
@@1337-Nathaniel Based on video on display at the start, you choose your leader but then have the option to choose Hatshepsut of Eqypt, then you choose the actual Civ, on display: Aksum, Eqypt, the one from southern asia or Rome. Aksum was a kingdom just south of Eqypt and would be a interesting what if, 'even' Rome, Cleopatra somehow ending up at the helm. But the country from somewhere between India and Thailand? They already had the similar idea of dual leaders in Civ 6, which I liked as they made "sense". To me the Civ games have always been about what if scenarios of our history. My favorite play style was to play a game on the Big Earth map with randomized locations so maybe Japan could appear in south america for a more interesting chaotic what if, or a historical start and then see how organically this earth evolved. I loved living in that bizarro history trying to outlive and beat the competition. I thought I would get it with humankind but eventually I got tired of having a run/playstyle in mind only to have the AI steal my desired civ from underneath me, while also fun as it forced me to improvise it also sometimes forced me to change from a science play into a military conquest against my science rival half a world away from the world as they gained the science civ I graved, and possibly ending my run there and then, depending how close they were behind me. The reactive playstyle of the wildly switching civs often forced me to pick more overall safe civs, which increased my dependency on monobuild instead of decreasing them. And whilst I can follow my roleplay I doubt the AI (PvP is given as meta gaming will always reign supreme) will follow it, it'll have its own calculations as to which civs they will choose. Might have England that turns into Germany over night. A funny as that is. Bizarrely Civ, in my opinion, had the answer they sought. The religion system. Taking the basis of it, I would always choose my religion types based on where I began. Shoreline and sea resources. "All hail the Sea-god". "Incense? We be a-praying at them monasteries my good laddies". each choice tailored to My situation, writing My story, giving Life and History to My story. To me the best choice would to start with history themed Civ. Like the ancient Norse, give a slightly time jumping viking face to it. then as time goes as ages pass this Norse people might go their christian route and become sweden/norwegian or stay their course and remain Norse, then just update the attire for the leader to represent their current era. They might establish along the shore taking bonuses to seagoing and fishing, they might begin deep in the woods specializing in hunting a tree logging. Imagine starting as native American tribe facing a choice in age of exploration of how to face the settlers. Face them with a open hand then histry takes its ugly turn or face them with war and remain your own people. (although many US players would not really take to my example here :D ) Long rant besides, I enjoy a large roleplaying aspect in my paint the map games, a aspect I fear lost, but also easily solved by giving a option to force civs down a historical start and then offering generic themed bonus upon age ascension, like the religion system. This old man shall leave ya'll be in your peace and take my grumbling to halls of the longbeards.
I am certain that there will be a game setup option to toggle how "sticky" Civs are to their historical paths. There might even be an entirely separate game mode (think Apocalypse Mode or Barbarian Clans) for where any Civ can become any Civ, while the default game is "stickier". The art direction tells you a lot about a game's intentions. Firaxis isn't going to go with a more "realistic" art style, talk about "simulating history" in their gameplay video, and then suddenly have "Teddy Roosevelt, Pharoah of Egypt" as a recurring event in anything other than a side game mode. I'd bet my left testicle.
I prefer Civ 5's map aesthetics. I just felt like it was actual land instead of hexes, even the borders were curved and looked natural. Not a fan of the hexes we've had on Civ 6 and Civ 7.
Agreed and I like the Simplicity of CIV5, especially when you have a lot of Cities and a huge Empire...gets tiresome trying to micromanage each City. Also liked the workers auto improvements, here you have to be more hands on with the workers.
@@KennyT187 Honestly, I think while it is less cartoony, it also looks more wonky, and frankly to me somehow worse than even 6, 5 still somehow maintaints superiority in character design.
Switching civilisations seems good in theory, but in practice it's just as nonsensical as Humanking in some cases. Songhai was literally on the opposite end of the African continent than Egypt, it's like saying "Oh yeah, Rome into Sweden, that makes sense". I'd rather just stick to a single civ for the whole game
I assume it's to act as a kind of reset to prevent one player running away with the game. Like in older games where you can have tanks but rivals have longbows.
I mean, migration and expansion are a thing my dude. The entire game is based on re-shaping history. Also, "nonsensical", yea as oppose to regular Civ games where you play as Abe Lincoln founding America in 4000 BC and build the Pyramids with your army of American medieval Knights lmao
@@lordlubu3029 Egyptians suddenly deciding that they are no longer monument-builders but conquest-ridden steppe-riders named Mongolians is far worse than your example. Absolute immersion breaker. With America, you at least have the excuse that you want this nation simply to be included. But Civilization change? Nah, its the height of "nonsensical".
What really sucks about humankind is the lack of balance, as a warmonger I would go for same civ picks every time so there's little to no variety and the ai is so weak, it presents no challenge. The civ switching might hit the immersion aspect, or maybe it won't depending on how it's done. What's more important is the gameplay, does it feel challenging, is the combat as fun as in hk, does every game plays out uniquely and your choices matter, that kind of stuff.
If they had to copy an other game, they should copy Old World which copied Crusader Kings. (Copy in a positive way). I can already read the mixed comment wars on steam.
