It seems ridiculous that the last Civilization entry - not including any DLC - came over eight years ago. In the games industry, not being seen for eight years generally means you've been put out to pasture, or more accurately, the money-men have milked you for everything you're worth, and they've gone Ol' Yeller on you. Since I adored Civilization VI, giving it a near-perfect score, and my general love of the franchise, I've been understandably excited about Civilization VII as the series comes close to its 35th anniversary.
Having played a few games across over sixty hours, some of which I didn't finish and others of which I achieved a victory, I have some thoughts about Civilization VII. A question that seems to be repeating is, "Why?". Sometimes, it's meant positively; other times, it is not.
Civilization VII has made some sweeping changes, some for the better, others for the worse. At least at launch, it doesn't have a grand sandbox feel, arguably the most significant change. That is the first "Why?" This is the most directed Civilization entry ever, partly due to what feels like a shrinking of the game and the inclusion of the age system borrowed from Humankind.
Starting with the map options. You can pick between Tiny, Small, and Average. This gives you a maximum civilisation number of eight in a game. I should point out that, according to my calculations, the map size is roughly the same as that of Civilization VI, though I generally play on larger maps, so I'm not having much luck with this as everything is so compact.
A case in point is the spacing of cities. The AI doesn't seem to mind a lack of optimisation, so despite each city taking up a maximum space of three from the centre, the AI will have some far too close, hindering their chances of growing. With the first campaign I played to the end (winning despite not having finished any of the four paths), I figure there's enough space for a maximum of 70 well-spaced cities (or towns. From here on, when I write cities, I mean cities or towns)
You do have a city cap, which expands over time based on tech and social upgrades you research, but for you to reach that, there's maybe enough space on a map for three civilizations. This is after the advertised "map expansion" as you get to the second age, which isn't a map expansion in any real sense; it was always there; it's just that you don't have the required tech to go over there yet. It also seems that the AI is hamstrung in the second age, as I didn't notice any of them generating treasure fleets - or even trying to make it over to my continent, for that matter.
Let's talk about the Age system. Unlike Humankind, Civilization VII has three ages, compared to seven eras. This is a good decision, as it doesn't split the game up too much. The move from age to age is something I like, with caveats. The ages can be irritating in that they can be too quick. I'm watching the age percentage tick by, and it's probably a good sign that I don't want it to end. I've found myself disappointed and frustrated that it's finished, if only because I haven't been able to make my way down a particular path.
This would be another "why?" for which I have a solution: Don't end an age when one faction has generated enough points across all victory paths; end it when at least one path has been achieved. As Ibn Battuta, I wanted to get the Silk Road victory that takes us to the next generation, but because I happened to do a little in science, I was locked out as I had enough advancement points to move the world ahead. Another example is that I won a whole campaign as Revolutionary Napoleon without achieving a single path across all three ages.
You could argue that this shows flexibility and allows for a jack-of-all-trades style approach. It's also a bit of a blue-ball situation, where I could be close to getting a space race victory to winning because I happened to build a bloody theatre. In my actual save, it was because I took a city. I wish the game were more flexible with this, letting people at least achieve something. It desperately needs an option that enables you to delay the end of an age and another that is essentially a conquest victory from the old games.
The only downside is that you must select some adverse effects as you approach the end of an age—the game calls this a crisis period. How accurate is it that every single age had a world-spanning crisis towards the end? I don't know, but it's the mechanic we have. Now, I wonder if the AI also gets this, because I never see them suffering the same issues as me! This could still be left in if only to disincentivise staying in age for too long when you could click to advance.
This is how the age system and civilisations work in Civilization VII. You pick a leader who lasts throughout the game and then a civilisation from the respective era. You don't have to start in the age of antiquity; you can drop in a game at a later era if wanted, though I think that takes away from the story element that Firaxis is going for. The whole idea is that you are evolving through the ages.
Adding to the feel of this being an evolution, you are restricted to what civilisation you can move to in the following age. Generally speaking, it's based on geography and historical accuracy. However, this can be circumvented by meeting set targets. For example, even as Amina (North African warrior princess), you can unlock the Incas for the following age by having multiple mountains in your cities.
An annoyance with the age system, though, is also that it soft-resets even your empire. I'm not a fan that you can have multiple cities, but - unless you have something to stop this - all bar your capital is reverted to a town, which means you must again pay gold to move it to a city. This can be even if it has the proper expansion, size, and buildings of a city. Parts of the soft reset, to give those behind a chance to be closer again, make sense - but it's a little too much sometimes.
Here's also where I have a bit of a "why?". Now, I've been called "woke" more than a few times, and if you go with the insane notion that believing in equality and acceptance is woke, then so be it. Still, I don't understand the choice of leaders in Civilization VII. I'm far from nationalistic, but we - the British - had the most prominent and influential empire ever. To not have somebody British, and it doesn't have to be militaristic, is insane. Shakespeare for culture, Newton or Darwin for science, Brunel for economics, the options are limitless.
I find that a little more limiting and perplexing when you have multiples of certain leaders: Ashoka (Maurya—India), Frederik (Prussia), Himiko (China), and Xerxes (Persia), plus Napoleon. That's five leaders doubled up to give a slightly different version. I think the omission of Britain, Greece (Alexander the Great?), any Scandinavian country, and some South American leaders or empires, despite their localised nature, is questionable, to say the least. Of course, some or all of these could be already announced DLC that releases close to launch, but that doesn't make the criticism moot.
That I've said so much without even going into the finer details of gameplay should say a lot. I will make it simple and say the turn-by-turn play of Civilization VII is fantastic, even if some of the broader elements give me mixed feelings. There is more strategy and planning in this, particularly with city building, thanks to an overhaul of how you build, as each hex that makes part of your city as you expand will be either an urban or rural part of the city.
