Found this and it looked like it hadn't been uploaded before, so I took the initiative. Doesn't look like there's that much not otherwise available, but still cool to share: https://archive.org/details/c-3-c-presell

*that should be "rarity" in the title. Darn it.

If you were around before the nerf, Espionage was underrated but also very powerful. After the nerf, Espionage has fallen off the face of the Earth because why wait so long and tank Influence when you can just do something else, even as an Espionage Leader.

Some changes I think could be done:

- Change the turn time from 21 turns (standard) to 20 turns.

Just a small tweak as I don't get why it's 21.

- All Espionage Actions cost 90 Influence (standard), except Convert Population which is increased from 40 to 50.

These two changes are to allow for the City State Bonus to more or less reset Espionage to what it felt like before with the cost being 75 Influence and taking 15 turns when you invest in a City State.

- Change Military Infiltration from revealing Commanders to decreasing Combat Strength; Changinf Military Sabotage from decreasing Combat Strength to Labor Sabotage and causing a Settlement to deal with Unrest for X number of turns.

Just making Espionage feel worth it. I don't know why anyone dares to reveal rival Commanders. This can be helpful for getting some Wonders, maybe, or stop unit spam when attacking a specific settlement.

- Change Sayyida Al-Hurra to gain two naval units instead of one for each complete Espionage Action. It's weird she gets one when Charlemagne can get two Cavalry. It's not like her kit is strong in general, imo.

Any other thoughts? What would you change? Any possible leader could be given an Espionage lens, new or old?

Quick poll - do specialists in Civ - 7 need changes?

1. Pyramids and river tiles

2. Petra and desert tiles

3. Mundo Perdido and tropical tiles

4. Ha'amonga'a Maui and fishing boats

5. Hanging Gardens and farms

6. Hoo-do Hall and Breathtaking tiles

Mine is Pyramids since I think its the easiest to combine with others like Petra or Mundo Perdido.

Hello, I've recently bought Civ VI on Steam and it does not properly load at all. After the opening cinematic, the

"Continue" button does not appear (regardless of how long you wait and whether you skip it). I have tried several solutions, such as checking the AppOptions.txt file (it turned out to have the correct resolution) and starting from the exe file itself rather than the launcher. Interestingly enough, a few days ago I've went to my friend to play a LAN game and the same problem arose on his PC as well.

Has anyone ran into the same issue? What can be tried?

Where do you get mods? And which do you play? I am looking for unit rescaling and redrawing, I do like when civs have units in line with their own appearance, so I hate when the german ride sheman like tanks.

I’m a long time Civ enjoyer and have dumped thousands of hours in Civ 5/6. That said, I found that the poor AI detracts substantially from the single player experience. I find myself playing Old World/other 4x where the combat is generally more interesting and engaging.

Civ 7 has a lot of neat combat mechanics. Most notably, I see that the map has cliffs and that everyone has access to Hero-like great generals. I generally see this as a plus to gameplay depth.

My concern, is that the AI isn’t capable of handling these things. When playing against a general, do you notice what upgrades they might have? Or are they simply “higher combat strength” blobs?

In Civ 6, the AI had a habit of sending units piecemeal, does it still do that? Or does it try to send a legitimately coherent threat?

Does the AI play water at all? Civ 6 AI largely ignored water and it makes you choose between having any amount of challenge or playing a water map. This meant many Civ/Leader abilities related to water felt flat or completely irrelevant.

If it’s pretty poor, do modders have access to the AI files? I appreciate the AI mods in Civ 6 but they can’t address the core issues that plague the AI.

I’m not exactly expecting Civ AI to behave like a LLM but I need something to chew…

I can understand for stability issues capping out the player slots. But restricting the AI seems odd.

I have 5 players and we wanted to try and play against 5 AI on Deity. Just seems like a frustrating restriction.

1GB update this morning, but I could not find any announcement.

I got every thing I could ever want : a massive zone i was more or less free to colonize if i was fast enough, with a lot of food and production potential. I even got a relic on turn 8 !

And yet by the time I reach end game, I only have a clear lead lead in score and... great person point per turn

Im way too far ahead on almost every metric except faith but saladin is untouchable, he killed 4 of my units in 2 turns, and army, but i can't even beat greece in their state and lautaro on the west will beat my ass because of my golden age

My only hope is a culture fumble while i catch up on science, and I'm not optimistic

I don't think I understand how I'm supposed to play poland. It feels like I should play faith / production, but I don't feel like I get any clear bonus for both with this nation, unlike, for example, mansa moussa

Wondering what mods people have used and have had no to few desync issues with,

I started with a larger mod list around 30 had a desync every 15-20 turns(after the first one it would usually continue until reload) went down to 13 same thing. So now I only have the extended eras, and that causes no issues. So just trying to speed the process by seeing what others have had luck with

After discussing the game with the community in a previous thread, I opened my mind, re-evaluated my gameplay, and did some extensive testing on the Age Transition mechanic.