@@AngryGeekling You can pay for shit games and play them all you want. That's the great thing: you can choose to be the one who plays the shit new game if you can't handle the idea of not having he newest thing.
i like the idea you laid out with the history of london. If you told me the game was, you pick a civ like england, it starts as something more akin to rome because it began as a roman colony, and then evolved into something more anglo-saxon, norman, etc as the ages go by, that sounds interesting to me rather than just having static bonuses right from the start to the end of the game. but that's not what they're presenting, it's you find 3 horse pastures and suddenly your the mongols.
They can only show so much in a 15 min showcase, but based on these deep dive videos from content creators who played the game the system is much more deep than "build 3 horses and become the Mongols" lol. It seems each Civ has multiple paths they can take and some evolutions are mutually exclusive. Like only Egypt can become the Songhai, you can't play as Rome and transition to Songhai
England would’ve been a perfect example for how this system should’ve been done. The ancient era is the religious native celts who built Stonehenge The classical/antiquity would be militaristic romans The medieval would be religious or agrarian Anglo saxons The renaissance would’ve been some naval power Industrial being colonial either through industry or culture Could even do something for chancing them into America/ Canada or maybe even India But they really just copy pasted humankind instead of improving on that flawed system
@@lordlubu3029 So we actually don't know if that's true. Rome will have its own "default" option in the next age, but it might still be a free-for-all (including Songhai) with only a few Civs locked behind special objectives. Until we see the age transition, we just don't know yet.
I'd rather it be called Mongolia mechanically than just being cavalry egypt. People are just mad the names are getting attached to a mechanic that has to change.
@@GodwynDithe hate bandwagon is so lame. If people don't like it, civ 6 still exists, go play it. In any case it's too early to make any real judgement. Lots to see, let alone play.
@@bday3816 Modern video game devs are more concerned with making what they want over what their consumers want. It's already hit some of the biggest franchises on the market...
@@GodwynDi The Civ changing completely, removes any sense of 'building an empire to stand the test of time' from the game. It's essentially something wearing the skin of Civilization now
Looks like I'll be skipping this one completely. Civ VI was already a MASSIVE disappointment, and now they're just advertising how they're completely out of ideas and vision and are just copying features from other games at random. I guess Civ V will have to do.
@@khatack Yup. I pick Japan, suddenly my only options are to be China by default or India because I tapped 3 garam-masala tiles. Sounds really awesome.......
Changing Civilizations is a terrible idea and it's not like this "restricted" progression makes any more sense than Humankind's. Egypt has about as much in common with West Africa as Turkey has with China. They're on the same continent and some aspects of the physical geography are the same. To say nothing of Egypt becoming Mongolia. I like how they've somehow created systems that are hyperspecific _and_ eroded more of the uniqueness of each Civ because modern devs seem fixated on the idea that all human cultures are more or less interchangeable. At this point I'm comfortable saying Paradox has supplanted Firaxis as the premier historical strategy game company, despite their own predatory business practices.
Ancient Egyptians and West Africans culturally share many things in common, so that wouldn’t be to much of a stretch actually… Mongolia however shares nothing in common with Ancient Egypt…
@@In-Gall_Tegidda_n_Tesemt Aside from their different religions, relationships with neighboring cultures, economic outputs, maritime traditions, military structures, level of bureaucratic centralisation... West Africa and Egypt are largely arid regions defined by a main arterial river with a history of slavery that were later Islamized. They don't have _nothing_ in common, but the core concept of Egypt becoming Songhai rather than, say, Ancient Egypt becoming Ptolemaic, then Islamic, then Pan-Arab/modern is a stupid half measure that's too similar to something we already know didn't work. If you wanted a "faction changes over time" mechanic, you'd have to focus on a specific region to give them the proper progression from A to Z.
@@KAPTAINmORGANnWo4eva Learn to read with better comprehension... I said that ancient Egyptians and West Africans have more in common ethnically with each other than the ancient Egyptians do with Mongolians; so the points that you made are meaningless because I'm talking about the ancient Egyptians, who of course weren't Muslims. Ancient Egyptian religion for example is not that complex, when you've read works like _Kingship And The Gods(1948)_ by Henri Frankfort, a scholarly interpretation of ancient Egyptian religion, as well understanding the cultural foundations of the Egyptian institution of _kinghship;_ the core elements of ancient Egyptian religion, are ancestor cults, particularly of divine kings the *souls of Nekhen and the souls of Pe* ; totemic animal cults and animistic beliefs; hereditary rulers that were incarnations of the sun god Ra that is represented by the falcon, one of the totemic animals of a specific Upper Egyptian cult going back to predynastic times... Totemism is one of the main features of indigenous African beliefs, clan social organization, kinship and descent, the same was true of the ancient Egyptians... African rulers like a tribal chief of the Kuba or Bakota are of divine origin according to mythic tradition, like the pharaoh of Egypt(e.g. a shaman like figure and alleged potentate that brings rain); the pharaoh was believed to cause the annual flooding of the Nile, and the Egyptian god Min personifies a rainmaker, primary examples of cultural parallels between the ancient Egyptians and modern sub-Saharan Africans. The same is the case over in West Africa, not in ancient Greece because they didn't have kings after the Mycenaean age; Greek rulers were not rainmakers or shamans, nor were Greek rulers based on such a concept, likewise Mesopotamian rulers weren't either, because Mesopotamian kingship, the mechanics of the institution itself was very different and rulers were not hereditary like the rulers of ancient Egypt and sub-Saharan Africa. You don't understand the origins of the ancient Egyptian political system, religion, mythology or their culture in general, so stay in your lane kid...
