As Much as I Love the Civ Switch Mechanic I Really Hope they Fix how Clunky and Abrupt the System is.

[Krikkit1]

I'll give you that, in a sense they function as their own mini ages. But the fact is though that every civ transitions on the exact same turn.

Running Reality - The World History Model

Explore any date in the history of human civilization from 3000BC to today.

www.runningreality.org

The website above shows a mad of the world over time. While there's periods where a lot of things change at once there's no one year where the map becomes unrecognizable. Crises should feel substantial but the issue is they shake things up in an instant instead of being overarching periods of change.

That's why I think crises should open up the window of time in which you must switch civs instead of building up to the decision of a single turn at the very end of a crisis.

The problem is that mechanics issue. Your gameplay mechanics have to be locked off.

However, they do sort of spread out your “becoming” a new civ
At the beginning of the Age
-The only Social Policies you have are Traditions from your previous civ
-The only effect you current civ has is the Unique Ability and Units

To acquire the rest of your Civ Unique features, you need to “research” the Unique civics….and the old civ Traditions can be retained the whole age…. or replaced with generic Social Policies of the new Age or Traditions of your new civ as they become available.

 

[UWHabs]

It'll never happen due to how the bonuses would work, but it would be cool if in some crisis scenarios, your civ switched to the next iteration BEFORE the crisis. So like the crisis is that your civ is developing too rapidly, and you get a schism. So your civ is like transitioning from Roman to Norman, but a significant portion of your population wants to stay in their old ways, so you end up having to like fight yourself as your new civ, vs like a barbarian version of your old civ.

That'd be a little awkward since presumably the whole world would face that together, so it doesn't really help the "everyone goes at the same time", but if they did somehow split the crisis by continent, I could see if you had a continent with only 1 or 2 civs on it, that could be a fun little alternate mode to play with.

 

[King Flevance]

I agree that it would feel so much better if the new continent was simulated with a different crisis. I feel it would go a long way in making it feel more like a "New World". It makes sense to lock them by continent, I understand making crises in Modern, and maybe exploration, global - but I wonder why they have made the crises in antiquity global.

I feel like being able to opt out of the crisis to advance could offer balance issues. As Krikkit mentioned, the mechanics of the next age need to be locked out. I don't know how you would do it in a way that doesn't reward opting out ASAP. Plus, they have put in abilities like "future civic" and "future tech" pushes the global age progression forward which is a strategic maneuver on the age leaders.

I am not a big fan of the massive calendar jumps on age shift, even though I know it is merely window dressing. I wish the gap was only 200-500 years instead of 1000+.

 

[Krikkit1]

I agree that it would feel so much better if the new continent was simulated with a different crisis. I feel it would go a long way in making it feel more like a "New World". It makes sense to lock them by continent, I understand making crises in Modern, and maybe exploration, global - but I wonder why they have made the crises in antiquity global.

I feel like being able to opt out of the crisis to advance could offer balance issues. As Krikkit mentioned, the mechanics of the next age need to be locked out. I don't know how you would do it in a way that doesn't reward opting out ASAP. Plus, they have put in abilities like "future civic" and "future tech" pushes the global age progression forward which is a strategic maneuver on the age leaders.

I am not a big fan of the massive calendar jumps on age shift, even though I know it is merely window dressing. I wish the gap was only 200-500 years instead of 1000+.

Fortunately the age gap they could manage with adjusting how many years each turn is and making it somewhat dynamic.

say
4400 years for antiquity
100-200 turns
Have the turns start at 40 years and gradually end at 10 years….each time you accelerate the Age, the turns stay at a longer year count for somewhat longer.

1350 years for exploration (400-1750)
start at 10 end at 2

200 years for modern(1750-1950)
start at 2, end at 1/2

It won’t move the gap to 0, because a lot of the reduction will take place after you have already dropped to less years per turn…but because it is less years per turn it is a smaller gap.

 

[King Flevance]

That is what I prefer. I actually want a small gap, but like no more than say 500 between antiquity and exploration. And like 300 or less between exploration and modern. There is no way to make it a gradual shift, it will feel abrupt regardless of the calender.

But when I play, I do monitor the calender and probably will moreso with the narrative system they are implementing. (Which I am excited for)

Seems odd to have the story of your empire have a narrative and then have a 1000 year time gap hiccup where suddenly, the people of Greece "did nothing important for 1000 years" and now our story continues with the Spanish. It's very disconnected and seems to work against the idea of a narrative experience.

What's good, is a "fluff artist" could really add something here with splash screens, or text. HK did this very well (with no time gap) and it would be nice to get some of that narrative flair instead of a big banner saying "The Exploration Age has started."

 

[AD1730]

That is what I prefer. I actually want a small gap, but like no more than say 500 between antiquity and exploration. And like 300 or less between exploration and modern. There is no way to make it a gradual shift, it will feel abrupt regardless of the calender.

But when I play, I do monitor the calender and probably will moreso with the narrative system they are implementing. (Which I am excited for)

Seems odd to have the story of your empire have a narrative and then have a 1000 year time gap hiccup where suddenly, the people of Greece "did nothing important for 1000 years" and now our story continues with the Spanish. It's very disconnected and seems to work against the idea of a narrative experience.

