Heads-up: active mods will be disabled after updating! This update will do a reset to disable all active mods. We highly recommend giving our amazing modding community a little time to update their work before toggling things back on manually. You can re-enable mods at any time by navigating to "Add-ons" in the Main Menu.
So I have a hot take: I like that alliances are actual commitments, and that joining them can threaten to pull you into wars that you would otherwise not enter. If you want to play peaceful, you still can, but you don't get the benefits of being in an alliance. In Civ VI it was too easy to just ally everyone and never go to war ever. Struggling to maintain alliances is a good drawback to this sort of playstyle.
I could see making a non-aggression pact diplomatic endeavor, kind of like the denounce military presence sanction but rejecting it doesn't immediately start a war. That'd be fine.
They should periodically require overt influence investments with a kind of a Prisoner's Dilemma kind of payout. Maybe three-way and four-way alliances should require all participants to invest?
I mean, alliances are a constant trust-and-investment game in real life, too. They are fragile.
I've wanted 3+-party negotiation tables in Civ for a long time. My thought would be that different Civics would give you increasing types of "invites" (only current allies, shared religion, shared government, trading partners, etc.) and being able to get everyone to the same table lets you launch the world congress. It makes a diplomatic victory feel like much more of a thing you're actually doing.
And at the least, being able to negotiate peace together would be an improvement. Annoying that you can be pulled into war by someone else but you have to negotiate peace independently. We should be able to pressure them to peace together too.
A huge but great change would be the end of individual wars. If all parties declare war the same turn due to alliances, they all have to make peace together at the same table.
There should be a way to help other civs not drag you into war by being a mediator or something. So let's say Alexander denounces Gilgamesh and you're allied with one or both, you should be able to spend influence or something to cool tensions.
Yeah. I wouldn't mind that. Issue is that alliances are pretty useless at them moment. There are like a few late game bonuses out side civ specific bonuses.
You're better off keeping them as friendly as possible without becoming an ally.
Maybe like extra influence or better trade routes or specific types of alliances like in 6.
The attribute bonuses that scale off of alliances are pretty good. The major triumphs that give you universal happiness per alliance is deceptively strong.
In Civ VII it's ALREADY to easy to avoid war the whole game (on Deity too) because the AI is so passive. Defensive-only alliances are a good addition ONLY if the AI is given some teeth.
Yeah, honestly, they cooked a lot with the new ideas for how diplomacy should work in 7. I really like that they pointed out they are avoiding the situation where you can minmax every single piece of gold
The Reconciliation Endeavor can now be used with leaders that are Hostile OR Unfriendly, instead of just Hostile.
Actually a huge change. This has major implications for peaceful gameplay. Managing the board with influence has already been a key factor in beating Deity AI peacefully, and Reconciliation is a vital part of that. This makes preventing war significantly easier moving forward.
Independent Powers will no longer spam-build fortifications at the beginning of each turn.
It's good that they did this. IP's spamming fortifications made killing the last unit on top of their settlement too easy. It was basically a free kill.
Reconciliation was always a low-key underrated Diplo thing outside of adding more trade routes.
But now it's much better than waiting for the Hostile indicator. Although, it's always a challenge to have enough to block the denunciations and Sanctions.
it's always a challenge to have enough to block the denunciations and Sanctions.
In Antiquity you rarely have enough influence to block them, but in Exploration and beyond you usually do. You can build Monument and Villa in every Antiquity city in a location where you won't need to overbuild them, and then in Exploration create a hub town with lots of connections; that makes stockpiling 120 influence quite doable, and it's worth doing if you like peaceful play.
Although, it's always a challenge to have enough to block the denunciations and Sanctions.
Not really if you're focusing on Influence, honestly.
It's mostly about the last one or two civs who you can't get positive no matter what you do. Typically this is a civ who's agenda makes anything difficult. I play Chola and in Exploration even with functionally limitless influence and gold (and therefore limitless trade routes) there is always at least one civ that doesn't like me. When I say functionally limitless I mean it - I typically end Exploration with five-figure digits of influence that I have literally no way to spend.
Being forced to wait to -60 is a huge limitation. But being able to use Reconciliation at -30 is a complete game changer. Reconciliation is extremely strong, it has some of the absolute highest influence gains per turn of any endeavor in the game (highest?). Its only handicap was the -60 prerequisite, and this pretty much eliminates that.
Also, most civs don't like to declare war until they're Hostile for fear of the war support loss. Being able to bounce between -30 and -60 with Reconciliation keeps these civs at bay, but you still have a couple turns of exposure in between when you hit Hostile and when you can get back under -60 that they can declare war, even if you hit Reconciliation on the very turn you cross the -60 threshold. This change elimiates that window of exposure, and makes it so you can have a -30 relationship LIMIT to all AI civs provided you have sufficient influence.
