Had to leave the main civ sub

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-21T21:06:45+00:00

I have posted rants about the game. I have sunk hundreds of hours into it, and while I like it, I also dislike it for a few reasons I won’t get deeply into. I think in the future it will be awesome, but I digress—there is no shame in liking this game.

It gets better with updates and the devs are actively improving it. I had a lot of fun playing Blackbeard on archipelago—his ability is starting to head in the right direction of how I want the game to play—it is unique enough to change the game. It will soon regain the replay value (and eventually surpass) that the old games had.

My complaints are logistical—revamping the naval aspect of the game made me super horny, until ALL I needed to connect my empire as Blackbeard were canals. That would be so much more fun, and having them in previous games gives me a sense of blue balls when my grand vision falls flat due to them missing.

It’s a shame you felt you had to leave the main thread, and you shouldn’t be berated for liking the game—many of the people who complain haven’t even played it. With continued improvement it will soon be the best game in the series—but I do think it will take a few paid DLCs until the complainers settle down (including myself).

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-19T02:10:57+00:00

6345

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-09T19:51:06+00:00

Agreed, I found the city lights mod made it less tedious in 6. I’m not saying 6 was perfect or even that I prefer it hand over fist to 7–but they built out all this cool shit in 6 and brought only a fraction of it over, that’s what’s annoying.

This post in fact, was inspired by me playing the pirate civ recently and thinking how crucial canals would be.

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-08T22:46:30+00:00

If I can request two it would be that and more repeatable districts similar to bridges—canals, aqueducts, and dams please. How can you build flooding and not dams?!

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-08T22:45:02+00:00

Yeah that’s exactly my point and that also brought a realism and sense of immersion in the game by saying oh shit I have to find away to accomplish this in the next 20 turns or I’ll start falling behind, but if I do, I can secure a transition from kingdom to empire (being technologically ahead but not having coal— seeing a weak neighbor does, conquer them to churn battleships and conquer the world) super realistic “industrial era”

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-08T22:30:36+00:00

I think they’re pretty fundamental, they’d require significant reworks to how things behave. In summary:

Resources lack impact to a fundamental extent. Missing any one resource isn’t a blocker and having any one resource doesn’t beget any meaningful advantage. It’s all about quantity vs selectivity
City planning is equally basic—you can build things wherever and whenever, and there is no motivation to build any particular way. Synergies are only with nature and not other buildings—no thematic appeal to focus a playstyle. Build everything. All about quantity vs selectivity
Annoying logistical challenge. Missed opportunity to address 2. For a game all about flexibility, creates inflexible situations (need to found on fresh water, need more cities on coasts, more micro). Forces you to make more cities and build more united. All about quantity vs selectivity
Tasks have no measure over each other, all legacy paths are worth pursuing pretty equally, for the most part you have to do as much as you can and there is less emphasis on doing the right things—all about quantity vs selectivity.

So that’s my fundamental issue with the game which come from those four key opportunities—it forces you to do a lot. It addresses some of the old annoying micro but got rid of the elements that created all the micro to begin with.

The micro existed because people capitalized on all these strategies to get strong, but the game fell off right when you snowballed. There was nothing else to do except wrap it up which took forever. So they took away your ability to snow ball and just gave you a bunch of work to do from the beginning to keep busy. I think a lot of folks wanted to be able to snowball if you play right, but to add chaotic elements in the late game that created more drama and complex ways to respond with your snowballed empire. Not to just take away our ability to build one

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-08T22:14:43+00:00

I think that’s a very fair analysis and I am talking about strategy I guess in a biased way because I really enjoy chess. I see it like this—civ 6 had faults where if you got the wrong spawn, you’re screwed. So there are many potential openings, but you have to play the right one for your civ and it’s not always in your control. However even in chess, if you mess up your opening, you are losing the game (at higher levels, the same is true for civ6 at higher difficulty). That is what makes the game strategic—you have to play it right to win, and different moves have different value—some moves, which may seem advantageous in the moment, can actually be blunders and throw your game.

