Hi everyone! New member/first time poster here, but long-time Civ fan! I was inspired to make an account on here after seeing the gameplay trailer for Civ 7, to share some thoughts I had about the new eras system. Like many others, I was a little apprehensive to learn that we will now be forced to change our culture across eras, and that certain civilizations would no longer be available from the start of the game. However, as I thought about it more, I realized that there was potential in the idea, if only it were implemented in a better way. So that is what I will attempt to do in this post - provide a better system for cultural evolution throughout a campaign.
Just a disclaimer: this post is not an argument for or against the eras system. I am taking it as a given that this is the direction the devs want to take the game, and so I am trying to propose a solution that will feel good for both camps; by way of those who are receptive to the change, and those who are apprehensive toward it.
So first off, we should understand the motivation behind this system. It is twofold: 1) to introduce a gameplay mechanic that adds depth by giving the player strategic choices in how their civilization evolves to meet the changing demands and interests that arise throughout a campaign, and 2) to foster a sense of immersion by representing how cultures have naturally evolved throughout history.
Personally, I have no quarrels with either of these goals (indeed, it has always felt a bit jarring to me to see America and Rome in the same game; or even separately, seeing America in the iron age and Rome in the modern age), and so I could see how culture switching might serve well for the task at hand. However, what the devs seem to have overlooked is how attached players get to their civilizations, not only if they've geared their nation towards a specific style of play as facilitated by its cultural bonuses, but also from a purely role-playing point of view. This is why, I believe, the proposed change has received so much backlash.
In light of this, the fix is very simple: remove the requirement that a player must change their culture across eras, and instead make it a choice that the player can opt into. That is, if they want to play the fantasy of a world where Rome managed to survive into the modern age, let them. The key is to make this choice feel meaningful, and to add enough flavor that modern-age Rome feels like it makes sense. Let me now outline how this can be done.
The Proposal
To begin with, as is the premise of the eras system, every playable civilization is unlocked during a specific, historically appropriate era. Moving between eras gives a player the choice to switch from their current civilization to one which has just been unlocked, determined from a set of options which are based on the civilization that the player is currently playing as. So for instance, moving from the first era into the second, Rome might become Spain, France, Venice or England (among others); Babylon might become Persia or the Ottomans, and so on. Each nation has a number of other civilizations it can become, and any given civilization can be formed by a number of prerequisite nations. For example, Carthage is also capable of forming Spain, in addition to Morocco or Tunis.
When a player changes civilizations, they lose all the cultural bonuses of their previous nation, and instead gain the bonuses of their new one. Such a change is incentivized by giving civilizations which become unlocked in later eras stronger cultural bonuses than those which were unlocked in earlier eras. However, this change is not inexpensive to the nation which chooses to undertake it: during the crisis period which precedes the changing of an era, a player is now given a number of objectives in addition to, and commensurate with, the maluses that the player chooses to take on. The more of these objectives that a player manages to complete, the stronger (or more accurately, the less weakened) their nation will be upon moving into the new era. This is particularly relevant when it comes to switching one's civilization. Now, when choosing to become a new nation, the player's previous civilization becomes fractured: a number of settlements and military units will rebel against the previous administration, declaring independence and forming their own nation - the civilization which the player has chosen to switch to. Here, the number of objectives completed during the crisis will determine what proportion of the former empire defects to the player's cause; the more of these that are completed, the better the player's starting position will be. This is important, because the declaration of independence might very quickly be accompanied by a declaration of war - whether it be by the former empire, seeking to regain its lost territory, or by an opportunistic neighbor, seeking to exploit your and the empire's moment of weakness to score an easy victory. How the player chooses to manage this transitionary period will be up to them: do they declare a preemptive war to reconsolidate everything that was once all theirs, or do they make peace with their former civilization and secure a valuable ally against their mutual enemies? Whichever the player chooses, they must ultimately work to earn the superior bonuses they've gained by enacting this cultural (r)evolution. How well they are able to do this will determine how much benefit they can extract from the change.
Alternatively, a player may choose to remain as their current civilization when transitioning into a new era. Though they will not receive a nation with superior cultural bonuses as a result, this option instead reflects the more stable choice of fighting to maintain the status quo within the empire. Such a nation will certainly start the new era in a much stronger position compared to a nation which has fractured and become embroiled with in-fighting, and this could be just the opportunity needed to flip the table on a greedy and overzealous rival. However, even maintaining the status quo can prove to be a challenge, and thus there is still an incentive to complete as many objectives during a crisis as possible. Now, completing objectives determines how intact the player's nation will remain over the crisis period: for each objective that is not completed, a vassal nation will become independent of the empire, and where there are none left, a random settlement (prioritizing towns) will instead become its own nation, vassalized to the empire (this ensures that it is always possible to lose something for each incomplete objective). Note, it possible that releasing a nation from a settlement creates a playable civilization: for instance, America, Australia and Canada might be released from three of England's settlements if six objectives were not completed, and if England had no other vassals. If there are not enough playable civilizations to do this (say for example, if another player had chosen to form America) then the settlement would instead be given to one of the other released nations (in this case, either Australia or Canada would end up with two settlements).