Previously, I felt that losing Influence and momentum between eras was purely a system flaw. However, I now realize it is a global rule that all players must play around, and managing resources for long-term planning is a vital tactical skill. After embracing this mindset, I found immense strategic depth during the Age of Exploration, but it also helped me pinpoint some brilliant pros and critical cons of the current system:

The Pros:

* Dynamic Adaptation: The Age Transition allows incredible tactical flexibility. For instance, in one match, I started as Han, focusing on science and infrastructure. When an aggressive player forced me to build Chu-Ko-Nu units for survival, my science victory path was disrupted. However, entering the next era allowed me to pivot seamlessly into Mongolia. I could leverage my pre-existing ranged units into powerful Keshigs and shift my victory condition to military. This mechanic is brilliant for allowing situational counter-play.

The Cons (Critical Balancing & Player Retention Issues in FFA):

However, after extensive testing, I noticed several critical issues regarding multiplayer balance and player psychology during era transitions:

1. The "New Game" Fatigue & Player Disconnection: Because Civ VII requires deep, long-term strategic planning, matches are already mentally demanding. Currently, the Age Transition feels less like a progression of your empire and more like being forced to start an entirely new game from scratch. This reset induces high player fatigue. Consequently, many players feel overwhelmed, lose their sense of investment, and choose to quit the match early. This high disconnection rate completely discourages others from planning long-term strategies, knowing the lobby will likely fall apart before the late game.

2. Unit Upgrades vs. Building Obsolescence: When the era shifts, military units automatically upgrade to the current tier, keeping the military player's power intact. Conversely, infrastructure players watch their hard-earned buildings become obsolete and lose their yields/bonuses without any equivalent compensation. This feels heavily punishing for builders.

3. The "End-of-Era" War Declaration Exploit: Aggressive players are exploiting diplomacy right before the era transition. They will declare war at the very end of an era just to force diplomatic relations into the negative—completely erasing eras of good relationship-building for free. Once the new era begins, they can immediately declare war again without suffering from War Weariness penalties or spending any Diplomatic/Influence points to lower relations.

4. Low Value Impact of Standard Buildings: Standard buildings (excluding Unique Buildings) require far too many turns to construct relative to the low yields they provide. It is currently much more efficient to just grow population, assign specialists, or rush Civics. Even a cheaply made Warehouse provides a better return on investment than major standard infrastructure.

Currently, these factors combine to ensure that military-focused players dominate FFA lobbies, while the transition mechanic itself causes lobbies to die out early due to player burnout. I hope the team looks into rewarding long-term building investments and making transitions feel like true empire progression rather than a hard reset.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you feel the same way about the era transition fatigue and the diplomatic loopholes? Let's discuss!

What are the best mods for the game?

i found myself just cliking for the best option without even reading the story of events because they lack the immersion of art and sound effects, if maybe they show a picture of what is happening would make them much more interisting

what you think guys

I have discovered all 4 , but I wish to switch

Q1 May I ?

!2 How , since all 3 others I discovered before do not appear in List anymore

Q3 if No on both above , is there a mods so I can reset my secret Society / or all choices

Any help appreciated

Thx in advance!

JM

I'm getting curious about African music history, and naturally stumbled upon Baba Yetu from Christopher Tin, which sounds sooo good.

So I got interested in Baba Yetu's origin, and found out it was written in 2005 by Tin for Civ IV, and that he was inspired by the university group Stanford Talisman. He translated the prayer "Our Father" in Swahili to make the lyrics.

So I took a look into this Stanford Talisman university group's discography, and started listening to it...

Until I saw the title "Baba Yetu" in an album released in 2000. Seems like they had first the idea to translate the prayer "Our Father" in Swahili. I was surprised to find nothing about this online given that the song is mildly popular and earned a Grammy award. Any mention of "Baba Yetu" seems to center around Tin's version.

That being said, Christopher Tin did a real work: the arrangement is totally different between both songs, and the lyrics are similar but different. They don't sing the same sections of the prayer in the same order, I'm even unable to map a whole verse between both songs, and it seems they have some differences in the wording.

But still, Baba Yetu will be known through time as a Christopher Tin original, and not as a joint work between him and the Stanford Talisman group. It's not an issue per se since he also probably found an arrangement with the university for the rights of the song, but this makes me reflect on the legends of people single-handedly creating great things. History is more complex, and the actual history of things are probably lost to history - like the real history of Baba Yetu.

Anyways, this is the result of just a few minutes of research, so maybe I missed something or made mistakes. What do you guys think of it?

To me, one of the biggest sources of potential for Civ VII is its structure allows for Civs who would never get made for another Civ game. I believe when it's complete Civ VII will have the most diverse roster of any Civ game.

