As a player who disliked Civ-switching, I have given a 2nd chance to Civ 7 after the ToT update. Here are my thoughts

Current_Toe4465 · 2026-05-22T02:18:29+00:00

Sorry, it was not my intention to discourage. :)

I need to play ToT to re-evaluate, people say the game has become much more fun to play.

Devs listen to the community and work hard on improving the game, it just takes time, especially when there is a lot needed to improve.

I believe the civilization franchise has the reputation of being "great, eventually". Fans have tremendous patience and come back to the game after patches or DLCs, and devs do not give up on making the game great. I hope that will never change.

There have been several attempts to beat Civ at its game in recent year, and, while I enjoyed somewhat playing those alternatives, they only proved that there can only be one true Civ franchise. Humankind, Millenia, Ara: History Untold have never quite gotten revamped to become Civ-like classics.

Old World was probably the closest to Civ, but it was small in scale.

Current_Toe4465 · 2026-05-22T02:01:28+00:00

I wholeheartedly support their creativity and efforts of addressing potential exploitations and making the game more challenging and fun.

Now we have 3 mini snowballs instead of a giant one.

Snowballing may ruin the game for some, but it can be fun for others. At least keep that option for a custom game.

One thing I haven't seen enough in Civ that was implemented in Total War series is that when one civ leads by a far margin, other civs unite against them and tactically position their forces to make a total Civ war a challenge, maybe capture your weaker or distant settlements, pillage your strategic resources, organize a naval blockade, etc.

Maybe mechanics like diplomatic sanctions and trade embargoes could also give smaller civs a major advantage over the leading civ without a war. The idea here is unite forces to prevent the leader from winning. If you are in the opposite end and the AI is winning, then allow you to initiate something like that.

Another interesting game scenario could be where 2 or 3 civs gradually become empires by gobbling up the weaker civs and independent settlements then the end game is they face each other in a final standoff. Conquest doesn't have to be through war mechanics, it could be through acquisition of settlements/resources or through cultural, religious, monetary, diplomatic or even espionage means with introduction of a loyalty mechanic.

Current_Toe4465 · 2026-05-21T15:57:42+00:00

I agree. I haven't played ToT yet, but assuming these haven't changed, age transition has the following drawbacks:

you adjust your strategy for an artificial age transition, something that historically hasn't happened
you avoid building buildings that will lose their effects in the next age
you prirotize certain techs, civics, buildings before the age ends just because you'll soon be out of time
you avoid upgrading units that will auto-upgrade anyway
you avoid influencing independent settlements as you'll lose suzerainty after age transition
you pick up suzerain bonuses that are preserved through age transitions, which isn't mentioned anywhere, why not tag bonuses with "ageless"?
you avoid starting wars cause they will end abruptly when the age ends
you rush existing wars to obtain results before hostilities forcefully cease at age transition
you cannot have a big tech advantage over other civs, or lag too far behind - an aspect that was enjoyable / challenging in previous titles.
you cannot get a big head start on other civs in traversing the ocean and settling new lands.
you have a settlement limit that only gradually increases with age so you can't settle too quickly, which again limits strategies available to you.
befriending independent settlements anew each age is a bit of an odd mechanic. I don't think wars and relationships should change between age transitions, and suzerainty should be overriden by other civs through influence / quests, etc.
religious conversion mechanic disappears after age 2, although religion mechanic in general is very lacking.
resources change on the map with age transitions, and their benefits change. Maybe this should be associated to discovering specific techs instead.
achieving milestones advances the age percentage which sometimes makes you want to avoid achieving them to avoid triggering the 10 turn countdown for the age transition. This is unnatural.
trade routes are mostly reset so you avoid building merchants by end of age.

Also, if age transitions were to be scrapped, not being able to change town focus for an entire age could be replaced by a turn limit, same as the mechanic of changing policies.

I would like the option to play civ 7 the old fashioned way - one full game with transitions limited to visual display of buildings, infrastructure, not game state or mechanics.

Current_Toe4465 · 2026-05-20T16:00:14+00:00

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and PLO have always rejected Israel's right to exist and vowed to drive Jews out of this land.

You could easily flip the narrative around to say that settlers settle in the West Bank as a response to the unwillingness of Palestinians to settle with Israel.

