Civilization VII features dramatic gameplay and system requirement changes

Daniel Sims

Posts: 2,441   +74
Staff
Something to look forward to: Sid Meier's Civilization has never been particularly demanding on graphics cards, but the most recent entry launched eight years ago. Unsurprisingly, next year's Civilization VII will feature significantly updated specs, along with fundamental changes to how campaigns flow.

The official system requirements for Sid Meier's Civilization VII have been released. Although the new specs represent a substantial leap from Civilization VI, they remain relatively modest unless you aim to play at 4K resolution and 60 frames per second.

When Civilization VI launched in 2016, it recommended a GeForce GTX 700 or Radeon HD 7970-class GPU. In contrast, the sequel requires at least a GTX 1050, Radeon RX 460, or Intel Arc A380 to maintain 30 fps at 1080p.

Click to enlarge

PC gamers with mid-range cards like the GeForce RTX 2060, Radeon RX 6600, or Intel Arc A750 should be able to achieve 60 fps on medium graphics settings. However, maxing out Civilization VII at 4K will demand an RTX 4070 or RX 7800XT along with 32GB of system RAM.

Additionally, late-game Civilization matches are notorious for stressing CPUs, and 2K recommends upper-tier Intel Raptor Lake (13th and 14th gen Core) or Zen 3 (Ryzen 5000) processors for smooth high-level play.

It's still unclear whether the game will support upscaling methods like DLSS or FSR. Fortunately, Civilization VII only requires 20GB of storage space.

In a major shift from previous entries, the game splits all campaigns into three eras: Antiquity, Exploration, and Modern. Players can start from any era, with each resembling a miniature campaign.

Firaxis introduced segmented campaigns to speed up matches and make late-game Civilization more accessible, after discovering that over half of Civilization VI players never finished a campaign. The studio estimates that a single era can last between 150 and 200 turns, or roughly three to four hours of gameplay.

Each player begins an era at a similar level of advancement, preventing anyone from gaining an insurmountable lead. Civilizations are exclusive to their appropriate age, and progressing to a new era requires switching to a new civilization while keeping the same leader. Firaxis aims to make each player consistently identifiable while mimicking how civilizations evolved throughout history.

Also see: 30 Years of Civilization - Conquering Gamers' Free Time

For example, choosing Ashoka as a leader allows players to command the Maurya Empire in Antiquity. Upon entering the Exploration age, one evolutionary path could lead to the Chola Empire, while another might enable the Mughal Empire in the Modern age. Players can also choose drastically different empires for a quick change in strategy.

Click to enlarge

Moreover, beginning a new age expands the size of the map, opens new resources, and introduces new gameplay features. Each age has unique scientific, military, or cultural goals.

Firaxis has only revealed a few available civilizations and leaders so far. Antiquity lets players start as Aksum, Egypt, Greece, Han China, the Khmer, the Maya, Maurya India, Rome, and more. In the exploration age, the Shawnee, Abbasids, Mongolianas, Cholas, Normans, and others become available. The only known modern civilizations thus far are the Mughals, the French Empire, and Buganda.

Sid Meier's Civilization VII launches on Steam, the Epic Games Store, and consoles on February 11, 2025.

Permalink to story:

 
Somethings happening in my pants...

I tend to ignore modern graphics, but that's effing beautiful. 32GB isn't unreasonable in this day and age. Frankly, I have trouble recommending anyone anything less than 32gigs if the plan on using that PC for the next 5+ years. 16GB is still very usable, I just don't see much life left in 16GB systems.
 
I feel like anyone targeting 4K won’t have a system with less than 32GB of ram. Honestly, I think the specs for 4K are inline. I’m glad they’ve built an engine that can stress high core count CPUs and load system memory with assets for smoother game play. Hopefully it’s a trend.
 
Will it actually utilize multiple cores properly?

I was playing a Civ V campaign a month or so ago on my 7980 (64 core Threadripper) and it loads endgame just as slowly as my old 8-core...

