Here's the YouTube version of this post: https://youtu.be/FTGpAkJS8W0

Prior to this week I had only played FreeCiv and Civ5. Life was too busy for Civ6, the reviews seemed sort of ‘meh’, and I would rather complete all the Steam achievements for Civ5 than start a new game.

However, Civ7 gave me a chance to start fresh, at the beginning of a game. And, I figure there would be some pretty big changes for me since Civ5 is over a decade old for me.

As a Civ5 player, I figured it’d be useful to discuss some changes I’ve noticed going from Civ5 to Civ7.

Ages

In Civ5 there were eras. For the most part these were cosmetic events. The Industrialization Era or Modern Era were big because those meant that you could choose an Ideology and ideally get that sweet early adopter bonus.

Instead, Civ7 has Ages. As turns progress and as you complete milestones and objectives you advance in completing an age. As you get near the end of an age you have to select de-buffs for your civ, there's a crisis. Then, once you fill the era meter (or another civilization does) you advance to the next age and the game resets a little bit. It’s sort like in some games where you can only carryover x% of gold from one level to the next. It’s designed to decrease snowballing, where a small advantage early on is allowed to compound into something far greater.

Beelining

In Civ5 I tended to beeline on the tech tree. I know where I want to go, I don’t need to make a decision at every juncture. In Civ7, at least right now, that interface does not exist. It’s annoying just to get a barely audible ’budump’ when you make an invalid click. I wouldn’t be surprised if this got addressed in a UI update.

Strategic Resources

In Civ5 there was a bit of a lottery. No iron in your territory? Better make friends or settle/takeover someplace that does. No coal? Man, you’re going to be hurting for production and good luck building factories. Same thing for oil: no planes or battleships for you. It did force me to use the diplomacy mechanic more and it does reflect reality – some countries just aren’t blessed with resources (Japan, South Korea) so they must operate differently. But Civ is ultimately a game. Finding out I lost the location lottery when coal or oil is revealed is not fun.

In Civ7 strategic resources are less relevant. Resources buff your civ, but they aren’t required for certain things like they are in Civ5.

Influence

In Civ7 there is a new resource: Influence. In Civ5 you used gold to buy influence. In Civ7 influence is a completely separate resource similar to gold. Furthermore, there are resource caps, so it becomes a use or lose situation.

Narrative Events

Seemingly without pattern, so far, “Narrative Events” pop up. I rather like this because they add an element of variance to the game. None of these will make or break anything, they’ll be like a decision for an extra 100 gold vs extra 50 happiness or something. It’s similar to finding ruins in Civ5 except it's just random and it happens over the course of play.

Coming from Civ5 it’s a little abrupt, and it’s certainly a noticeable difference.

Leaders and Civilizations

The most controversial for last: Leaders and Civilizations

In Civ5, when you choose you ideology, it starts the terminal phase of the game. For Civ7 the game has three phases, ages, and in each you choose your culture – sort of like a reskinned ideology.

In Civ5 your leader and culture were tied together. Who were the Assyrians? I don’t know but their leader was Ashurbanipal and he built a rocket to space. There’s some dissonance with that. Or George Washington having bowman, well before any democratic nation states existed. Or some cultures were weighted to the early game while others didn’t shine until later, depending on their unique abilities, units, or buildings. Changing cultures with ages decreases the dissonance and lets you adapt your game play to circumstance. You may have intended a science victory but now find yourself on the path to domination, and ensures that all players can compete in each age.

At each age you will choose a different culture to advance to. However, these cultures aren’t random. You can’t end the game as some sort of Afro-European-Asian hybrid. There is some narrative continuity. The continuity is approximately consistent with history (Khmer to Majapahit to Siamese). But if you’ve made certain decisions you can weigh yourself towards a certain culture. For example: improve three horse resources and you can choose to go the Mongol route.

This decision is controversial, but I think it’s sound and only controversial because people resist change.

Chinggis Khan conquered China. Skipping some history, the empire divided up and Kublai Khan had the Eastern part of the empire. This became the Chinese Yuan dynasty. Skipping more history, the Yuan dynasty (Mongols) were eventually defeated by Han Chinese, the Ming dynasty. Chinese became Mongols and Mongols became Chinese. A similar parallel could be drawn for the Greeks to the Romans. The Civ developers say that history is written in layers, and Civ7’s civ dynamic really shows that.

This can lead to some dissonance such as José Rizal unlocking the Hawaiian civilization. But if you know history, and how many Filipinos live in Hawaii, it isn’t quite as farfetched. There's an alternate timeline where the Philippines and Hawaii are part of the same non-US entity.

From a game play perspective it increases the combinations of buffs leading to more complexity. It also lets you adjust your game play at each age. If circumstance causes you to go more towards domination, then you can make an in game decision to reinforce that course.

Wrap up

This isn’t every single difference between Civ5 and Civ7, but these are five of the things, big and small, that stood out to me.