@@In-Gall_Tegidda_n_Tesemt "Learn to read with better comprehension... I said that ancient Egyptians and West Africans have more in common ethnically with each other" **Literally doesn't say anything to do with ethnicity in their comment** Then you go on an agro Wikipedia tirade about barely coherent nonsense based on being upset at a single sentence from my reply. Are you even a human? Are you some kind of chatbot based on Chris-Chan?
DLCs are predatory? That's the monetization scheme compared to other games using cosmetics for continued development. How else to pay for further development. Barebones release of imperator Rome and Victoria 3 I agree. But charging for adding content is fine IMHO
yeah if they change civs, each civ should have a path forward. Like Britain for example could be: Britons -> England -> UK Egypt could be: Egypt -> Mameluke -> Modern Egypt Just seems very much anti roleplay to force me to change to a civ I didn’t choose when the game started
Love the new visual style (CIV VI was so cartoonish it bordered on parody) , but the culture swapping is a deal breaker for me, as it was in Humankind. Going from Egypt to Mongolia has about as much historical sense as going from Korea to Mexico.
I completly agree with your case of egypt evolving into mongolia. but I think that is also because of our perception because we know those two civilications. for all we know if a time traveler tripped over a rock. egypt would have not been taken over by the muslim empire and they could have done the same thing as the mongols did, pillaging the rest of africa using camels ig. my point being that civ swapping, I think. only feels bad because of our brains saying that those places are different and shouldnt match together. even tho some civs could have done something an other civ did irl. maybe the best way to handle this was keeping your civ and allowing you to swap their abilitys around depending on how you played in the era before that. but thats just a opinion. if oyou think i completely missed the point. then say so.
Me to if like human kind. I dont mind it in concept if it was done logically and as a choice for direction. Instead of swapping to mongolia, should be your past gives you an equestrian trait to have Calvary more powerful. No to civ swapping, yes to directed reform. But I think Revolution could be interesting too still within reason. IE like the french or soviet revolutions. You have civ leaders, then you have revolution leaders. You can, change direction with revolution if things happen (dark age). So you have Washington revolution. You lose out on legacy in exchange for something else. 'We toss away our english legacy and become Americans' So now you have perhaps a short term boost to industries, or growth or ?
Which would be exactly what you want, strategic optimization, not ADS-inducing tactical optimization. But Civ 7 is like Civ 6 in that, it's for autists.
23:57 Is it just me, or does this sequence of Hatshepsut and Caesar posing at each other look really bloody stupid? I like the simplification of the city planning. Having to micromanage the optimal placement of districts in Civ VI was stressful and overwhelming.
Civilization 7 should have been designed so that civilizations remain fixed while leaders are chosen according to the era, rather than having fixed leaders and choosing civilizations based on the era.
Thanks a lot for the info, am very saddened to hear about the "new civ every era" change, to me it feels like it takes the civ out of civ, and civ vii is just a humankind clone now
@@PravusGamingit’ll be a disaster if you actually can go from Egypt to Mongolia, then what’s the point of playing Civilization, It even contradicts with the game’s name beside that I kinda liked the rest of the stuff, I loved districts in Civ6 hope they don’t smash the whole idea and make the game a clicking sim
As someone who’s played a lot of HK and Civ vi, I earnestly believe the changes they’re making to civ swapping for civ 7 will let it get all the benefits of HK’s system without its main drawbacks (only 2 swaps means each stage feels distinct, options based on gameplay makes feel mich less random, etc). Also, bear in mind that this isn’ meant to be an Egypt that suddenly became Mongolian. It’s an Egypt thag evolved and developed traditions most comparable to our world’s Mongolia
This is not the Civ update we were hoping for. I'm honestly getting flashbacks to Beyond Earth. So much promise, such utter fail. I'd ask that they get busy and make Xcom 3, but after seeing this...I'm not sure I trust them to.
First getting flown out to make sure the city doesnt fall and now being flown out to rule an empire?! at this rate Pravus will conquer the universe within the next few months!
@@placeholdername3818 Again, this has already happened with...ffs, EVERY CIV GAME, let's not lie to ourselves here. However, a majority of the Civilization community do indeed seem to be certain that Civ V was the peak of the franchise and nothing is going to surpass that, so maybe we just stop expecting the next Civ game that comes out to do that and save our energy for something more productive.
