I got an idea after I saw this post from the subreddit. Please tell me what you think of this idea.

https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/s/t9jP4uHaxZ

What if the leaders in a civilization game are not immortal? We can't implement this in a simple way because even if the leader changes in the game, the same player is still leading that civilization in the game.

So what if we could play a game in which every 80-100 years, when one generation dies, the players all switch civilizations, which means that new leaders rise to lead their civs.

The players still know the history of the world on their game, but now a different leader arises for each civilization. So the leaders are no longer immortal. The score will be attached to the players instead of civilization and will be based on what the leader has done for the civilization. It will have to be tuned so that getting swapped into a civ that is ahead will not give a score advantage, or at least not a big score advantage.

This could be a fun, though unpopular game mode to add some alternative rules to the game to try and make it a little more realistic and to challenge the players for their leading ability alone, regardless of civilization abilities.

bonus idea: this game mode could be used to play short games only worth 80-100 years, or to do big tournaments of short games. instead of playing the whole match, the players can matchmake or enter a tournament for a 80-100 year period matches. When they load in, they will do the best they can to lead their nation.

Hi, I’m a new player and have been having fun with the game the past week, just cleared my first Deity run (Eco victory), it felt easier than my previous runs with Viceroy and Sovereign but maybe because I improved and understand the game better.

However, I still don’t understand some mechanics and perhaps Reddit can help me out:

1. Overbuilding. Often I noticed that most of the time overbuilding old buildings give pretty drastic yield deductions (e.g. +10 Production but -10 Gold and -10 Happiness), which always made me prefer to create the building on a fresh tile. Are there any benefits to overbuilding? Or is it for certain playstyles/requiring certain buffs in order to be useful?

2. Specialists. I understand from my previous culture run that it can be useful in densely populated cities, especially with the +3 Science and/or +3 Culture per Specialist social policy. But is it only good in certain playstyles / require certain buffs in order to function well? In my economic games, I seem to not making use of it to the fullest.

4. Excess Influence. In my Eco runs I usually end up banking way too much influence, particularly in Modern age where the map is full and independent states no longer spawn to befriend and Suzerain. I usually spam the “Steal Tech + Steal Civic” skill, but those actually cost pretty little and feel pretty overpowered. Is there any extra use for the excess Influence, or is my economy just that good that it’s providing way more than the average city in other playstyles?

Thanks! It’s a fun game but I felt that peaceful runs are actually pretty easy, especially when not triggering wars with the cheating AI unit spam. It’s also really fast when not having to micromanage units and can spam skip turn while waiting for buildings to complete.

PS: Are there other new contents that I can explore now that I completed Deity? I heard there’s a new patch upcoming?

TL;DR it's too easy to win a military victory even if there are civs in the game that could literally wipe you off the map if they wanted to

Since I started playing on Immortal I've had three games, lost the first one, and won the second and third the exact same way.

I started as a peaceful civ, avoiding any conflict for the first two ages. In the modern age, in game 2 i went for economic victory, in game 3 for cultural. Both times I won a military victory.

My main problem with it is: both of the times what happened was that some weaker civ declared war on me, I won the war and went above and beyond, conquering all the land I could basically. Both times I won a military victory on winning conditions change, but the thing is, both these times there were at least a couple of other civs on the gar that could have absolutely obliterated me.

The win wasn't realistic at all, which is not a game difficulty problem. Switching to Diety would make it harder, but the game is hard enough, I struggle to win any other type of victory in Immortal. The frustrating thing is the fact that the win is unrealistic.

And I'm not exaggerating, these other civs had planes and all sorts of stuff that I had no access to yet. On game 3 I even tried declaring war on one after winning the game and my army got cleared easily.

What I propose is: non-allied civs should have a way bigger inclination in declaring war on you if you're in the military victory countdown, or close to it. That way, the winner would be the one who actually is superior on a military level. Then it would also make sense to have a longer countdown but that's another thing

What do you think?

Not for everyone, but I think it looks nice when the units aren't comically big.

Just a question for perhaps those with more Civ experience.

I've played 5, 6, and 7 and the level of intricacies have increased but chief among them seems to be yield bloat.

Was reading critiques on Specialists in 7 as well as comments concerning how some Wonders feel a lot weaker and wonder where do people stand on the focus on cultivating high yield tiles?

I know that by Modern Age, I just randomly select specialist tiles.

Plus, there are some weirdly strong and weirdly undercooked policies that sort of feel like yields are sort of a grey area.

Walking through Florence today, and ran into an old friend! Same day we went to the Uffizi (to check off the CIV5 wonder requirement)!

Not a single shot fired. 100% pacifist run as Eleanor. I was flipping cities like pancakes.

Firaxis did nerf Treasure on some maps, but not on Shattered Seas!