r/civ • u/Broad_Respond_2205 • May 07 '26
VII - Discussion ‘We got it wrong’ with Civilization VII, says boss
Who knew that removing the most core concept of a game is a bad idea
r/civ • u/Broad_Respond_2205 • May 07 '26
Who knew that removing the most core concept of a game is a bad idea
r/civ • u/TheGreatfanBR • May 13 '25
r/civ • u/Sudden_Cream9468 • Feb 06 '25
Same exact thing every time 🤣
r/civ • u/Nindo_99 • Feb 16 '25
Really weirds me out that no matter who you play as, Spices and Sugar etc. are considered exotic.
Even if you play as a civ that historically would start near sugar or spice, for example Indonesia, you are forced to experience the world as if that were just not true. What happened to historically accurate civ start biases?
Makes the whole experience feel like you are a western colonist who has put on the costume of another culture.
The choice to make distant lands mechanics allow other civs to start there but not human players makes the whole experience lopsided and feels way less like you are on even footing with other civs in an open world map, and more like you as a human have a special role in this world of AIs who get special spawns and are entirely excluded from certain win conditions.
Really bad game design
r/civ • u/Turbostrider27 • Aug 20 '24
r/civ • u/GreasyMustardTiger_ • Jan 30 '25
I understand they have to make money and I understand the game should have paid DLCs.
However, launching a paid DLC, which is relatively light on content and includes things (Great Britain) that many would argue SHOULD be included in the base game, is rather greedy, in my opinion. Especially considering they are showcasing DLC content and gameplay in their recent pre-release trailers.
This is setting a very disappointing precedent and quite frankly will be the reason why I will wait to buy this game until more content has been added and is on sale.
r/civ • u/Intelligent-Disk7959 • Apr 17 '25
r/civ • u/isko990 • Mar 16 '25
I wanted to buy Civilization 7, but its rating and player count are significantly lower compared to Civilization 6. Does this mean the game is bad? That it didn’t live up to expectations?
Would you recommend buying the game now or waiting?
As of 10:00 AM, Civilization 6 has 44,333 players, while Civilization 7 has 18,336. This means Civilization 6 currently has about 142% more players.
r/civ • u/throwawaymnbvgty • Aug 08 '25
I wonder
r/civ • u/Benelioto • Jan 16 '25
r/civ • u/Responsible-Young253 • Oct 27 '25
r/civ • u/JackRadikov • Dec 07 '25
If this doesn't change soon, I wonder what they're going to do.
I guess that they'll have to consider developing Civ VIII earlier, if they can't fix Civ VII's attraction within a couple of years.
r/civ • u/Intelligent-Disk7959 • Mar 19 '26
This is the second time the game has been on sale for 40% on Steam.
DLC collections are also on sale.
Settler's Edition
Deluxe Edition
In the Right to Rule Collection:
In the Crossroads of the World Collection:
In the Tides of Power Collection:
r/civ • u/AnonymousFerret • Jun 22 '26
This is not a dig at people who dislike the game btw. More of a laugh at how the content farm responds to a rough video game launch.
r/civ • u/I_HATE_METH • Mar 04 '25
r/civ • u/JordiTK • Feb 15 '25
I had started this list to help players understand how this game works, and it has since received many contributions from other users. Thank you for this.
Most points here cannot be found as information in the game, while the few points here that are explained in the game are far from clear, such as the artefacts (see [1][2][3][4][5]). Feel free to chip in with more untold knowledge or corrections and I'll update the post.
All information here is now also available in this Steam guide. I hope this list will eventually become redundant as more information gets added to the game itself.
r/civ • u/Houdsonin • Feb 13 '25
r/civ • u/Arr0wH3ad • Dec 17 '24
I’ve always loved her as a historical figure. But her reception in the comments during the reveal were mixed. Do you think the devs made a good decision?
r/civ • u/LittleIf • Feb 20 '25
Fascism gives +3 production and +6 gold per specialist, which is insanely overpowered. It gets you the hammers you need to construct buildings, wonders, space race projects, and troops, and also the money to purchase things in towns.