I really wish CIV 7 would've taken more inspiration from OLD WORLD and less from HUMANKIND. Old World showed us that you could combine RPG-like elements (like those in Crusader Kings) with turn-based strategy. Imagine playing as the leader of a dynasty and then playing as the heir once the current leader dies? Imagine having to assign cities to rival dynasties, and having to manage these familial dynamics and intrigue? Imagine having a CIV game where you actually see and interact with the people that make up your court, specialists, and citizens (instead of just your leader interacting with leaders of other civs)? Instead, Firaxis is like, "Hey, I know! Let's just copy Humankind's failed mechanic to change civs every era and try to do it better! That'll be the big WOW feature that will surprise our fans!" I'm not entirely pessimistic that this idea will fail, I'm just less excited bc we saw how it was such a lackluster feature in Humankind. And finally... REALLY? ONLY 3 ERAS??? What??? Where is the Medieval era? Where is the Renaissance? Where is the Industrial Era?? It feels like they're simplifying that which should NOT be simplified just to streamline the gaming experience. Remember... we want IMMERSION, not to speed run through human history.
Personally, I like the 3 eras only. In earlier games the eras just felt unimpactful and arbitrary. With less eras you can better define each era and make it a larger part of the game instead of useless. Like thanks Sid Meier for telling me I’m in the medieval era but it didn’t impact the gameplay at all and if there were more eras with each era making a big impact the game would just feel like bad gameplay
@@randomyoutubecommenter2863 I totally get your point about eras in previous games feeling not very impactful, but ONLY three eras?? That's a small amount. I think at the very least, there should be 5, with the MEDIEVAL ERA (after Antiquity) and INDUSTRIAL ERA (after Discovery). Three is too simplistic.
These changes will make online play more enjoyable and fast I'm sure Civ 4 for me is the GOAT but it was awful to play with other people in open lobbies.
Firaxis: “Stay tuned for new mechanics!” Civ players who played HK: “Oh boy! Please don’t be civ swapping, please don’t be civ swapping…” Firaxis: “You must now swap civs every era!” Civ players: …
I'm excited about civ vii! I think it looks really beautiful and the terrain changes look and seem really natural and logical, like rivers you can navigate and what look like ridges (blocking movement without blocking whole tiles with mountains). I don't care if the graphics are more cartoonish or realistic, I like all the little details. I agree that I would like the change of leader through the ages to be logical, but at the same time, we have Roosevelt build the pyramids in London and stuff like that without batting an eye. The changes through the eras could be opening up a lot of new ways to customize the experience. Cities vs towns vs settlements also seems interesting
The problem is London is not an example of a culture evolving naturally into another, it's an example of one culture being conquered and supplanted by another forcefully. It's more comparable to a city being taken over and annexed by another civ in reality.
I'm so old that I remember the rush when in civ 1 you conquer the city, your army walks through it. Imagine if you could parade through Paris or Moscow after the city falls. Or to see devastation if you raise it? I miss that😊
This does sound.... interesting. About the deal with culture transitions.... That's on account of real world associations to geography and cultural locality, which obviously... is the point of a Civilization game, but also not super relevant to a totally different world, where the geography and geopolitical reality are totally different. An egypt that doesn't have abundant quarries is not going to build giant stone pyramids, regardless of whatever bonuses they get for doing so. And if Egypt was surrounded by horses, and vast semi-fertile plains in then it would make sense that they move in the direction that is similar to the Mongolians. So, ultimately, these "cultural transitions" need to be fantasy-fied in order to make them "believable" to an audience. Or they need to rename given cultural archetypes, appropriate to whatever civ they are being picked for (which will be light fantasy, inevitably).
as someone who loved 5 for the simplicity but didn't like 6 how bog down of planning on turn one. 7 from what I watched looks so inviting to me as I like to plan a bit and create my story. so far I may like these game (also I'm thrilled that happiness is back I never like the Antiquity`s)
Yeah, as someone who loves Civ V (and still plays at least 3 times a week with a friend), I'm VERY happy with what's been presented so far. The change in the happiness system in VI left me quite frustrated, so I think it's great that it's back. The change in civilizations really interested me, since in V (I never really got into VI despite having pre-ordered it - I played less than 500 hours and went back to V) each civ is clearly better in one era or another, unbalancing the game depending on who your neighbor is at the beginning. The narrative issue is very personal, but I love it, depending on the civ I start with and who my neighbor is, I change my play style. For example, as a Brazilian, if I start with Brazil and Portugal is my neighbor, well, let's just say that there will be reverse colonization haha. In short: I wasn't very excited about the release of Civ VI, I bought it because it was Civ, and Civ is Civ, but I'm really excited about VII.
What's wrong with Amenities? They are somewhat misunderstood, true, but if you have a nice surplus of them, they really boost development of your empire.
The city state advancing "situation" bar, creating districts to open building slots, impending crises, influence as a resource, kind of getting just a little bit Stellaris flavor.
