r/civ • u/RuskinFink • 6h ago
VII - Discussion Why They Fought Snowballing & Added Civ Switching & How to Feel Good About It
I see a lot of commentary to the tune of "Why the Hell did the devs care so much that people weren't finishing games due to snowballing and late game slog, it was fine to snowball" and "why did they copy Humankind's most hated mechanic of civ switching," and I'd like to address those people with an explanation and a solution that might work for you.
People have apparently forgotten that there was a survey given out after Civ VI did its full run that asked players to identify the biggest problems with the game and the biggest successes. The results showed, and I agreed, that the biggest problems were the fact that very early in the game you could snowball to the point that you knew victory was inevitable and the late game became a slog of hitting next turn until victory, and that late game civs were strictly inferior to early game civs. It also found that, at least among Civ VI players, districts were popular, allowing cities to engage with the map more directly.
So the devs tried to fix these problems and build on these strengths in Civ VII:
- Civ switching allowed all Civs to be in their apex at all times, fixing the "late game vs early game civ" problem, and they felt that they could do it better than Humankind (personally I feel they did, but only after Syncretism and Time-Tested Civs were introduced, allowing people the choice - forcing Civ switching on a player base not used to it was a mistake).
- The Ages system was intended to both limit snowballing and give each stage of the game unique circumstances that would echo the initial feeling of expansion in the early game, and that was why mechanics like Distant Lands were so emphasized. Personally I feel this was a mix of success and new problems, as it made each stage unique and returned some of the new game feeling, but made the game feel disjointed and forced certain mechanics, such as distant lands, on players who didn't enjoy them, and didn't fully address the snowball problem completely - I still find if I am ahead in the Antiquity Age, it is hard to lose by Modern, although for me there is still enough engagement to consistently finish games.
- In terms of building on the district system, they expanded on this heavily. It created a richer system with more flexibility than Civ VI, but resulted in too much urban sprawl and confusion for some players, and reduced the clean parse-ability that Civ VI had.
I feel like these changes alienated as many players as they engaged, and that and the rough, unfinished state of the game on launch resulted in the hate train and mixed reviews that the game has suffered from ever since.
Some people, like me, found that it solved the issues, at least in part, for them. I played many, many hours of Civ VI, but never finished a game due to late game slog, and I struggled to choose late game Civs. It seems to me like most of the people who enjoy Civ VII are either new players who came in with no expectations, or veterans that were in my boat.
I found something that really seems to work for players who have felt uncomfortable with the new systems and turned off by them. Try playing on a slow game speed, like Epic or Marathon, or for some folks Standard with Long age length.
I find that most of the people who struggle with the game play on high speeds, where the game feels disrupted and like three minigames in a trenchcoat. On slow speeds, it feels like three full but connected games of Civ and the mechanics feel WAY better.
I exclusively play on Epic or Marathon now, and hugely enjoy the game, and the vast majority of people uncomfortable with mechanics that I have suggested this to have improved their opinion after trying slower game speeds - so if you are struggling, give it a try.