I'm a sucker for Civ games and will get VII anyways... but I have a suspicion I'll be continuing to play V (I only played VI for a few campaigns before ditching it to go back to V).
 
Will it actually utilize multiple cores properly?

I was playing a Civ V campaign a month or so ago on my 7980 (64 core Threadripper) and it loads endgame just as slowly as my old 8-core...

I'm a sucker for Civ games and will get VII anyways... but I have a suspicion I'll be continuing to play V (I only played VI for a few campaigns before ditching it to go back to V).
I remember in CIV V that my CPU would hit 100%, but that due to how civ works, it is not a multithread friendly game. Everything in civ has to be run I'm series and it cannot be run in parallel.

This isn't a developer problem, it's just how the game works. Due to the game mechanics, A has be done before B and and C can't start until B is done.

That said, I love CIV games and that's a bottleneck I'm 100% willing to deal with
 
I remember in CIV V that my CPU would hit 100%, but that due to how civ works, it is not a multithread friendly game. Everything in civ has to be run I'm series and it cannot be run in parallel.

This isn't a developer problem, it's just how the game works. Due to the game mechanics, A has be done before B and and C can't start until B is done.

That said, I love CIV games and that's a bottleneck I'm 100% willing to deal with
Yeah, totally worth it… but it is annoying when I’m playing against 22 civilizations and 40 city states and by turn 500 or so, you’re waiting 5-10 minutes a turn…or more…
All the high end hardware will mean nothing with this running in the background.

Incorporates 3rd-party DRM: Denuvo Anti-tamper
5 activations withing 24 hours machine activation limit
they use Steam… no Denuvo….
 
Yeah, totally worth it… but it is annoying when I’m playing against 22 civilizations and 40 city states and by turn 500 or so, you’re waiting 5-10 minutes a turn…
Considering that I have saves that I've played for months, I'm okay with that.
 
Why would resolution affect system RAM requirement?
This is not the first game claiming 32GB is a good idea for 4K/UHD.

I don't see how a game needs more RAM in 4K than in 720p.

But yeah, 32GB RAM today is the sweet spot for a high-end system. 16GB still works but you will get lower minimum fps in many games, and this has been true for years really.

With current RAM prices, 32GB is a nobrainer. With fast clocks and low timings.

Going to 64GB tho, will do nothing in terms of gaming performance, might even lower it, if you end up with 4 DIMMs.
 
Very high pricing, mediocre graphics, inordinately high system reqs indicating poor optimization, denuvo, inane narcissistic idea of playing one leader yet several civs through the millennia. This is a no buy for me.
 
Somethings happening in my pants...

I tend to ignore modern graphics, but that's effing beautiful. 32GB isn't unreasonable in this day and age. Frankly, I have trouble recommending anyone anything less than 32gigs if the plan on using that PC for the next 5+ years. 16GB is still very usable, I just don't see much life left in 16GB systems.
I remember upgrading to 16GB in like 2016 when 8GB wasn't enough to play War for the Overworld, and I couldn't remember how much was in my PC now when I rebuilt in 2019 and had to check... Still 16GB, but was shocked to find 8GB in use with only my internet browser open..... insane.
Next system will deffo be 32 or 64GB
 
I remember upgrading to 16GB in like 2016 when 8GB wasn't enough to play War for the Overworld, and I couldn't remember how much was in my PC now when I rebuilt in 2019 and had to check... Still 16GB, but was shocked to find 8GB in use with only my internet browser open..... insane.
Next system will deffo be 32 or 64GB
32GB is cheap and system just flies with it, pretty much zero cacheing

64GB won't do much unless you actually is going to use it, which no games or regular tasks will, if you intend to keep the PC for 10 years then it probably won't harm tho
 
CIV VI was a flop IMO. too much information packed behind menus or tucked in sub screens, nowhere near as pick up and play as civ V. Every game started feeling the same quickly, and it never grabbed me the way V did, although IV is still superior. Add DENUVO to the list, yeah Imma pass fam. Or pick it up for $2 the way I did CIV VI.
Will it actually utilize multiple cores properly?

