Re: Civ7 Is looking iffy...

Spalls Hurgenson  <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

They also killed off the last of the worker units; now you modify
terrain tiles directly rather than moving units onto them first.
That's been such a Civ-staple it almost hurts to see them go.

I thought they should have removed workers in Civilization VI instead of
giving them build charges.  You were already upgrading titles without
them when placing districts, so they were already just an unnecessary
compilication.

Also, you can't name your cities. What, no Spallsopolis and
Hurgensburg? Is this a game I even want to play anymore?

That doesn't make much sense.  Admittedly I haven't renamed cities when
playing Civilization since the first or second game, but it's strange
that they would drop the ball on such a basic feature like this.

How it all works together, I can't say. But these changes don't look
appealing. The game doesn't FEEL like Civilization. It feels like an
entirely different game that just happens to have the Civ brand
plastered on it. Maybe I'll get it, maybe I'll play it... but I'm not
as sure about that now as I was even a week ago.

It sound like Civilization to me.  The series has always been evolving
like this, remember the first two games didn't have workers either,
you had to use settlers instead.   The new ages system is a big change,
but so was religion, one unit per hex tile and districts.  That said,
after being disappointed by the terrible AI in Civilization VI, I wasn't
particularly looking forward to VII anyways.  Maybe in 5 years when it's
dirt cheap I'll give it a try.

--
 l/  //   Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
 db  //