So... about this "History is built in layers nonsense"... So, you can turn Egypt into the Songhai but not into Mongolia. Okay. Why? What do the Songhai have in common with Egypt that the Mongolians don't. I don't know personally, but I am not a member of that ancient people of the age of exploration called the Songhai. Oh, wait, that's right, the Songhai are still an existing people, so maybe I could theoretically ask them. I suspect they'd be pretty weirded out if you tell them that they became obsolete as a civilisation when modernity came around. But hey, whatever regime came afterwards was clearly superior and added another layer to where they were in the age of exploration. I guess. I could also ask them about the many traditions and legacies of their ancient Egyptian forefathers. Oh, right, Songhai have nothing to do with Egypt. Except both live in Africa, and Africans are all one people and one race, so, I guess they DO in fact have a lot in common. This is so "educational". I am sure glad that people will feel represented here, especially from groups that are rarely represented otherwise. Ugh. The real thing is this, historically speaking: This is absolute nonsense. The idea of progress along a specific path, in which all civilisations have to „improve“, go through the same challenges at the same time, make the same improvements, run forward alongside the same lines forward - that is dumb, and if you really build your view of history on these assumptions, you perpetuate pretty bad historiographical traditions. That's how historians wrote history in the 1800s. It's called the „Myth of Progress“. Fun fact: In history, there are no ages. Not really. There are developments, changes and turning points; but which are important and which aren't is a matter of perspective. Take the Middle Ages for example - they begin with the end of Rome and the victory of Christianity; they end with the fall of Rome and the Reformation. There is no medieval China, because China didn't change when Christianity won out over Roman paganism. China has its own history with its own time periods and turning points. And then there is the question of where to draw the lines. Depending on what you find important you can define them based on religion, climate, politics etc. No historian worth their salt would agree that there is such a thing as a natural progression from one „age“ to another. Sure it's only natural that we would stick to our traditions in historiography. There's nothing overly wrong with distinguishing antiquity and the middle ages, or saying „China during the Middle Ages“. Nothing wrong with it. But they are story-telling conventions, nothing more, nothing less; they are useful in some context, limitting in others. THEY ARE NOT „PROGRESS“. E.g. Byzantium was not superior to Rome, nor was it inferior, it was adapted to a different context. There is no „right“ path through history, and the differences between people 700 and 1700 are not because of a greater sophistication, or a progress or something like this. They talk in here about how civilizations are built in layers. That's dumb. It's wrong. Civilisations evolve like animals: Not from „lesser“ to „higher“. A tyrannosaur is the perfect animal for the age of dinosaurs, an ostrich is the perfect animal for the age of birds. Civilisations don't „refine themselves“ and progress alongside a certain path - „from antiquity to exploration to modernity“. Oh, really? When did, say, the Mughals or the Japanese start their great campaign of exploration? Well, I guess they just weren't progressing far enough yet, right? You know how guns came to Europe? Or rather when? In the Middle Ages. And no one used them. They were stupid weapons. After every shot you have to reload for 10 minutes. Then in the early modern age, people figured out a way to use guns effectively, called countermarch, where armies stood in rows, the first row fires, and then the second steps forth to cover them, shoot, etc until everybody had time to reload. This requires choreography, discipline and tactics - which requires professionalism. The guns already existed in 1200, nothing changed until 1600 when people figured this out - at least nothing in terms of technology. Society changed. In 1200, you had feudalism, and in wars, knights assembled dependents that lived on farms in times of peace, who then picked up their weapons for a few weeks and returned to farms later. In 1600, society had changed; there were urban populations, craftsmen and mercenaries, the latter of which actually trained and developed a professional work ethos - that is how guns became useful. Not tech changed, society changed. Society IN EUROPE. Because of the unique economic developments in Europe, the result of climatic changes and the pestilence, roman traditions, etc.. That is for example a big part of why Japan didn't pick up guns when they first were given the technology. There was no need. Europe adapted to European circumstances, they didn't make progress, they adapted! But this game will teach you that all human progress follows the same path, a race to the top, in which all civilisations go through the three stages of European history identified here. I guess Japan just were too stupid to start exploring when „exploring time“ came around? Look at what nonsense they are saying here. It's like they really think the world one day decided „Oh, hey, antiquity is over now guys, let's all hurry up and evolve.“ What is it they say here? Each age came with its own unique challenges? What are you talking about? The challenges that Ancient civilisations (like Egypt 3000 BC and Rome 300 AD, I guess?) faced are not the same all over the world. Romans and Chinese had different things to deal with in 200 AD, not the same challenges. Hell, Antiquity didn't end in China! There was no big break at that point, nor was there one in pre-columbian America. The challenges and priorities of western europe in the „age of exploration“ were not shared globally! Do you think the universe one day decided to give the same problems and challenges to the whole global population, and then Rome failed and China succeeded. And then the Universe said: Oh, hey, cool, now all of you change and all of you get ready to do some exploration? This has always been a bit of a problem with civ, but usually it was small nitpicky details - like Indonesia becoming more „progressive“ by „learning“ the „technology“ of chivalry, a Latin Christian concept in civ v. But now it's like they build their entire game around this crappy historical misconception.
Can't say I read the full thing, but I agree that even Songhai is a stretch. Better than East Asia, but still not the direction I would go if I were the devs.
New features like Multiple Leaders per Civ! Navigable Rivers! Multiple Leaders was introduced in Civ 4-- Along side the idea that leaders have stats. Navigable Rivers! Literally in Civ 1 and 2 (and Alpha Centauri). Rivers have been treated as roads in those games, but I believe it did stop your turn to enter a tile with a river. That boats seem to be able to use them is new.