I was playing a Civ V campaign a month or so ago on my 7980 (64 core Threadripper) and it loads endgame just as slowly as my old 8-core...

I'm a sucker for Civ games and will get VII anyways... but I have a suspicion I'll be continuing to play V (I only played VI for a few campaigns before ditching it to go back to V).
On top of what others said, civ V is over a decade old. Can you really expect a game made in the early 2010s to be aware of 64 core CPUs? 1-800-COMEONNOW. Some expectation management is in order.
 
What does the fans say? I don't play CIV much.

Is Civ 5 much better than Civ 6, even today with all the fixes and DLC?

I remember people saying Civ 4 was better when 5 came out. Maybe history repeats every time.
 
What does the fans say? I don't play CIV much.

Is Civ 5 much better than Civ 6, even today with all the fixes and DLC?

I remember people saying Civ 4 was better when 5 came out. Maybe history repeats every time.
There's a split. Civ v and civ VI are mirrors of each other's problems. IMO civ IV is better then both, but V I keep going back to. I don't touch vi unless someone wants to play.
 
Will it actually utilize multiple cores properly?

I was playing a Civ V campaign a month or so ago on my 7980 (64 core Threadripper) and it loads endgame just as slowly as my old 8-core...

I'm a sucker for Civ games and will get VII anyways... but I have a suspicion I'll be continuing to play V (I only played VI for a few campaigns before ditching it to go back to V).
I ended up going back to V after a short stint in VI too. I think the aesthetic plays a big part.
 
What does the fans say? I don't play CIV much.

Is Civ 5 much better than Civ 6, even today with all the fixes and DLC?

I remember people saying Civ 4 was better when 5 came out. Maybe history repeats every time.
Ive been playing civ since Civ 1. Ive played every expansion and every sequel since Civ 1.

IMO, Civ 4 was one of the best. However, saying that, once you start playing civ 5 its very difficult to go back to civ 4. I found the same with civ 6. At first civ 5 seems like its better but over time civ 6 has replaced it as a better game.

Ive got nearly 1k hours in each. I was just playing multiplayer civ 6 last night with my wife. Our 2nd game this week of civ.

Just my opinion. With the expansions and everything civ 6 is far more enjoyable to us. I suspect the same will happen with 7. Folks will be turned off by a few features but eventually it will become a better game.
 
I ended up going back to V after a short stint in VI too. I think the aesthetic plays a big part.
For me it's the hidden information and complexity. Much like Beyond Earth, there's a LOT more going on in civ vi, but unlike iv, it doesn't flow together that well. Muck like stellaris, once you know how things mesh and where all the hidden info is it's fun to play, but I dont really want to, nor have time for, sink 800 hours into learning a new game again.

With V, everything you needed was right on top of the screen, and it was blatantly obvious which stats buildings would improve.
 
Ive been playing civ since Civ 1. Ive played every expansion and every sequel since Civ 1.

IMO, Civ 4 was one of the best. However, saying that, once you start playing civ 5 its very difficult to go back to civ 4. I found the same with civ 6. At first civ 5 seems like its better but over time civ 6 has replaced it as a better game.

Ive got nearly 1k hours in each. I was just playing multiplayer civ 6 last night with my wife. Our 2nd game this week of civ.

Just my opinion. With the expansions and everything civ 6 is far more enjoyable to us. I suspect the same will happen with 7. Folks will be turned off by a few features but eventually it will become a better game.
Yeah I remember playing Civ 1 (and 2?) in DOS.

What do you think of Alpha Centauri then? I kinda liked another setting.
 
Yeah I remember playing Civ 1 (and 2?) in DOS.

What do you think of Alpha Centauri then? I kinda liked another setting.
TBH, I ddidnt play AC much. I got into Gal Civ for a few iterations.

Was a huge fan of Pirates!

Dabbled a bit in beyond earth but always end up back at civ. I tought my wife how to play when civ 5 was out. Now I cant beat her in civ 6. She has gotten better than me at it, lol.
 
Back