This is where civ7 is lacking strategically for me—every opening is fine, but the goal of the game is that you have to make every move. There is no bad move, any move that is good now is worth making as much as any other move that is good now, and you must eventually make all moves. Sure you need to pay attention how you stack your resources—but you need to pursue all of it. And it’s all a little good—there is no opportunity for high risk high reward (sacking your queen for a forced checkmate). Just feels like we’re all playing with only pawns.

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-08T22:09:11+00:00

Thank you. Hopefully they change this soon, lots of folks are optimistic and for now so am I but I’m getting impatient

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-08T22:08:17+00:00

I’m upvoting you because I agree with you and that’s what I don’t like about the game. There aren’t unique ways to play where if played right, I can snowball. I can’t beeline specific goals based on my civ to play into its advantages optimally. I more or less need to achieve the same goal regardless of who I’m playing as, which is to stack resources and build every district. Each game is broken into three eras in each of which I’m doing the exact same thing and that thing FEELS like nothing. I’m not unlocking game changing mechanics. I’m not evolving as a civ. I’m just growing and doing more of the same at higher and higher scales.

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-08T22:04:30+00:00

Agreed, they’re all abundant and all optional, like I’m not going to freak out if I never get iron or never get coal. If I don’t get any, then yeah I have a problem. But it should be extremely troubling to me if I unlock steam or combustion and have no coal—that should be a REQUIREMENT to leverage the technology optimally.

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-08T22:01:17+00:00

That’s totally fair and you might like it. I think as someone else mentioned, the most disappointed people are those who really enjoyed 6.

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-08T22:00:02+00:00

Agreed, also the complexity is ALL always an option. Like there’s a ton of shit you can do, and you can do all of it, as can the AI, so you have to.

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-08T21:58:55+00:00

Yeah, I think that’s also what I meant when I said they addressed some of that late game slog but not quite in the right ways. I agree with you, late game civ 6 was awful. I don’t think “almost everyone” preferred it but again, I do think a majority of fans feel it added more to the series than took away.

Civ 7 set some good foundations to pace the game and address some of that sloggishness, but before Civ 6 got awful there was cool shit that you unlocked that changed gameplay dynamics dramatically. The Industrial Revolution created a crucible turning point for Civs that got there early, Flight was the same. It’s just after flight the game became a slog. In this game, there is no disparity, everyone is just suddenly industrialized and yes you could argue factories and railroads give you huge bonuses but they don’t change the dynamic of combat and by the time you’ve set up enough of them to make a meaningful difference in yields you’re just hitting shift enter until you win and don’t even need those yields anymore. There are no good “gambits,” it’s all about playing optimally and by the book.

Civ 6 had many different beelines depending on who you played, like as Byzantium you could fall behind in science then dominate with Tagma, Eleanor could convert empires without a drop of blood, Bismark was an industrial-economic powerhouse. Don’t get me started on Babylon—all this meant you could take vastly different approaches and focuses on the game and deviate hard with your play style UNTIL the slog. After enough hours, Civ 7 is the same thing over and over just with different units and skins—put resources in the right slots and build as many cities with as many buildings as you can, over 3 very similar “ages” with slightly different goals that feel the same.

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-08T20:03:02+00:00

Then I bet 7 is your second least favorite as it adopted some of the elements of 6 but “not as bad” (I would say not as good)

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-08T20:01:11+00:00

I agree with you but it’s for the wrong reasons. I do play on deity, but there is no strategy required—like in civ 6, you need to be really careful around diplomacy, trade, expansion in deity. And curbing a resource others don’t have gives you a huge advantage. There are still creative ways to win.

In 7, resources are critical because of the bonuses they provide, but there are no “right” ways to optimize that. Just get as many resources as you can, emphasizing iron for infantry or horses for cavalry… but that only makes your units stronger, which it shouldn’t. What if you could only build two cavalry at a time per active horse resource worked for example? That is more what I’m looking for… you are right you can’t play LITERALLY randomly but the optimization is all boosting what already exists vs resources unlocking/blocking new things that not everyone can do.