Technically I believe Civ 2 had multiple leaders as well. More interestingly is that Civ IV Colonization (and maybe base Civ IV?) allowed any leader to be played in any civilization in the custom set menu, so you could have George Washington of the Spanish Colonies. Nonetheless, I'm glad to see it back.
Sure, multiple leaders existed in Civ 4, but the differences were pretty minor. I think you'll agree that Civ 6 experimented a lot more with wildly different leader bonuses to increase replayability. And if navigable rivers have been missing for the past four games, I think we can see their reintroduction as an exciting new feature.
If only the Civ switching are both closely-related ones that do also have some cultural overlaps or inspirations irl, it would actually attract more instead of what we are seeing rn. For example, in the Antiquity Stage, we can either be the Polynesians building our initial island settlements then will transition into many civilizations such as the Malays, Javanese, Maori in the Exploration Age as they find more islands to settle then building their identities (Malays trade more or focus on science will change their civ transitions). Also meeting the foreign nations that would greatly influence their civilization can also change their civ transition (cue colonization). This would then enable the transition into the Modern Age a lot smoother where Malays > Any Southeast Asian Nation, Javanese> Indonesians, then Maori > Zealanders or Australians so that it feels more immersive but can still be diverse in gameplay.
Tbf only the language changed because modern Egyptian are almost same genetically as the paharoh time but yes if I used your logic your country and your people are not like your ancient counterpart,stupid logic
@@moondog3855 Sure, but Egypt didn't become Songhai, Aksum, or Mongolia. The shifts in culture and religions doesn't mean the Egypt today isn't the successor to ancient Egypt. The Egyptian people still have every right to call everything that came before them Egyptian history.
@@tiredidealist Modern Egypt is culturally speaking more of a successor to the Islamic Caliphates and Arabia than Ancient Egypt. But I won’t dispute the cultural succession we’ve seen so far in Civ VII is pretty iffy.
Like fr can they just set the paths to Egypt > Arabic Egypt so Arabia or Ottomans > Modern Egypt (Idunno add some Western Nation Bonuses like Britain) instead of changing the civ entirely
So from my limited experience, it seems the AIs have a stronger personality than before. Like, an aggressive leader like Amina actually will look for ways to surprise you, whereas Ahsoka will offer a LOT of trades. Whether they're competent or not, that I won't know until I play through a full game or two.
Compare that to Humankind, where you had to switch 6 times due to 7 eras being introduced. This will allow for each of your 3 picks to get enough "screen time", though at the same time, there is quite a big gap between Antiquity and Exploration eras. You know, skipping 1000 years of Middle-Ages. I guess you can't have everything. Instant combat could be toggled for many many years, since like Civ III lol.
I think the biggest issue with Civ 7, currently, is the monetization. Let me be clear what I mean here; increasing the price, especially with the economic development in the last few years, is fine. I don't have (much) issue to pay more for a game that I will most likely play for a long time. But there are certain things that are just bad. -) Locking some ingame options behind the highest tier of payment (wonders, leaders, gameplay boni). -) Including time sensitive content that will vanish after a short period of time (FOMO). -) A DLC being offered to buy, before the game is launched. If it would've been only skins and visual differences, personally I would be fine with those inclusions. FOMO-situations should be still avoided with this kind of monetization, though it wouldn't be too atrocious. But putting game affecting parts into higher tiers and paywalls is just not consumer friendly. People might say "ah, but that is industry standard", well it's a bad standard and should be fought against every time. And it's not that I want to hate it. I've played a lot of previous civ games, and I was very hyped about the announcement of a new civ game. I'm a bit cautious about the changes, but I'm willing to try for the game to experiment with the difference. I very much like the map graphic I see so far, though I'm not a fan of the leader graphic, but it's not too bad, so alright. The new systems are partly intriguing, and partly a bit head-scratching (like the 3-ages system or the changing cultures), and I hope the game doesn't get "too simple" with the district and improvement changes, but I'd be willing to look at all of them with clear eyes and an open mind. This monetization however makes me very cautious, and extremely hesitant to buy the game. I absolutely *don't want to encourage this business practices* because I see a very bad trend coming for the future of civ 7, and the future of other civ games after that. I'm heavily considering not paying for this game in this iteration, just to make a point. And I'm very surprised that these issues haven't brought forward by anyone who has a look at the game. Maybe my love for civ will silence this in the coming months, and still buy it with these conditions, and I do believe that the base game itself can be worth that much of money they charge for the premium edition. But I really believe that this development isn't good for civ, or the future of gaming.
The cultures in this game do not evolve. There is no logical progression. That is a massive lie. You are jumping from one civilization to another. The two have totally different histories and totally different cultures. It's incredibly fucking offensive to me that the devs think it's somehow plausible that the Egyptians could just develop into the Songhai nation. That is not evolution. That is simply substituting one civilization for another. Am I seriously supposed to accept the fact that they're both in Africa as making it "logical" for one to turn into the other? Cultures aren't interchangeable like that, regardless of how close they are to each other on a map.
Culture's do evolve because you're given choices that apply to you. If Egypt was in a completely different geological location then it wouldn't be Egypt now would it? The real world map literally DOES not matter.