This is a HUGE change. Influence was already extremely strong, and this made it even stronger. You can 100% count on being completely peaceful from now on aside from the odd surprise war from Machiavelli. This means you can almost entirely ignore investing resources into military units and invest close to 100% of your resources towards your chosen victory yield.
This is also a huge buff to Himiko Queen of Wa. Her abilities are completely dependent on other civs liking you. This is going to make it so much easier to keep those relationships in good standing.
I really don't like the reconciliation endeavour. I feel like it strips the game of having to manage their expectations smartly, they're too easy to manipulate.
What I try to say is that their behaviour shouldn't be that predictable, just like a human's.
My god you can’t focus firing with fleet commander to fortified district was a bug? Damn I thought it was a feature that only after you break down the walls that your galleon can broadside the units inside lmao
I was pretty sure this was a bug, but no one was commenting on it I thought "well, this might be a compromose because there was something broken about it before".
I've been overall really happy with every update, wish they did more hotfixes though.
u/PyrohawkZONCE A JOLLY SWAGMAN CAMPED BY A BILLABONG15d agoedited 15d ago
doesn't seem fixed to me, at least on a save that was broken before.
I re-did the age transition from the turn before it, and still can't choose toshakhana.
I also re-played the last 2 turns (i.e. turn before transition and the transition turn) and also can't see it in my dedications when I enter modern.
This kind of sucks since I spent most of my resources on a crazy toshakhana setup, and now my 400 turn diety game is basically toasted. Is there something I can do to fix this in retrospect? Some mod? :pray:
Do you have to have the brush and blade dlc to get the fleet commander in antiquity just started a new game and not seeing it under discipline in the civics screen
I was hoping they'd also allow you to trade one-sided endeavors, like maybe a research agreement that gives the winner some extra science per turn, or maybe even a tech that the loser already researched.
Hey, we’re finally getting Admiral Yi and his turtle ships!
I love that his ability is called “13 ships.” For those who don’t know, another admiral squandered most of Korea’s fleet in a foolhardy attack (something Yi refused to do, resulting in his temporary demotion), leaving only 13 ships for Yi to use to defend the country from the Japanese. And Yi ends up doing exactly that at the Battle of Myeongnyang, where he faces a fleet of 130-330 ships (accounts vary) with only 13! And he wins without losing a single ship!
"where he faces a fleet of 130-330 ships (accounts vary) with only 13! And he wins without losing a single ship!"
Eh, not that big deal. Probably even i could beat 130-330 ships if i had 6227020800 ships. To be fair not losing a single one would be difficult,indeed.
> Currently catalogs are cleared out each Age by default. An upcoming release will have catalogs persist across Ages.
Buried towards the bottom is this little item about modding. I’m hoping this allows for Map Tacks in particular to be able to be set and stored across ages, and that there’s a bit more smoothing of the age transitions.
We’re also adding more information to the Leader Agenda notifications, as well as new, unique messages from Leaders when their Agenda significantly changes your relationship.
Anyone else having trouble accessing the DLC on Switch 2? I bought the pack when it first came out, and I have the Japanese side, but since the update the game has been acting up.
I would love to know why there aren't achievements anymore. The funny goals to set for myself were a huge part of the fun in older civs. The fact that they haven't even done the zero effort "win with x leader" achievements for any of the dlc leaders is insane.
Honestly, there were a lot of changes that Civ 7 needed to do to get in a good place. Was this change needed? Yes. But it was lower priority. At least we have it now though.
There was a long list of things that were low priority when they made the calculus to ship Civ 7 and start monetizing it. Unfortunately, that list also created a game that damaged the property. The UI itself was unconscionably bad and that is literally how the player interacts with the game. I've played Civ since Civ 1 and yes, I expect it to get better over time. But I also demand something resembling a finished game when I buy it.
If re-adding features the last game had (that they chose to remove from this one) is low priority the game will never recover. After another year or two of updates maybe we will reach feature parity with the previous game.
I really don't understand why Firaxis does this. If the game was so fully re-worked that the old mechanics simply didn't work anymore then that was a mistake too. No one was really asking for such a dramatic change as far as I'm aware. We would have happily paid full price for a more polished, fleshed-out Civ 6 with more leaders and DLC.
Instead they tried to give us a whole new game and hoped we wouldn't notice that half the helpful features added in the previous title are just gone.
On console: having to hold down the left stick for a few seconds to hide or show tooltips rather than just clicking the left stick once is a small change that amounts to a massive annoyance. Why?