When you select a hex as the city grows, it becomes a rural part of the city, utilising the available resources on the tile. Each hex can hold up to two regular buildings or one wonder. Each hex is also separate when building city walls, so it will take some time if you have a big city, and location also comes very much into this, as your walls won't be crossing any rivers.
Walls - and other buildings - also can't be built over the "resources" that you can find on certain tiles, so depending on if you have a town, which can't hold every building or a city which can, will determine where you want to build, as these can limit expansion quite significantly. Of course, they are extremely valuable in their own right, significantly boosting development in many ways.
When it comes to rivers, they are probably the most impactful change in navigating Civilization VII. Rivers are now divided into two different types: navigable and non-navigable. Both will take up one hex, but you will be able to tell the difference. The navigable ones act as inland waterways for ships; you can also build on them, having your dock slightly away from the coast. It looks fantastic how the city is built around features like rivers, and having them be used as actual inland waterways is a game-changer for naval manoeuvrability.
In the city building, there is also another feature: overbuilding. As you move into a new age, you will naturally find new tech and buildings. Certain buildings and wonders are there until the end of the game, but a new structure can replace all others. Another thing with the building system is that certain civilisations have unique districts created by building two specific structures on the same hex, giving you an additional bonus. It allows for more tactical and strategic city-building, over-building on the districts introduced in the last entry.
Other new or enhanced features also include natural disasters, which are more localised. Floods, volcanic eruptions, sandstorms, and tornados can and will damage your structures and units. It's hazardous to settle on a reasonably active river, as I found out in my Napoleon campaign - the Tiber tended to floor at least every fifth turn, meaning I found myself paying for repairs far more than I would have liked to. Of course, all of this is controllable by turning them off or up, depending on how masochistic you are.
I've covered other aspects of the settings and the shortcomings of the lack of large maps and open-ended game options, so there's a little to discuss regarding length and difficulty. I haven't found this overly different from other games in the series, with longer games simply adding a multiplier to everything. The only thing I think has seen an improvement with difficulty, and also due to a change in the game, is diplomacy.
Firaxis certainly watched Amplitude and Humankind regarding some things, and diplomacy is one of them. Diplomacy now uses a new resource called influence, which is also used in your dealings with city-states. The options in diplomacy also feel less easy to game. In most strategy games before, including Civ, it was too easy to bend the AI by simply throwing gold at them, twiddling with the "we like you meter" based on simple input. This doesn't seem as easy now, and the AI's favourability towards you appears to be based more on your longer-term agreements.
If I have a problem with the AI, it's the city-states. Even on the lower difficulties, I find them overly aggressive, and more are unfriendly from the get-go than friendly. It proves to be one of the more limiting factors for early expansion when you've got a random tribe deciding that - even before meeting you - you're the devil spawn and must be destroyed, yet the other civilisations are fine.
Which brings us to combat. This is another area where Civilization VII has seen some changes. The single-unit per tile system remains, with an adjustment to how types of stacking work. You can't stack units as with Civilization VI; you can recruit a commander to group several units, essentially making an army group. This allows you to transport units quickly. However, be warned that these groups don't have the fighting power of the units inside them; you need to deploy for combat.
Combat remains as expected from the series, with tweaks to how ranged units can attack and how terrain and height impact this. This makes it more tactical and adds more to the game. With this, the move to more realistic terrain from the last game, carried on here, keeps its impact. Honestly, though, I haven't seen the end of combat because, as mentioned earlier, the age system essentially hamstrings me and cuts me off before I experience it all.
With my usual narrative style now broken, I'm just listing things. Another new feature, which I think is partly why the game pushes for such quick conclusions, is the character and civilisation levelling systems. As you play, you gain experience. As you gain experience, your chosen leader - and the civilisation you are - level up by completing specific objectives. Other objectives also unlock "mementos" you can equip when starting a new game, giving you a slight boost.
I must say that I haven't played enough online to give you an accurate representation of that yet. I'm now on it with others, but that's for another piece, though the above is a way to bring more of an online progression system to the game.
Also, it looks and sounds great. I'm not going to go into that much detail on the aesthetics. But, the soundtrack is fantastic, with Christoper Tin knocking the theme out of the park again (I still prefer Sogno di Volare), each civ having its theme, and great effects in battle. The same is true for the visuals, with even the smaller elements like disasters and the units in combat having the details to make them stand out and fit in simultaneously.
My first maybe five hours with Civilization VII left me feeling a little despondent. I didn't have the same enthusiasm from the early gameplay that previous entries gave me. I am still questioning certain decisions, and I believe the speed and forced end of an age and the limitations of maps are fundamentally holding the game back. It gives Firaxis the narrative push they want, but lacking the ability of an open-ended game that Civilization has been from 1991 baffles me.
Now, even with that, I can't deny for a second that the more I have played this, and the more times I've started a game, I've been sucked into it. With over sixty hours on the clock, I've explored much of what the game has to offer, and what it offers is great. It keeps the series's one more turn aspect alive and kicking, and I've more than a few times found myself thinking, "Should be asleep now."
I genuinely think most of the changes are for the better, though some things, like how much of a reset an age gives, could be toned back a little. I also want an option to stop an age forcing itself on me, and I want a game on a huge map where I can reach the end I want. What I want, ironically, is "Just one more turn." This would have been the series' best if it hadn't been for some omissions and questionable decisions. Whatever my misgivings, this is still an incredibly addictive game.
Reviewed on PC (code provided by the publisher).
Follow Wccftech on Google to get more of our news coverage in your feeds.
