have a "you" friend

>>2438243
It's the best civ game ever at sucking dick

series peaked with civ2 space victory into SMAC playthrough

>>2438243
buy an ad, nobody is buying this dogshit.

It's easily the worst one that I've played. The Test of Time update did fuck all to improve the game btw.

>>2438243
I heard they added hotseat, the game might actually be playable now.

>>2439273
Who the fuck uses hotseat in 2026

>>2438243
Bait used to be good

>>2439277
It's fun to make a sandbox and play against yourself wish I could do that on Age of Empires/Mythology

What are pros and cons of VII compare to VI?
I don't care about CIV inheritance, also I remember players hated VI when it came out, but after I played it - it became my fav game in the series.

>>2447593
>What are pros and cons of VII compare to VI?
pros:
>mixing and matching civs and leaders adds a lot of depth in terms of making builds
>combat is the best its ever been by a fucking mile
>they finally figured out how to make diplomacy and the tall/wide split not retarded

cons:
>civ switching is awful if you like to roleplay (mitigated by most recent update)
>UI is still iffy and there are bugs/stability issues
>$30 dlcs for like 2 leaders
>game is currently missing 25% of its timespan

everything not mentioned is basically the same as prior entries (eg. religion is still ass)

>>2447580
>play against yourself
sounds stupid

>>2447639
>combat is the best its ever been by a fucking mile
What changed? Previous games have pretty much solid combat.

>>2448814
NTA but they revamped how generals work and its a really fun change. The army units themselves no longer promote but the generals do and provide buffs to the units around them, they also let you pack up units into the general to move them around so it makes mobilizing armies a lot more user friendly. They add a lot to unit positioning and make wars a little more fun to manage. Even some people who hate the game overall admit the generals and finally adding navigable rivers were the two good things to come out of it.

>>2438243
Did they ever fix the map sizes being ridiculously small?

>>2438243
for me to poop on

>>2447639
Biggest con is that its basically just 2 ages and a half. Someone is always winning 40-50% into modern era, games feel super short because of it

Antiquity and exploration are pretty fun though

>>2438244
>>2438243

>>2447639
I agree
The game is fun, especially combat is the best it's ever been. I personally love eras and crisis (although not crisis policies) it reminds me of civ colonization when you had to survive the kings army. Towns are a great addition because micromanagement killed civ 6 for me and independent powers are much better. Also resources are much better now
>Cons
The civ switching is one thing but it's a big thing. It's basically what the whole game was based on and it sucks. And I wouldn't say it's exactly fixed because you either have bullcrap like Persia - Mongolia - India or you have only antiquity civs in the modern age. If they wanted switching it should have been like a tree with coherent paths for each civ or just switch leaders which makes way more sense in the first place. And if they were going to steal from humankind they should have stolen the neolithic era because constantly restarting sucks
>>2453810
This is the second biggest problem. Science and domination victories are basically infeasible and the game ends before you can try out aircraft, nukes and the ideology cold war stuff.

>>2464638
>aircraft, nukes and the ideology cold war stuff.
i think based on leaks and whats been alluded to in surveys and stuff (eg. "would you like it if XYZ was in the game" type thing) an atomic age is pretty much a guarantee for the first expansion, so all that stuff might get more room to breathe there

>>2447639
>mixing and matching civs and leaders adds a lot of depth in terms of making builds
>they finally figured out how to make diplomacy and the tall/wide split not retarded

both of those things were present in civ4 already

>combat is the best its ever been by a fucking mile
which is irrelevant because AI is utterly incompetent and cant play

>>2464798
>AI is utterly incompetent and cant play
Not to defend civ 7 specifically, but which 4x game does the AI handle combat well when the systems have any level of complexity? And "Give them a bunch of free units/bonuses" doesn't count.

>>2448903
This has been stopping me from getting it. Also the maps all seemed the same, just two square continents l.

>>2448903
>>2465215
they fixed this ages ago

File: Civ7_Win64_DX12_FinalRele(...).jpg (3.55 MB, 2560x1440)

3.55 MB JPG

>>2465215
>>2465242
I dont know about map sizes but they have fixed up the gen a bit. Just posting a pic to show a random game i was playing a few days ago.

>>2438380
I just finished a civ2 game with space victory, except it wasn't me winning. The AI beat me to AC by about 15 turns, unfortunately. I went republic early and was trying to play nice, only to have the whole world gang up on me and eventually start nuking my cities. I dunno, maybe emperor difficulty is a bit too much for me.

SMAC is gonna have to wait, I want to finish civ2 on medium size map with 7 civs and no savescumming first. Might need to stick with king difficulty though. Pls no bully.

>>2466362
If anything I honestly think you have the right way of it. Gaming the deeper mechanics just makes these titles less fun, that is why I tend to avoid reading guides much. The more you learn, the easier it gets, until the simulation you grew up playing is just a solved equation. I did that with Civ III and stopped playing it. Now I just play on easy or easiest my first game and gradually ratchet it up as I figure out more mechanics, which is very slow for me

>>2466576
That's pretty much what I did in civ1 last week. Did several playthroughs, increasing the difficulty each time. I'm currently doing another playthrough of civ2 on king, but this time I'm not playing nice. 1500AD and already removed three other civs.