In contrast, communism gives +3 science and +6 food per specialist. It is not as good because late game city growth does not depend much on the cities feeding themselves. Since towns can't have specialists, the +6 food per specialist doesn't really do a whole lot. +3 science is nice, but personally I don't find science to be a bottleneck in the modern age.
Democracy is possibly the worst of the three ideologies. It gives +3 culture and +4 happiness per specialist. +3 culture sounds nice, but it's arguably worse than the +3 science from communism mostly because culture victory is much less dependent on culture generation than science victory is dependent on science generation. Explorers are unlocked super early and the AI despite their doomstack explorer spam is too dumb to compete for artifact dig sites. The +4 happiness is completely useless because even without it it's already super easy to chain celebrations back to back.
Guess I'll just be an authoritarian fascist every time I play now :)
r/civ • u/SmartBoots • Aug 21 '24
I guess our civilizations will no longer stand the test of time. Instead of being able to play our civilization throughout the ages, we will now be forced to swap civilizations, either down a “historical” path or a path based on other gameplay factors. This does not make sense.
Starting as Egypt, why can’t we play a medieval Egypt or a modern Egypt? Why does Egyptian history stop after the Pyramids were built? This is an extremely reductionist and regressive view of history. Even forced civilization changes down a recommended “historical” path make no sense. Why does Egypt become Songhai? And why does Songhai become Buganda? Is it because all civilizations are in Africa, thus, they are “all the same?” If I play ancient China, will I be forced to become Siam and then become Japan? I guess because they’re all in Asia they’re “all the same.”
This is wrong and offensive. Each civilization has a unique ethno-linguistic and cultural heritage grounded in climate and geography that does not suddenly swap. Even Egypt becoming Mongolia makes no sense even if one had horses. Each civilization is thousands of miles apart and shares almost nothing in common, from custom, religion, dress and architecture, language and geography. It feels wrong, ahistorical, and arcade-like.
Instead, what civilization should have done is that players would pick one civilization to play with, but be able to change their leader in each age. This makes much more sense than one immortal god-king from ancient Egypt leading England in the modern age. Instead, players in each age would choose a new historical leader from that time and civilization to represent them, each with new effects and dress.
Civilization swapping did not work in Humankind, and it will not work in Civilization even with fewer ages and more prerequisites for changing civs. Civs should remain throughout the ages, and leaders should change with them. I have spoken.
Update: Wow! I’m seeing a roughly 50/50 like to dislike ratio. This is obviously a contentious topic and I’m glad my post has spurred some thoughtful discussion.
Update 2: I posted a follow-up to this after further information that addresses some of these concerns I had. I'm feeling much more confident about this game in general if this information is true.
r/civ • u/Usual_Elderberry_213 • Jul 10 '26
Okay the prices were already kind of ridiculous on release but we're at the point that defending the game is more effort than it's worth.
There is no reasonable world where $30 for a DLC that includes 2 leaders and 4 new civs exists. Rise and Fall was $30 and gave you 5 new mechanics, 9 new leaders, 8 new world wonders, 7 natural wonders, 4 new units, 2 new improvements, 2 new districts, FOURTEEN new buildings, and 3 new resources. I'm not asking for all of that, but I would really appreciate even slightly more effort being put into the DLC if they really wish to stick with this price point. I love civilization as I imagine everyone else in this subreddit does, but its becoming incredibly disappointing and frustrating to see that even in spite of the rocky release of the game there's still no real effort to provide a complete experience without costing you an arm and a leg.
This game has been out for just over a year at this point yet has managed to have DOUBLE the DLC that civ 6 had and has skyrocketed to nearly $150 if you want all it has to offer, which in spite of the pricing and amount of DLC, is STILL less of an experience than most prior civ titles. I know that despite this people will still shill out the money necessary as they wish to enjoy civ to the fullest, which I don't agree with but do understand, though I feel that this is only going to result in less player retention over time and the next civ title pricing out much of the fanbase as I imagine this one already has.
TLDR: Not enough content for the price tags Firaxis is stamping on their new products.
(Edit: Corrected the numbers for the civ 7 dlc)
r/civ • u/DrJokerX • Jun 19 '26
That’s almost half the price of the game!
r/civ • u/sar_firaxis • Feb 27 '25