The choice of whether to switch civilizations is now a dynamic one, where the player must weigh up the risk versus reward of the aforementioned change. Many factors must be considered: the value of the bonuses that will be received upon switching, how many objectives can be completed and how costly the ensuing independence war might be, the strength and strategies of opponents who might be waiting for an opportunity to pounce, and many more. For even in a situation where all objectives can be completed, a nation which has chosen to change its culture is still immediately weaker than one which has persisted and has also completed its objectives. Can the nation hold out during this transitionary period in order to get the most value out of its superior bonuses? There is peril, but there is also opportunity, and that is what makes this system fun!
Having discussed gameplay, there is one more fix we can make to maximize the immersion aspect of this system. OK, maybe two. The first is to introduce cosmetic changes to nations which persist throughout eras. For instance, 'Rome' in the first era becomes renamed to 'Byzantium' in the second era, with no change to their actual gameplay. Similarly, 'England' in the second era becomes renamed to 'the United Kingdom' in the third era, 'Prussia' to 'Germany', 'Ottomans' to 'Turkey', and so on. Whether these cosmetic changes need be conditioned on some set of circumstances (i.e. Rome is only renamed if they lose one or more settlements during a crisis) can be debated, but either way I believe this to be an easy, low-resource method of heightening the immersion of a world evolving historically throughout the eras. The other fix I wish to propose is, in contrast, much more resource heavy. I believe that leaders should change with every nation and every era. For instance, England should be ruled by Queen Elizabeth in the second era, and Queen Victoria in the third. This is far more in line with keeping immersion than the original system where the leader remains fixed, but the civilization changes every era. This method also allows for England in the second era to have a different gameplay feel than the United Kingdom in the third, simply by way of the different leader bonuses of the two queens. In this way, one can keep the gameplay loop fresh and exciting, even when taking a single nation all the way through from the start to the end of a campaign. Yes, I am aware that this would require creating more 3D models for leaders, balancing many more sets of bonuses, and scripting all their personalities and gameplay tendencies. But I think the outcome would be very much worth the effort, especially if immersion is to be such a central pillar of this game.
Anyways, I've been writing for much too long now. If you've reached this point, I want to thank you for reading! Please share with me what you think about this proposed change to the eras system, if there is anything you like, dislike or would do differently. I'd love to hear what you think, and maybe even get a discussion going so that we can find a system that feels satisfying for everyone!
Just a disclaimer: this post is not an argument for or against the eras system. I am taking it as a given that this is the direction the devs want to take the game, and so I am trying to propose a solution that will feel good for both camps; by way of those who are receptive to the change, and those who are apprehensive toward it.
So first off, we should understand the motivation behind this system. It is twofold: 1) to introduce a gameplay mechanic that adds depth by giving the player strategic choices in how their civilization evolves to meet the changing demands and interests that arise throughout a campaign, and 2) to foster a sense of immersion by representing how cultures have naturally evolved throughout history.
Personally, I have no quarrels with either of these goals (indeed, it has always felt a bit jarring to me to see America and Rome in the same game; or even separately, seeing America in the iron age and Rome in the modern age), and so I could see how culture switching might serve well for the task at hand. However, what the devs seem to have overlooked is how attached players get to their civilizations, not only if they've geared their nation towards a specific style of play as facilitated by its cultural bonuses, but also from a purely role-playing point of view. This is why, I believe, the proposed change has received so much backlash.
In light of this, the fix is very simple: remove the requirement that a player must change their culture across eras, and instead make it a choice that the player can opt into. That is, if they want to play the fantasy of a world where Rome managed to survive into the modern age, let them. The key is to make this choice feel meaningful, and to add enough flavor that modern-age Rome feels like it makes sense. Let me now outline how this can be done.
The Proposal
To begin with, as is the premise of the eras system, every playable civilization is unlocked during a specific, historically appropriate era. Moving between eras gives a player the choice to switch from their current civilization to one which has just been unlocked, determined from a set of options which are based on the civilization that the player is currently playing as. So for instance, moving from the first era into the second, Rome might become Spain, France, Venice or England (among others); Babylon might become Persia or the Ottomans, and so on. Each nation has a number of other civilizations it can become, and any given civilization can be formed by a number of prerequisite nations. For example, Carthage is also capable of forming Spain, in addition to Morocco or Tunis.