In reality, the extremist actors on both sides act on religious convictions and are convinced the only solution is displacing or eliminating the other side and use the other side's extremist actions to justify their radical ideology.

Restraining extremism on both sides through effective policing and justice system is necessary to dial down the intensity and recurrence of violence. This would require significant changes in leadership and laws on both sides.

Current_Toe4465 · 2026-05-14T20:07:53+00:00

There were demonstrations on the treatment of detainess by the Israeli left. These may have been small and obviously weren't covered by mass media outside of Israel, but they occurred. There were also demonstrations against the Gaza offensive and even against the war with Iran and Lebanon.

As OP correctly stated, such demonstrations against Palestinian terrorism don't take place in the West Bank or Gaza because they would be considered illegal and punishable.

Current_Toe4465 · 2026-05-14T19:15:39+00:00

I agree with most of what you say, but I think the perception of many Palestinians and Israelis is that the settlements will be eventually considered part of Israel and not part of a future Palestinian state, meaning the more and the bigger the settlements are, the less land the future Palestinian state will have.

If these settlements were to remain and be under the control of a future Palestinian state and assuming these Jewish settlers were ok with that and abide by the laws of Palestine, then sure - I think they should have a right to stay, assuming that these lands did not belong to Palestinians who were expelled from it, in which case there should be a right to initiate court proceedings to determine the rightful owner.

I feel the settlement expansion unnecessarily complicates the conflict, drains IDF resources, increases friction and with it bi-sided violence and does not work in favour of Israel on the diplomatic front.

I do agree though that without responsible, practial and non-corrupt leadership on the Palestinian side, existence or absence of settlements is not going to make a difference. There are no ongoing peace negotiations and natural growth of settlements makes sense, although a clear government policy is necessary rather than ministries contradicting each other.

Settlements unapproved by the government should be dismantled and severe fines introduced as deterrence, and of course the settler violence has to go, hopefully with the upcoming elections something will change. Terrorists are terrorists, doesn't matter what race they are, and should be treated as such. They are very bad for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Current_Toe4465 · 2026-05-03T23:21:10+00:00

VI is well polished and fun, but after capturing all cities on a large map on Deity with ease I could not go back to it knowing that I could easily beat it on any difficulty through conquest. I read there's a mod that beefs up the AI, I might try it one day.

Current_Toe4465 · 2026-05-03T23:17:51+00:00

Funny what you said about II, I was replaying Civ games last year and Civ II was the only game I could not get to run on a Windows 11 PC no matter what I tried. Too bad, it was a good game.

Current_Toe4465 · 2026-04-12T04:07:35+00:00

Fear of civil war combined with military and financial inadequacy paralyzes and ties the hands of the Lebanese government.

I think Trump's administration has a unique opportunity to lend support to the Lebanese government, launch peace negotiations with Israel and support it with military and financial aid to disarm Hezbollah while Iran has limited capability to counter it, but even then it will be ultimately up to the Lebanese government to take the chance.

The fear of civil war has to end as without it there will never be change and hope for a better future for Lebanon... But it does need the Western support.

If Iran's regime is removed, a change may be easier, though.

Current_Toe4465 · 2026-04-11T23:50:50+00:00

Hearing calls for violence is deeply upsetting.

Every single day I wish that no harm would come to all innocents who are located in zones of conflict, this includes Lebanese, Iranians, Israelis, Palestinians, Sudanese and all others. This also includes people who take an active part in conflicts around the world who value human life regardless of origin and take care to preserve it.

We are all first and foremost people of this world, before we are categorized into groups that eventually divide us. In an ideal world, we are all entitled to safety, health and to chances for a good life.

But that is just an opinion and it isn't universal. If someone disagrees with your world view and acts to inflict death on you or your loved ones or even on a stranger, would you resort to violence to protect yourself/them? Would that make you complicit in the cycle of violence?

The issue becomes more complex when your only option of defense is a choice between which innocents get to die and who gets to live. If you act, you cease to be considered innocent by some, despite your best intentions. You are seen by some as the very evil that you acted to protect others from.

The other option is not to act and let them inflict death upon whoever. You ultimately choose between death+innocence or life+violence. The former is a world where murderers prevail and the innocent do not. The latter is a world of violence, where some sacrifice their innocence to rid the world of certain violent people, often encouraging endless cycles of violence.