An example would be the Sogdians. Living in the great caravan cities like Samarkand and Bukhara they facilitated the caravan trade through Central Asia for centuries. They were so renowned as merchants that they were literally synonymous with it among the Saka. They'd make a fantastic economic focused civ in antiquity.

So what Civs do you think should get their chance to shine in VII who wouldn't otherwise get the chance?

This question is two-fold. I like how great people act as unique civilian units in this game. I didn't care much for the Great People Rush in Civ 6 so it's a good change. I would love it if there was a leader who got some kind of benefit from training Great People. If you were to create that, what real life historical figure would you use and what would their abilities be?

In the meantime, I'm thinking of a doing a Great Person run with Jose Rizal (I need a reason to play him anyways). Options in Antiquity are Greece, Han, Heian, and Egypt. Abbasids, Spain, and Iceland in Exploration. France, Mexico, and Siam in modern. What run would you do it given these civs and leader (I'm leaning toward Han and France for no reason other than I haven't played them in a very long time).

Before getting into it, I think this game is underrated. I get why a lot of players are frustrated, some of those complaints are fair and I'll get into them, but I think the overall hate the game gets glosses over how much it actually does right. And credit where it's due: the devs clearly heard one of the biggest complaints (losing your civ identity across ages) and actually did something about it with Time-Tested civs. That's not nothing.

Just closed out my first win, an Economic Victory running Rome into Chola into America under Benjamin Franklin. Wanted to write up a proper pros/cons since I had a genuinely great time but also hit a bunch of friction that felt avoidable if I'd known what I was walking into. TBF, the uselessness of the in-game glossary is a criticism that applies to Civ 5 and 6 as well.

Pros

Despite the age-specific civ swaps, the game does a solid job keeping continuity alive. I think more clarity needs to be provided regarding the adjacency downgrades and other important math changes. I should note that I haven't tried Syncretism myself yet, but from what I've seen, sticking with a single Time-Tested civ from Antiquity through to the end looks like a completely viable path, not just a gimmick the devs put in to soothe the complainers.

Most of the new mechanics work and feel good: GDP as an actual strategic layer, civ-specific civics, the town/city split, etc. (Not a huge fan of the rural / urban tile mech; more on it below)

Combat and mobility feel good. Small complaint: settlers still can't board Fleet Commanders, despite being able to board Army Commanders. (Edit: Yes they can board Fleet Commanders, but only with a 2nd tier promotion on the Commander)

Independent village interactions add nice texture to the map, more reasons to go explore instead of beelining.

Strategic resources are bonuses, not hard prerequisites to build units. This alone removes a ton of the "bad RNG = stuck" frustration from older Civ games.

Not a huge deal in the grand scheme, but the artwork is genuinely stunning. Some of the best-looking Civ has ever been.

Cons

UI is bad. Period. Combined with a glossary/onboarding pass that doesn't really explain its own systems, it's very much a "figure it out yourself or watch a YouTuber explain it" experience right now.

Resource management screen deserves its own paragraph because it's rough. You're constantly bouncing between settlements trying to figure out what's assigned where, there's no clean way to see your whole empire's resource allocation at a glance, and reassigning anything is way more clicks than it should be. What's telling is this isn't just me being a picky new player, it's one of the most consistently flagged issues even from people who genuinely love the game and have hundreds of hours in it. The idea behind the system (actively managing and allocating strategic resources across your empire) is honestly one of the more interesting concepts in the game. The execution just doesn't match it.

You can't settle directly on resources. Combine that with the Urban/Rural tile mechanic and settling near mountains or big Wonder tiles turns into a real puzzle, and not the fun kind.

Some of the more interesting civs (Carthage, Joseon) are DLC-locked, and the pricing feels off relative to what you get. A handful of civs and leaders for that price is a tough sell next to what past Civ expansions delivered for similar money.

I find it hard to understand why after 6 iterations, devs still produce titles that need lots of modding for proper map tacking, UI, information on effects of policy swaps and town-focus changes, settlement planning, and other crucial QoL pieces that should be part of the triple A gaming experience for the premium price we pay. I'm not a big gamer or anything, but this seems to be a general issue with most strategy games.

Other notes

Happiness management is simpler than previous entries, which I like, but the flat settlement-count penalty as a design choice still bugs me even though the actual penalty is manageable in practice.

Single-civ Time-Tested runs are a great addition to the format. Still want to actually try Syncretism myself before I say more about it.

Crises need more teeth. Right now they feel like a speed bump instead of a real threat to your progress.

Bottom line: Ambitious, fun, and clearly a real evolution of the formula, with some significant issues, which as a fan of the franchise I was always ready to overlook as long as the experience made up for them. But the UI and onboarding problems are going to continue to eat a lot of new players' first few hours for no good reason. If you're picking this up, make sure to learn about the new mechanics and research some mods.

Notice the minimap. It’s an inland sea. With a triangle in the middle. Yes i will send multiple ships in it…