When a player changes civilizations, they lose all the cultural bonuses of their previous nation, and instead gain the bonuses of their new one. Such a change is incentivized by giving civilizations which become unlocked in later eras stronger cultural bonuses than those which were unlocked in earlier eras. However, this change is not inexpensive to the nation which chooses to undertake it: during the crisis period which precedes the changing of an era, a player is now given a number of objectives in addition to, and commensurate with, the maluses that the player chooses to take on. The more of these objectives that a player manages to complete, the stronger (or more accurately, the less weakened) their nation will be upon moving into the new era. This is particularly relevant when it comes to switching one's civilization. Now, when choosing to become a new nation, the player's previous civilization becomes fractured: a number of settlements and military units will rebel against the previous administration, declaring independence and forming their own nation - the civilization which the player has chosen to switch to. Here, the number of objectives completed during the crisis will determine what proportion of the former empire defects to the player's cause; the more of these that are completed, the better the player's starting position will be. This is important, because the declaration of independence might very quickly be accompanied by a declaration of war - whether it be by the former empire, seeking to regain its lost territory, or by an opportunistic neighbor, seeking to exploit your and the empire's moment of weakness to score an easy victory. How the player chooses to manage this transitionary period will be up to them: do they declare a preemptive war to reconsolidate everything that was once all theirs, or do they make peace with their former civilization and secure a valuable ally against their mutual enemies? Whichever the player chooses, they must ultimately work to earn the superior bonuses they've gained by enacting this cultural (r)evolution. How well they are able to do this will determine how much benefit they can extract from the change.
Alternatively, a player may choose to remain as their current civilization when transitioning into a new era. Though they will not receive a nation with superior cultural bonuses as a result, this option instead reflects the more stable choice of fighting to maintain the status quo within the empire. Such a nation will certainly start the new era in a much stronger position compared to a nation which has fractured and become embroiled with in-fighting, and this could be just the opportunity needed to flip the table on a greedy and overzealous rival. However, even maintaining the status quo can prove to be a challenge, and thus there is still an incentive to complete as many objectives during a crisis as possible. Now, completing objectives determines how intact the player's nation will remain over the crisis period: for each objective that is not completed, a vassal nation will become independent of the empire, and where there are none left, a random settlement (prioritizing towns) will instead become its own nation, vassalized to the empire (this ensures that it is always possible to lose something for each incomplete objective). Note, it possible that releasing a nation from a settlement creates a playable civilization: for instance, America, Australia and Canada might be released from three of England's settlements if six objectives were not completed, and if England had no other vassals. If there are not enough playable civilizations to do this (say for example, if another player had chosen to form America) then the settlement would instead be given to one of the other released nations (in this case, either Australia or Canada would end up with two settlements).
The choice of whether to switch civilizations is now a dynamic one, where the player must weigh up the risk versus reward of the aforementioned change. Many factors must be considered: the value of the bonuses that will be received upon switching, how many objectives can be completed and how costly the ensuing independence war might be, the strength and strategies of opponents who might be waiting for an opportunity to pounce, and many more. For even in a situation where all objectives can be completed, a nation which has chosen to change its culture is still immediately weaker than one which has persisted and has also completed its objectives. Can the nation hold out during this transitionary period in order to get the most value out of its superior bonuses? There is peril, but there is also opportunity, and that is what makes this system fun!
Having discussed gameplay, there is one more fix we can make to maximize the immersion aspect of this system. OK, maybe two. The first is to introduce cosmetic changes to nations which persist throughout eras. For instance, 'Rome' in the first era becomes renamed to 'Byzantium' in the second era, with no change to their actual gameplay. Similarly, 'England' in the second era becomes renamed to 'the United Kingdom' in the third era, 'Prussia' to 'Germany', 'Ottomans' to 'Turkey', and so on. Whether these cosmetic changes need be conditioned on some set of circumstances (i.e. Rome is only renamed if they lose one or more settlements during a crisis) can be debated, but either way I believe this to be an easy, low-resource method of heightening the immersion of a world evolving historically throughout the eras. The other fix I wish to propose is, in contrast, much more resource heavy. I believe that leaders should change with every nation and every era. For instance, England should be ruled by Queen Elizabeth in the second era, and Queen Victoria in the third. This is far more in line with keeping immersion than the original system where the leader remains fixed, but the civilization changes every era. This method also allows for England in the second era to have a different gameplay feel than the United Kingdom in the third, simply by way of the different leader bonuses of the two queens. In this way, one can keep the gameplay loop fresh and exciting, even when taking a single nation all the way through from the start to the end of a campaign. Yes, I am aware that this would require creating more 3D models for leaders, balancing many more sets of bonuses, and scripting all their personalities and gameplay tendencies. But I think the outcome would be very much worth the effort, especially if immersion is to be such a central pillar of this game.
Anyways, I've been writing for much too long now. If you've reached this point, I want to thank you for reading! Please share with me what you think about this proposed change to the eras system, if there is anything you like, dislike or would do differently. I'd love to hear what you think, and maybe even get a discussion going so that we can find a system that feels satisfying for everyone!