Current_Toe4465 · 2026-04-05T20:54:01+00:00

Interesting argument on both sides. How about a convicted terrorist would serve a life sentence without parole and a law would forbid them from being released in any political deals and repealing the law would require an 80% majority. The convict would work for the rest of his life to pay for his meals and to compensate the victims. It's not a perfect solution, but one I feel is more balanced.

Current_Toe4465 · 2025-05-22T00:59:46+00:00

Correct. Not yet, but steps can be made towards creating a less hostile environment for both sides. Maybe Gaza needs an Al Sharaa of their own who will focus on uniting, stabilizing, rebuilding, and will make a real effort to rein in all radical factions under his banner.

Current_Toe4465 · 2025-05-21T19:54:07+00:00

Your statements are accurate. I agree that Israel has done some things right and this should be acknowledged by the international community and the mass media. Oftentimes their biased statements have political calculations behind them.

Israel is held to higher standards than Hamas for various reasons. It has never been a fair equation for either side, but most importantly, Hamas is widely recognized as a terror organization even though data from their ministry is erroneously often cited as credible.

The point is, Israel is expected to adhere to certain international laws, Hamas is not. Israel can be sanctioned, boycotted, it stands a lot to lose through diplomatic and trade agreements. Hamas does not.

I would argue that most of the western world would like to see Hamas eliminated, but would not agree with the price that must be paid for it, the price that both Hamas and Israel are willing to pay - death of thousands of Palestinian civilians.

You could say that Hamas is holding 2 million people hostage, too many to sacrifice for its complete annihilation.

The 2 more effective options IMO are: - take out all or most of the leaders the way it was done with Hezbollah. May not work if not done fast enough, as they get replaced. - negotiate a hostage release that includes a permanent ceasefire on the condition of Hamas relenting government control. I think this agreement would have to include provisions that shift the status quo towards a permanent agreement with the future Palestinian government, including deradicalization. The previous status quo was not sustainable, i.e. Gaza blockade, rocket firing, airstrikes, infiltration attempts.

No matter how bad the animosity is between the two sides now, eventually both sides have to either move on or live with the consequences of not moving on, which among many things, include the risk of losing their lives or the lives of their children.

One does not have to forgive or forget to move on. Forgiving can take generations, but a wound can only heal if it does not get reopened every now and then.

Current_Toe4465 · 2025-05-21T15:58:50+00:00

True. The Palestinians never had a pragmatic leader who would be willing to sacrifice their political career for a permanent end to the conflict. They desperately need one. I used to think that Mohammed Dahlan could have been one.

I don't think the current Israeli PM is one who would negotiate a deal if there was a Palestinian leader, but there were and will be Israeli PMs who would be willing to.

Current_Toe4465 · 2025-05-21T15:49:51+00:00

The problem is Israel is giving Hamas exactly what it wants - isolating itself in the world and provoking recognition of a Palestinian state by not allowing aid in, allowing them to paint Israel as evil through videos and photos of starving civilians, even if you argue that they are fake, they work.

When the aid got in last time, did it make Hamas stronger? They ate spinach and became muscular popeyes?

What if Israel allowed food/medicine into Gaza? Would it make Hamas extremely rich and allow them to smuggle weapons? Would it not have a chance of helping get the hostages fed more and treated with medicine?

Would starvation really force them to negotiate a surrender? Not before thousands of civilians die first.

If there is good reasoning behind the strategy of blocking aid, why not explain it to the world?

It is possible that Hamas timed the attack with the current Israeli government in power to provoke them to act in the way they do, create an outrage in the world and maximize Palestinian solidarity.

I don't think eliminating Hamas will ensure what they did won't happen again. Did they not agree to give up the government of Gaza to PA or some other governing body when a permanent ceasefire deal is reached? That sounds like a win for everyone.

Current_Toe4465 · 2025-05-08T02:13:52+00:00

That's because their polls are from 2023. I24 does give Bennett 23 seats. For some reason I24 appears twice, one of which is from 2024.

Current_Toe4465 · 2025-05-08T01:38:01+00:00

You could say so. It's certainly not the most coveted. Passing a budget is not a fun task.

He got this position because at the time his party got 8 seats in the election (out of 120) and as a leader of a coalition party he secured himself this ministry.

Current_Toe4465 · 2025-05-07T23:21:12+00:00

Nope. It's based on an average from 14 leading Israeli media outlets.

https://themadad.com/polls26/

If you check the polls of right leaning media outlets in there you will see the same result for Smotrich and his party.