Thank you for covering so much about what's different in Civ 7! Also, thank you for making sure our guests had Old Bay. ;D (I was in Ursa's live chat earlier today.)
So assuming this civ switching mechanic existed in VI... Everybody would pick civs with strong early game units and bonuses like Rome... then eventually switch to something like America which has modern units and buildings, and there would be little to no reason to ever pick America as a starting civ or evolve into Rome.
You would evolve into exploration era roman empire, not anitquity era one. In all ages the civs will have different bonuses i assume. Also since you also add abilities/bonuses to your leader, it seems like there will be less gap between early and late game civs.
The idea is that Civs like Rome would be locked into the antiquity age and America would be locked into the modern age. Rome and America don't have to compete, as they were designed to give bonuses quite specific to their era. While the Civ swapping doesn't sit right with me, it does solve an issue of early vs. late game civs in previous titles like sweden being super late game in Civ VI
I think in the Firaxis thing they implied the early civs would only be there for the early game, and laater game civs would only be avialable in the late game.. So every civ is optimized for the era it shows up in, but you CAN'T start as America or end with Rome.
My disappointment is immeasurable, and my day is ruined. From all the changes that they could have done they literally picked one of the worst features of Humankind and decided to copy it. Amazing how I was so happy and excited when the trailer dropped only for all to come crumbling down an hour later.
What left me very disappointed was the abrupt change in the diplomatic characters. I loved CIV VI because the characters were more iconic and striking. Unfortunately, CIV VII will scare the public because the leaders are not visually pleasing at all.
"Follow the money" ...games nowadays is built around the premise of "how much diversity in DLCs can we make?". More ages, more leaders , more philosophers, more civs, more army skins, more flag packs, these are all going to be made in to content sold later.
This is the main reason the culture switching is such a huge red flag. Modern game development is all about splitting mechanics, gameplay, flavor and straight up advantages off of a "base" product to sell later as DLC. The civs they sell later will 100% be overpowered in multiplayer. The culture switching will just multiply the suffering for anyone who isn't able or willing to purchase hundreds of dollars of dlc.
I like the change to the settlements as it means we can split the 'one city challenge' into two challenges: 'one city + settlements' and 'one city, no settlements'. Also, it would allow people to play a 'tall' playstyle rather than a 'broad' one, and still be viable (if it's balanced right, of course)
Thanks for posting. Most importantly, do you know if there will be commitment to a properly supported large true world map? I don't see how there can be now that we know this will have the Humankind style Civ switching. I'll reserve judgement on the Civ switching but perhaps a suggestion would be a "free" mode where any civ can flip (at certain times) to anything, and a historically accurate mode i.e. follows a historical flow of option based on the origin Civ. Basically Ancient Egypt can't flip to modern USA etc. All that said, I recall the excellent modder Gedemon tried to implement an historically accurate mod and map for Humankind and I fully enjoyed it. On that point, what will mod support be like? As an old school player going back to Civ 1, this just seems to be getting more like "Random historical simulator/sandbox game".
I'm afraid I don't have answers to those questions yet. Mods and multiplayer are something the devs said they'd talk about later. I agree a "True Start" game would be hard to pull off with this new system.
Personally, I love all the new mechanics and changes, save one: The civilization evolution mechanic to be honest is one of the reasons why Humankind still can't hold a candle to Civ 6. The unique feature of each leader and civ is what made the game hold a better candle to most games of the genre. That said I will admit that the new mechanic will change the "some civs are better than others" mindset and could encourage playing a "make the most of a bad situation" if said civ starts in unfavourable areas. Perhaps maybe if the antiquity civs have the option of choosing to follow their original culture (for example; Rome chooses to remain Roman like the Byzantium/Eastern Roman Empire did til their collapse against the Turks) then perhaps we might have a compromise of older civ games and these new mechanics. I don't know, with these new mechanics it just feels limiting how many other civs you can play against all at once (RIP PvE 24).
Hey Pravus! First, thanks a lot for the review! Like probably most of the viewers, I have mixed feelings about this one (Civ player since Civ II btw), but we hope for the best. If I may, I'd like to ask you one question: Do you know what triggers the next age? Is it a turn timer, or a milestone a civ hits? Something else? Thanks!
Age progression is actually based on global progress. All players contribute to progress based on their science, culture, and a few other factors. So one player can't blitz through an age and force everyone through, but if everyone is playing well, it will go by in, say, 130 turns instead of 170.
I am royally pissed that they are forcing us to change our cultures multiple times in a play-through. It sucked in Humankind, and I think it is going to suck in Civ 7.
I can't play like that simply because I always choose my AI opponents for a "themed" world (WWII powers, Modern Day, Age of Sail etc.) If I have no idea who my opponents will evolve into by end-game I don't want to play. I'll continue to stick with Civ IV and V and hope that Ara: History Untold can fill the void that this weird mutant Civ iteration will not.
Well, nobody is forcing you to buy the game. I'm not, Civ VI was already a massive disappointment, and looks to me that they're doubling down on all the nonsense of Civ VI and then pissing all over the entire product. No thank you, not worth my time, money or attention.