What's good, is a "fluff artist" could really add something here with splash screens, or text. HK did this very well (with no time gap) and it would be nice to get some of that narrative flair instead of a big banner saying "The Exploration Age has started."

And this is just one more reason why I think having a medieval era would smooth out some of the problems with the ages and civ switching mechanics. The jumps are just too big as things currently are.

 

[Leucarum]

Exactly, the victory conditions should be tied to generic success in that area. Like even if you weren't going for a culture victory in Civ 6 it was still handy to build Theatre Squares to help get those policy cards and governments.

In my decade of palying civ games I have never won a military victory but i've appreciated that while the goal is simple to understand the methods to achieving it are complex and dependent on how you want to tackle it. The complexity of the victory is based on the complexity of the military mechanics which every player has to interact with in some way.

As much as I criticize Humankind - I actually think they did really well in terms of how you gained era score. You did always feel like whatever you wanted to be doing naturally was leading you towards some form of progression... If definitely triggered those endorphins! That said turning this into a "push-your-luck" mechanic of how many could you gather before you lost your favourite civ wasn't the greatest choice, and the game itself had a bunch of flaws which made gaining those era score stars less than fun overall... But I do think they did a good job here in the selection for how you gained era progress, maybe even a better one than Civ7 will have done?

That said it seems like one goal of Civ7's eras is to push you to play the game differently each era - which is its own kind of risk...

 

[Leucarum]

And this is just one more reason why I think having a medieval era would smooth out some of the problems with the ages and civ switching mechanics. The jumps are just too big as things currently are.

I don't know if medieval would have added much different than exploration though - more religion, less new world? And it feels like it's maybe an even more euro-centric historical era than exploration is. It's easy to think of european civs which clearly fit in a medieval era rather than exploraiton, but which Civs outside of europe would you class as medieval versus exploration?

 

[AD1730]

I don't know if medieval would have added much different than exploration though - more religion, less new world? And it feels like it's maybe an even more euro-centric historical era than exploration is. It's easy to think of european civs which clearly fit in a medieval era rather than exploraiton, but which Civs outside of europe would you class as medieval versus exploration?

Abbasids, Mongolia, Majapahit, Chola

Plus the Normans fit far better in Medieval than Exploration.

 

[Evolena]

And this is just one more reason why I think having a medieval era would smooth out some of the problems with the ages and civ switching mechanics. The jumps are just too big as things currently are.

It would not, as the time jump is due to the advancement on legacy paths, which can "save" ~50 turns. You would just have one time jump where each turn is more year before Medieval (so probably an even bigger one if counting years), and then another one where each turn is less year after Medieval. Plus either the full game would be too long and probably feel unbalanced (modern age too short in comparison), or the first ages would have to be shorter (and possibly feel too short).

 

[Leucarum]

Abbasids, Mongolia, Majapahit, Chola

Plus the Normans fit far better in Medieval than Exploration.

Hmm - I agree with the normans, to be honest they are exactly what I think of when someone says the word medieval, and that's maybe also a problem...

But I'd say all 4 of the non-european civs you named fit really well with a world becoming increasingly inter-connected which is how firaxis really seem to have defined the exploration era. The Mongolians don't play well with the mechanics of the exploration era though - I'll give you that, and the Abbasids are probably the least-good fit... Maybe the Chinese civs (or 'feudal' Japan) feel like the best non-european "medieval" representation IMO.

I am not a huge fan of the exploration era or its mechanics though - and think maybe there's the same root issue with both arguments, that this era feels very prescriptive towards a specific playstyle. I can see that both creating a jarring transition and pushing out civs which might fit better into an era in-between.

 

[AD1730]

Hmm - I agree with the normans, to be honest they are exactly what I think of when someone says the word medieval, and that's maybe also a problem...

But I'd say all 4 of the non-european civs you named fit really well with a world becoming increasingly inter-connected which is how firaxis really seem to have defined the exploration era. The Mongolians don't play well with the mechanics of the exploration era though - I'll give you that, and the Abbasids are probably the least-good fit... Maybe the Chinese civs feel like the best non-european "medieval" representation IMO.

I am not a huge fan of the exploration era or its mechanics though - and think maybe there's the same root issue with both arguments, that this era feels very prescriptive towards a specific playstyle. I can see that both creating a jarring transition and pushing out civs which might fit better into an era in-between.

I'm sorry, but that simply just isn't the case for the other civs. Look at the time in which those civs existed, doesn't really work with the Exploration Era (sans Abbasids, who did make a comeback to last until the 16th century, but their golden age certainly came during the medieval era).

Mongolia: Height in the 13th and 14th centuries, prior to exploration age
Chola: 9th through 13th century
Majapahit: 14th through 16th century

I also fundamentally disagree with Firaxis' self-made definition for the era, hence why I have significant issues with it.

 

[Leucarum]

I'm sorry, but that simply just isn't the case for the other civs. Look at the time in which those civs existed, doesn't really work with the Exploration Era (sans Abbasids, who did make a comeback to last until the 16th century, but their golden age certainly came during the medieval era).