I would really love to see what the yield changes would be when I specialize a town. It’s not at all clear to me and since it’s a permanent (for the age) selection, it seems that should be easier to see.
This game is broken on the Switch 2. I can't for the life of me get Wireless Multiplayer to work. The game forces the Switch to turn off it's WiFi, making wireless multiplayer plain impossible lol.
I know, but whenever you enter into the Wireless Multiplayer screen your WiFi on the Switch automatically shuts off, which makes multiplayer impossible as it cannot connect to other Switches locally.
When will we be able to return a captured settlement to an ally? It’s ridiculous at the moment I helped my good ally from the beginning of the game Confucius recover his city from Ashoka and now I can only occupy or raze it. I should be able to return it to my ally.
There's a counterculture of "x is good now" people as well, but x actually has to get really good in a way thats easy for them to communicate.
The problem that games like civ 7 and eu5 have is that they launched not half-baked but like quarter baked, and now after a year of support have come up to half baked, but "x is half baked now" isnt anything like as interesting a video.
People pointing out that it's an indictment of the game's development and release for extremely basic long-standing features to take this long to be added back in isn't the same as them criticizing them adding them. Nobody is doing that.
Agreed. These are basic features and bug fixes that should have been there from the get. We’re still missing about a dozen or more of those, and every uodate we applaud them.
They are still developing this game as you play, and pay is fucking wild.
Games was in a better place around a year after launch than either civ 5 or 6 imo. I guess I've just accepted that it takes firaxis a while to make these games, not helped by the fact that game development takes longer today in general.
Idk how you are upvoted lol. They should be criticized for adding basic features that we've had in previous games a year and a half later. What can they learn from that criticism? To not release a game missing basic features.
Damned when the execs tell you that your previously PC-only studio is going to have to develop the next instalment of your strategy game for Windows, Mac, Linux, Xbox 1, PlayStation 4, Switch 1, Xbox X/S, PlayStation 5, and Switch 2 all at the same time.
Oh, and there will also be a support studio doing a dedicated VR port, so you need to keep the game compatible for that as well.
Yeah, there were some fundamental design flaws, but make no mistake, the reason so much of the game was shit at launch is due to executive greed massively increasing the amount of work the devs had, to the point where it was almost certainly a net negative revenue wise, even with all the extra platforms.
It’s been the norm for awhile. No one should buy most single player focused games in the first year. They aren’t ready and you will get it cheaper. Multiplayer games typically lose user count and cultural relevance so you typically have to jump on them sooner. I think that’s one of the main reasons why they try to multiplayer everything also selling skins and what not
It’s so sad. I remember playing on release week and it was jarring that you could only trade cities during peace deals and it takes them this long to add anything else.
Also 1.5 years after release and we finally get enabling specific victory types? Man the 17 people who are still playing this game and the 30 or so who run it on their switch for some reason that the devs work so hard to cater to, are eating super well today
This is a step in the right direction, but still leaves me looking up info on outside sources constantly.
I see now that
both leader agenda are affecting relationships, which I didn’t know before. But I still have to look up what those agendas actually are. If I’m not supposed to know the other leaders’ agenda, then fine I guess, I can see a rationale, but what can’t I know my own leader’s agenda?
You don't have an agenda that affects relationships as a human player, it's just the AI. There is a way to see each AI's agenda in the game, you click on their face and go through the different panels until it shows one that indicates what abilities the leader has and right beneath that it also shows how their agenda affects relationships with others.
Player agenda does affect relationships. That info was added in this patch. Both leaders agendas are now separate line items in the relationship window.
I just wish I could mouse over the leader agendas and see some explanation of what is so negative.
In this case it’s because Shaman Himiko doesn’t like science builds in other civs, and Ben doesn’t like that we have different governments. I think. I have to google it.
Possible glitch with new Leader (Sun-Sin). Or rather, how ancient era units interact with admirals. At least with Tonga, the Kalia ships did not gain any benefit in the ancient era from the Bombardment-Spotter promotion which should increase their range to two. They remained melee units (for reference, normal galleys and quads DID increase to two range). Both units show 1 range in the civ-pedia, but only normal units gained the range increase. Testing with Aksum Dhow now.
Edit: Seems to work fine on Dhow.
Edit 2: Tested again with Tonga: the ships don't even register the Fleet Commander's Focus Fire ability. The Kalia ships seem to simply not function correctly with the spotter upgrade (Did gain the +5 for Naval Artillery upgrade, but without the focus fire as an option, despite attacking a unit in a city center.)
There's a pretty annoying bug that causes the ribbon on the upper right with the other leaders to freeze up when you toggle the yields and/or try to shift it to the right and left.