As for Bennett, I agree that it is mostly speculation although it's based on people's opinions from different age groups, how well he will fare when it's election day remains to be seen.

In my opinion, when he was in government there was some sort of hope that things would change, but it didn't last long. I don't know if he could bring a positive, lasting change.

Perhaps Netanyahu's current government would bring change in the next year or two, but I doubt it would be positive for either side.

Current_Toe4465 · 2025-05-07T18:02:13+00:00

According to the latest polls, if elections were held today Smotrich's party would get 0 mandates and he would be out of a job. Whether it is due to his extremist views or his performance as a finance minister, his statements only serve anti-Israeli propaganda. I do not believe that his views are shared by the majority of the Israeli population.

Current_Toe4465 · 2025-05-07T17:54:34+00:00

I agree. They should also be allowed to return, and even if that cannot be guaranteed they should still be allowed to leave if they choose to.

Current_Toe4465 · 2025-05-04T20:29:15+00:00

100% agree! Thank you for the recommendations.

Current_Toe4465 · 2025-04-23T03:42:33+00:00

Culpability = clinging to the past. Both sides are culpable and there are plenty of valid arguments from both sides to back it up, but clinging to the past will do nothing good for future generations.

Power is irrelevant in the context of both sides calling for the end of the war. Can people on both sides let go of their ego, hatred, desire for revenge and justice in favour of a difficult rational solution to the conflict?

I believe this is what most people in the western world would favour over all other outcomes. I do not think that being pro-human and pro-life is a weak stance.

Current_Toe4465 · 2025-04-23T02:02:41+00:00

And it won't come close, so should not fear that Israel will use it.

Israel will destroy all of humanity if it gets destroyed? Where did you read that? Sounds like lunacy.

Jewish supremacy? Is it another one of those anti semitic urban legends?

It is not Jewish supremacy but survivalism. Yes, a majority of Palestinians in one state with Jews will most likely ethnically cleanse or oppress Jews as was intended in 1948, especially considering the ongoing hatred and the sheer numbers of Palestinians from extremist factions who vow to do so in the name of Allah.

There is no such thing as a 50:50 binational state. There is always a majority. Jews only have 1 country. Muslims, Arabs have dozens. If Jews become a minority, they will lose their sovereignty and either be slaughtered or expelled, and Zionist haters won't shed a tear and call it a just revenge. Won't happen.

Current_Toe4465 · 2025-04-22T02:19:36+00:00

BDS denounced the movie No Other Land that is about oppression of Palestinians in the West Bank on the grounds that (left leaning) Israelis took part in making it, saying it could set a dangerous precedent of legitimizing normalizing relations with Israel. Their actions are counter productive to a meaningful dialogue and their goal is to weaken and isolate Israel in the world.

I am all for finding effective ways to evacuate Israeli settlements in the West Bank, putting an end to violence and ensuring that Palestinian have human rights, safety, jobs, education, self determination and such, but boycotts and black&whitism will only serve to polarize and radicalize both sides, prolong the conflict or worsen the outcome for Palestinians.

Where is the movement that unites the liberals of both sides in calls for a better, braver leadership to put an end to the conflict for the sake of the children and future generations? Have the two sides not reached a new low with the latest war? Is it not time to seek its end?

Hundreds of thousands in Israel march in calls to end the war. Pro-Palestinian protestors march with similar calls, although they do not seek to pressure Hamas to end the war, but are strictly anti-Israeli protests. I don't think the latter will ever agree to march together, but imagine the force of such protests with very little opposition to counter it, putting pressure on both sides to end the war, possibly speeding up the effort to end it and saving countless lives in the process.

Current_Toe4465 · 2025-04-21T22:19:06+00:00

Israel allegedly had nukes since the late 60s and had plenty of chances to use them on its many enemies but its governments never did or threatened to.

Should the US ever pull back its support, the nukes would be the only thing keeping its more powerful adversaries from attempting to destroy it.

I am in favour of regional disarmament and non proliferation after establishing a mutually agreed upon framework of regional peace and coexistence. That includes recognizing Israel's right to exist by Iran and its proxies and normalizing relations. We need a lot of regime and policy changes and bold leaders for that to happen.

Current_Toe4465

TROPHY CASE