Looking for the best way to speed up the game in multiplayer.

I'm currently thinking that a Renaissance start should massively speed up the game while not losing much. The biggest loss is that most civ's UA is stronger in earlier eras. The good stuff is that religion is still enabled and ideologies require a few techs first.

I hate quick speed because it makes wars horrible so I want to keep standard speed. The one other issue is that most time is spent in late game wars, so these settings don't address that issue.

Is this the best I can do or are there better settings for quicker multiplayer matches?

The description implies that I should have support, but it's showing -6, -1, and -2, and I'm suffering the effects of war weariness. I have three alliances, so in no universe should I have -6 weariness. Is this a bug? It's absurdly punitive to the point where the game is really no longer playable.

I see a lot of commentary to the tune of "Why the Hell did the devs care so much that people weren't finishing games due to snowballing and late game slog, it was fine to snowball" and "why did they copy Humankind's most hated mechanic of civ switching," and I'd like to address those people with an explanation and a solution that might work for you.

People have apparently forgotten that there was a survey given out after Civ VI did its full run that asked players to identify the biggest problems with the game and the biggest successes. The results showed, and I agreed, that the biggest problems were the fact that very early in the game you could snowball to the point that you knew victory was inevitable and the late game became a slog of hitting next turn until victory, and that late game civs were strictly inferior to early game civs. It also found that, at least among Civ VI players, districts were popular, allowing cities to engage with the map more directly.

So the devs tried to fix these problems and build on these strengths in Civ VII:

• Civ switching allowed all Civs to be in their apex at all times, fixing the "late game vs early game civ" problem, and they felt that they could do it better than Humankind (personally I feel they did, but only after Syncretism and Time-Tested Civs were introduced, allowing people the choice - forcing Civ switching on a player base not used to it was a mistake).
• The Ages system was intended to both limit snowballing and give each stage of the game unique circumstances that would echo the initial feeling of expansion in the early game, and that was why mechanics like Distant Lands were so emphasized. Personally I feel this was a mix of success and new problems, as it made each stage unique and returned some of the new game feeling, but made the game feel disjointed and forced certain mechanics, such as distant lands, on players who didn't enjoy them, and didn't fully address the snowball problem completely - I still find if I am ahead in the Antiquity Age, it is hard to lose by Modern, although for me there is still enough engagement to consistently finish games.
• In terms of building on the district system, they expanded on this heavily. It created a richer system with more flexibility than Civ VI, but resulted in too much urban sprawl and confusion for some players, and reduced the clean parse-ability that Civ VI had.

I feel like these changes alienated as many players as they engaged, and that and the rough, unfinished state of the game on launch resulted in the hate train and mixed reviews that the game has suffered from ever since.

Some people, like me, found that it solved the issues, at least in part, for them. I played many, many hours of Civ VI, but never finished a game due to late game slog, and I struggled to choose late game Civs. It seems to me like most of the people who enjoy Civ VII are either new players who came in with no expectations, or veterans that were in my boat.

I found something that really seems to work for players who have felt uncomfortable with the new systems and turned off by them. Try playing on a slow game speed, like Epic or Marathon, or for some folks Standard with Long age length.

I find that most of the people who struggle with the game play on high speeds, where the game feels disrupted and like three minigames in a trenchcoat. On slow speeds, it feels like three full but connected games of Civ and the mechanics feel WAY better.

I exclusively play on Epic or Marathon now, and hugely enjoy the game, and the vast majority of people uncomfortable with mechanics that I have suggested this to have improved their opinion after trying slower game speeds - so if you are struggling, give it a try.

Playing a Modern game with Prussia and my civic tree is maxed with them and I get to Railroads and its just a normal railroad?

Does this not exist anymore? Is it a bug?

Or does it just use the standard Railroad?

If it does use that standard Railroad thats kind of lame.

I don’t mind the regroup. I love the idea of starting the tech and civic trees over as a new Civ. I love the different music themes, and I love all the diverse ways to play and the different gameplay mechanics getting their chunk of time to shine. HOWEVER, the way it absolutely sucks the life and momentum out of your settlements is absolutely brutal and frankly, anti-fun. If you have buildings in Antiquity you’re pretty much fucked while all the deity ai are significantly less impacted. It is so damn lame to see every stat get absolutely wrecked and population growth halted to an insane number of turns. You can be leading in science in Antiquity and every other civ can jump ahead of you on turn one in Exploration. Fuck that so hard. Games should be designed that you want to keep playing, not punish you twice a game and test your patience/joy in wanting to even continue. Just needed to vent

I‘m super frustrated with my return to civ7 after a few month break. I just lost my 2nd game on scribe because I just can’t figure out how to win anymore.
When the game released I played around 100 hrs and got the platinum trophy. So I would say I had at least a decent idea on how to play.

Is there a way to revert to the old system? I liked the science path but at this moment it feels impossible even with having 3x the science than the opponents.

Is anyone else experiencing the same trouble?

I can't move units or expand my settlement at all. Every other function works except these 2 commands. The only way I can move scouts is by automated exploration but can't get past turn 3.

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.

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

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 a single shot fired. 100% pacifist run as Eleanor. I was flipping cities like pancakes.

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?

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

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

Data center bombing. The further right your politics the more it hurts happiness/approval and the further left the more it hurts science.

Neighbour stole a settler from an honor neighbour instantly and without discussion and the topic finally comes up for discussion 30 turns later.
Theres some disagreement from either sides, but ultimately i think both perspectives were valid. The settle would be very close to the other guy and it will significantly harm his honor neighbour at little initial cost.
However to the Streamer POV he had very little options with a liberty neighbour and the same player who stole the settler previously making wild demands for their most northern settle.

TLDR; When you play long ass games with people the drama is always juicy.
Personally the interpersonal drama and diplomacy of CIV 5 is why i have 4000 hours over the last 15 years.
Noobwhispering people into fighting/fearing others. Backstab betrayals & 3 year feuds that started over banana tiles.
This game is ridiculous and beautiful

Just noticed it... I'm England and Prussia wars me. After we peace out I notice MY trade routes are still there. Not sure if intended, but nice.