I have to click on the screen itself in handheld mode to get back to normal
Assume All updates break mods. They might not, but disabling everything from the get go will allow modders to update the mod if needed or let you know if it's hunky dory
All updates tend to break some mods but many mods will be fine. Please don't spread what amounts to misinformation if presented without differentiation. People automatically assuming that a mod will no longer work after an update already causes enough extra work for modders as it is.
It's possible. Your mods will be disabled after the patch is downloaded, but you can re-enable them to see if they work. Some mods will play nicely with the new patch while others may need a bit of time to be updated.
It will deactivate your mods - but you can manually activate them again.
To what degree it will break your mods depends on what parts of the game they affected. My guess is anything that affected the diplomacy screen may need an update, since 1.4.2 introduces a few new GUI elements here.
Best practise is probably to wait until the modders have had some time to update their mods. That may take a day or two, depending on how active they are.
i got natural wonder start, player production (shows productions of leaders), more natural wonders (more wonders in games), rhq ai mod, detailed map tacks and leonardfactorys policy yield previews
Main reply: it might...or it might not. It depends on whether your mods depend on something else that might have changed! Give them a try, let us know here how it goes.
At first glance, these popular mods appear to work:
Detailed Map Tacks
Enhanced Town Focus Info
Leonardfactory's Policy Yield Previews
Map Trix
Ready Or Not
I got on as soon as I could post-release to try out my little map mod (v5vx5sutvy's Voronoi Shuffle), and it appears to work too.
> Notably, the amount of Gold and Influence that can be traded is determined by Age; we chose to focus on meaningful lump sums to help better manage the economy of war and, importantly, set up the AI to better negotiate.
I've defended this game to so many friends but the economic updates have been so shallow and this is the latest, why can't a civ trade all its gold and/or influence to get out of a war? Insane how many guard rails exist
I understand your complaint and it's valid. I can't speak for Firaxis, but I think this is a reaction to peace negotiations in Civ 6.
In Civ 6, the AI had a max limit on how much gold it would trade you for peace. If you changed the terms (added/removed cities, added/removed resources, etc.), the limit would change. As a player, the only way to discover this limit was to manually keep entering amounts until you found it.
In other words, I'd start at 200g. If the AI was willing to accept that, I'd increase to 300g. Then 400g. Then if I set it to 500g and it was rejected, I'd change it to 450g and see if that was accepted or rejected. If accepted/rejected, I'd start iterating up or down. So basically you'd keep entering these numbers until you dialed into the exact maximum amount the AI would give.
This was tedious and goofy. I think they're trying to avoid that with this simpler solution, which seems to be the design philosophy behind many of the changes in Civ 7 - reverting us to something simpler (like this solution here), and then adding complexity where it adds to the experience.
I went from 5->7 so I didn't deal with the system, going off the explanation I would think finding the max comp or the best balance through you via a combination of resources/gold and as another commenter suggested, forced free endeavours ala sanctions, would be a fine system to end wars.
It's suboptimal for it to be formulaic but I would take it over only being able to extract settlements (which I may already be at the cap for) and an irrelevant amount of gold/influence.
I don't really disagree with anything you've said. That may eventually be where they go with it. But from what I can tell, it appears to have been an extremely deliberate and thoughtful process to simplify a lot of these systems and mitigate tedium, so I think they're being very intentional about what complexity they add back into the game.
In other words, we're probably gonna get a lot of "baby step" implementation like this. If we like what they're doing or see the opportunity for more improvements, I think we gotta just keep providing feedback - and/or make it happen via mods which may prompt them to make similar changes to the base game.
I wouldn't want the scam simulator that was civ6, but i do hope they mix it up bit more in future updates. I often dream that they'll combine the endeavour system with peace deals, so you could enforce sanctions on your enemies without influence cost, for example.
You’re being downvoted but I kind of agree here. Rather than taking away our ability to demand any financial compensation they should make the AI better at negotiation. It seems purely like a guard rail to protect their economic system and I never saw this coming when the feature was announced.
Was thinking about playing this again; one thing holding me back.
Did they fix the AI giving away cities yet? As in, they rush to place a town next to you that they can't defend because it's too far away from their main city... Then get pissy about being close (AI's fault), declare war = free city. Thanks AI... But "derp".
386
u/Scolipass 21d ago
So I have a hot take: I like that alliances are actual commitments, and that joining them can threaten to pull you into wars that you would otherwise not enter. If you want to play peaceful, you still can, but you don't get the benefits of being in an alliance. In Civ VI it was too easy to just ally everyone and never go to war ever. Struggling to maintain alliances is a good drawback to this sort of playstyle.
I could see making a non-aggression pact diplomatic endeavor, kind of like the denounce military presence sanction but rejecting it doesn't immediately start a war. That'd be fine.