Mongolia: Height in the 13th and 14th centuries, prior to exploration age
Chola: 9th through 13th century
Majapahit: 14th through 16th century

I also fundamentally disagree with Firaxis' self-made definition for the era, hence why I have significant issues with it.

Ok, if it's purely about times and dates, we won't really reach a conclusion other than "agree to disagree" - I don't think firaxis could have gotten a reasonable roster for each era without fudging the time-scales by region pretty significantly. Sorry that you have significant issues with it. I can definitely appreciate that there's room to dislike the definitions for the eras.

One thing I will say, I dislike a lot of the decisions which have been made in Civ7, but I can pretty much always see the reasoning which led the developers to make those choices... Even if in some cases, it feels like I can see the train coming towards the unfortunate old lady tied to the train tracks.

 

[AD1730]

Ok, if it's purely about times and dates, we won't really reach a conclusion other than "agree to disagree" - I don't think firaxis could have gotten a reasonable roster for each era without fudging the time-scales by region pretty significantly. Sorry that you have significant issues with it. I can definitely appreciate that there's room to dislike the definitions for the eras.

One thing I will say, I dislike a lot of the decisions which have been made in Civ7, but I can pretty much always see the reasoning which led the developers to make those choices... Even if in some cases, it feels like I can see the train coming towards the unfortunate old lady tied to the train tracks.

What are we supposed to use other than times and dates? Do we just get to decide that we think that certain civs fit thematically with eras that they otherwise don't belong in? Sorry, that's just not something I'm ever going to accept.

And it brings me back to my issue with this mechanic at a fundamental level: it creates more problems than it fixes, and nothing it fixes couldn't have been done in a less problematic/offensive/ahistorical way. Instead of talking about how it's cool that the Normans are in the game, we're discussing how awkward of a fit they are.

 

[Leucarum]

What are we supposed to use other than times and dates? Do we just get to decide that we think that certain civs fit thematically with eras that they otherwise don't belong in? Sorry, that's just not something I'm ever going to accept.

And it brings me back to my issue with this mechanic at a fundamental level: it creates more problems than it fixes, and nothing it fixes couldn't have been done in a less problematic/offensive/ahistorical way. Instead of talking about how it's cool that the Normans are in the game, we're discussing how awkward of a fit they are.

Sorry you feel that way, I'd have preferred no civ switching too but we don't live in that universe. So we pretty much have to make our peace with it or hope modding offers workarounds that are fun

I don't see a way to do civ switching and have good geographical representation without fudging the timeline. And good geographical representation is my priority, so we won't agree here unless reality shifts.

As for the Normans, I think for the first time a Civ game has introduced a civ where I would rather restart than play them. If the colour beige were a civ...

 

[AD1730]

I don't see a way to do civ switching and have good goographical represenration without fudging the timeline.

Which is why it is a mechanic that was worthy of discussion for the devs in a conference room, but ultimately should have been discarded.

 

[Leucarum]

Which is why it is a mechanic that was worthy of discussion for the devs in a conference room, but ultimately should have been discarded.

I agree it should have been discarded, but that ship has well and truly sailed...

 

[TheGrayFox]

My whole point is that ultimately it is still a block in the natural flow of gameplay. Instead of the ages feeling like actual periods of time they feel like locked gates. It feels frustrating gameplay wise to come across caps that aren't based on player ability and more just because the game says so. Instead of the ages feeling more like a limiter they feel more a dam, with transitions feeling less like natural progressions and more like the opening of a floodgate.


It doesn't help that narratively it makes less sense as well, a game that centers around rewriting history should allow you to create an alternate history not governed solely by the developers interpretations of our modern classifications of chunks of time.

yep this is why I dislike Eras almost as intensely civ swapping. It's pretty pretty much forcing a narrative flow/structure on the players in order to facilitate the three act structure Firaxis wants.

 

[King Flevance]

I think picking only 3 civs is a good balance. Picking 4 may pull us into Humankinds folly of perhaps so much variety, it starts to blend together in the larger perspective. I understand the desire for the medieval time span to have a showcase era but I prefer the Era be designed around the game rather than the game designed around Era preference. But that is just 1 persons view.

I have been seeing it as though medieval is actually transition period so kind of appearing in 2 ages. But I would think it is represented mostly in the Exploration Age.

Ancient Age - Stone/Bronze -> Iron -> Early Medieval is just beginning at the end of the age.

Exploration - Early Middle Ages Ending -> Medieval Era -> Early Renessaince is beginning at the end of the age.

Modern - Renessaince is ending -> Industrial age -> Something I think needs renamed instead of "Modern Age"

So I think a spotlight is being shown on the Renessaince due to new lands being founded perhaps but I feel the exploration age actually better represents the medieval era more. It just focuses on gameplay elements based on "New World" ideas and makes it feel more renessaince as a result.

Ultimately, I do think they got the jelly in the peanut butter here making this sandwich. But I also think it was smart to have less ages. But that is just my tastes.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Europe's Middle Ages are also lurking in the first Crisis itself. We speak of them as a "Dark Age" and as a backsliding from "the glory that was Rome." They were occasioned by "barbarians" and characterized by plague.