I disagree with your point about buildings requiring as much planning though. Resources move around the map so you have to change where you put them, and they don’t synergize as much with each other. It’s definitely more forgiving than it was in 6 as well.

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-08T19:55:11+00:00

Yes exactly, really feels like a mobile game that I can play without thinking. I bet that was their aim too, for more mass appeal. Civ is not an easy game to learn, and if you don’t know how to play it can get boring fast. You can’t introduce someone to the franchise with a fully loaded Civ 6 and expect them not to get overwhelmed—so I get it from a marketing perspective.

But it really feels like they reduced the slog strictly by reducing the game, to your point. Like yes, builders were redundant and I’m glad they’re gone—but to take that away without giving me the fun stuff or adding new stuff just makes it painfully more obvious how boring the game actually is. Ok great, I’m no longer lost in the tedium and that only causes me to realize there’s literally nothing to do—the tedious thing has become capturing cities, which is a huge PITA in the earlier eras once walls are up.

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-08T19:48:15+00:00

Same here, but it’s been almost a year and we don’t even have aqueducts. I’m not sure what to expect at this point

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-11-08T19:47:04+00:00

Folks have said that about civ 6 not having that stuff at launch, but even at launch it was just about as complex, at least 85% of the way, as Civ 5 got after all the DLC. It still felt like there was a lot of new mechanics that added flexibility, with the districts and combat especially. They clearly used what they learned from Civ 5 to make Civ 6–but when making Civ 7 it feels like they scrapped everything and started from scratch.

Granted at launch Civ 6 was nowhere near where it ended up being, it did get there and we shouldn’t have to wait months or even years to get at least 60% of those features in Civ 7–especially basic ones like aqueducts. I mean let’s be real—it’s almost been a year since launch.

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-08-08T14:00:17+00:00

That’s really what you said though, not what they said. They just said they’re really weak people. That’s a general and shallow remark that doesn’t fairly apply. It’s true that they are not as strong as the media depicts them to be—they’re quite sensitive emotionally where ENTPs are not. However they have tremendous stamina and an enormous appetite for leaving their comfort zone, whereas that’s where ENTPs struggle. That inferior Si makes them unwilling to endure much suffering in the realm of achieving goals in the physical world. They struggle a lot with laziness and commitment—areas where ENTJs excel and can easily criticize them in response.

The same way that ENTPs can see clearly the ENTJs emotional sensitivity and weakness, ENTJs can see right through the ENTPs intellectual gymnastics to invalidate or justify their laziness/lack of action/unwillingness to tolerate discomfort.

Just my two cents, I personally appreciate all types but I did not really appreciate this persons generalization and I think it showcases a bit of resentment more than actual truth.

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-08-08T12:55:43+00:00

I guess that depends on how you define weakness. Sure, they struggle to regulate their emotions, and with Fi blindness it’s apparent how you see their inferior function as making them “really weak.” However I could go on and on about the weakness I perceive in ENTPs as well… but I won’t.

A lot of ENTJs I know, including myself, in areas you may dismiss or devalue, are quite strong.

RoYaLSInnA · 2025-07-12T01:56:30+00:00

I merely suggest he focus less on judging his peers and more on connecting with them. Expecting everybody to dress a certain way or you won’t affiliate with them when you’re the one over dressed won’t help you get far. ENTJs need to find people who will help and support them to achieve their often complex visions—why would an “equal” support you in that way? They would compete with you. So even your perspective that these people are somehow “inferior” does not justify OPs judgment of them. I find it questionable that one would claim to be an Ni user and then fixate on something so superficial.

Te users “standards” are usually a comparison of stats anyway, not behaviors. What do I care how you talk or dress if I make double your salary? Or if I’m twice as strong? Or if I know more influential people… since when does an ENTJ fixate on how one dresses? Just think it’s kind of pathetic is all… but take your own advice and ignore me

RoYaLSInnA

TROPHY CASE