I believe this version will be good. The reason it sucked in humankind was because you had to do it every 30 or so turns and had absolutely no relevance to what was happening in the map. You could choose any civ at any time and would just get buffs. At least this one looks like changing civs is more like changing your starting deck in a deckbuilding game into a better version of a more specific strategy. Especially as it will only happen twice per game over 150~200 turns each. The name of a civilization is more to explain a playstyle gameplay wise, because in the end, this is still a game. Personally, I see the general and district changes much more intriguing. There are a lot of buffs to military interactions between the players compared to civ 6 especially the +5% to total yields in the settlement it's in as the first leadership upgrade.
Your ending best describes the balance between causal and hardcore fans. I have been playing Civ since the late 90s. It always plays out how you described. Game comes out, people complain claiming the previous is GOAT. Over time and DLCs the opinions change and it becomes the GOAT. Overall i think it depends on the implementation of this new changing system than the system itself. We shall see with time if it is successful.
I actually like a lot of these changes, although there are a number of things that I don't like the sound of. The biggest for me is the city limit. It's fun if you're punished for going to wide in some way, like it costs more, but it's still possible. A hard limit just removes that possibility
It is a punishment rather than a hard limit. I watched another youtuber who mentioned something about how he accidentally went over the limit by capturing a city and was penalized
i love the new dlc business model...they already have 2 expansions developed but its all behind a dlc paywall...im so happy to pay more for a game than i should...its such a great feeling with all the dlcs and cosmetics coming that will be like sims 3 with all its dlcs...a jacket or hat 29.99...cant wait!!
Trying new things is not a good thing if the new things are not good. Experimentation for the sake of experimentation is just stupidity with more words.
I love that one of the most common complaints is about changing civs to another that doesn´t make sense, like going from Egypt to Mongolia; we could build Pyramids in China or England but with this we draw the line
Egypt if more than pyramids tho. It grew out of the Niles. The culture is very different from Mongolia. I think its the link with actual real empire that make it break the immersion for alot of us. Also, I hope some of buildings keep some similarities because it was a massive change when you swapped in Humankind
The thing is, we were making the whole way with one single civilization! From the very beginning we could see our nation grow, develop into powerful empire! With this new system, we will be forced to change into completely new nations! That will ruin the "connection" between you and your nation
@@gladiatorone9023 I'm also not sold to the concept to changing civilizations mid game, It's just that a big part of the complaint is about the evolution "not making sense", which is why I'm saying that we are having a bit of a double standar here in my opinion
The idea of changing civilisation in new era is not good. You are going to lose real CIV fans… I want to play with just one civilisation, maybe to have option to change but not must. Is it possible to play just one era without progression? Thanks!
I've been playing civ since civ iii came out, and I'm actually intrigued by the idea of switching civilisations... as long as it's not mandatory. I think it would be awesome to start as Rome, then evolve into Britain, then end as America. But there's only a few civs this would make sense for, such as that Anglo-Sax example, or something like Babylon to Persia to Arabia. It makes zero sense to start as Egypt and then be forced to switch civilisations, when irl Egypt is a nation that (and I quote Sid Meier here) stood the test of time, and has been a empire for all of recorded human history and remains a country to this day. If I want to play one empire to stand the end of time, I should be able to. It's a deviation from the history if I can't, and there's no way I'll be playing this if I'm not allowed to.
The artstyle actually seems to strike a good balance in my opinion. I ended up putting in less than 10 hours in civ6 at least partly because the artstyle really threw me off. As for the gameplay changes, I feel like it's too early to say whether they'll work out. I'll wait for some complete reviews after the game has released.
Egypt being invaded by mongolia would have been a more realistic transition, but with this current setup there are only so many horse-based civilizations in the age of exploration. With more granularity there would have been plenty of nearby civilisations to choose from
I think a lot of people are hung up on the Civ changing aspect of the game. While it is bad that an entire culture can change in one turn, I think people's hatred for this new system is making it so people are ignoring the good changes like the crisis system, moving in rivers, and the civ specific culture tree. (along with the removal of amenities and builders). Hopefully they will make adjustments after hearing the feedback.
Most of the other features sounds good. I played a lot of humankind, the switching was enjoyable at first but the mechanic got annoying after a few games. I know civ never were very immersive, but seeing Mexico turn into modern China is just too weird for me personally.
"Jeeze. People are really distracted by this one mechanic they loathe. They should look past it and look at some of the neat things around that mechanic they hate."
I am not ignoring them I am saying that navigating rivers doesn't eliminate the bad. Didn't like it in humankind, I have no faith fraxis will pull it off better. Crisis is not "new" just a return to franchise
I did not care for Civ 5 or Civ 6. Civ 4 is my favorite with Legends of revolution mod. The game was balanced. The computer plays to WIN. Barbarians evolve into a culture and a leader is randomly selected. They can capture cities and expand like a civilization. That is the best barbarian mechanic of all the civ games!!! I love Ruthless Al. The computer plays to win !!!
I'm really afraid that with being able to change civs btw ages will only result in an optimal path for a particular win and fear it will end up really limiting the game imo. I just see it giving lots of options that most people won't use because it's not the best in the meta. I guess it will end up being a balance issue to make sure the civs in the next age are fairly equal. Fingers crossed 🤞
