games

They took the idea from that humankind game

It seems like you can follow a cultural line if you want, or go into different civs based on your leader or by meeting certain conditions.

I find this to be a stupid mechanic. I would rather have something like in Victoria 3 where the nation is the same but changing the government will impact the name and mechanics of the civilization, or by meeting certain requirements you can form different nations, like Indonesia, Laos, Scandinavia, etc. I think I like the mechanic of mixing and matching leaders and civs, but I want some limitations and realism.

Civilization was my first strategy game that attracted me into the genre, and I thought it was the coolest thing to play as France and build the Pyramids. Mixing and matching leaders and civs fits into the spirit of Civilization. Straight up changing civilizations willy nilly is just an Endless gimmick that sucked. I rather stick to a Civ and culture, but have the freedom to change as long as I meet certain conditions. What kind of civilization roleplay has civilizations swap names and cultures immediately after the beginning of a new era? That just kills the story aspect and makes the game gamey.

If there's anything from Civ VII that I hope is fixed, according to changes I heard from early playtesters, it would be the min-maxing focus of the game. I like Paradox strategy games, like Stellaris, as they have a story focus, and even if I lose, it's fun to get immersed into the universe. Civ V and VI's mechanics involve a lot of micromanaging (which is heavily required to beat the game in the higher difficulty settings), making game-breaking OP civs, and not enough story immersion. I want losing to be fun. It looks like they are removing some mechanics like resource and population focuses, builders, etc., which I hope manages to fix this problem.