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

[Willie5000]

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.

It’s way better than the alternative of having no gates and allowing a particularly busted science Civ like Babylon speeding through the tech tree and launching an interstellar spaceship in the Middle Ages…

 

[Siptah]

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.

Nah, we don‘t. Europe‘s Middle Ages (500-1500) were surely not a dark age. That narrative existed since Petrarca, but it has since been debunked almost as often as it has been repeated. You can make a case that the early Middle Ages 500-800 are in some ways a step back from 50-150, but from then on it‘s the start of so many grand things and advances…

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

They certainly could have implemented the idea differently, and made it much more complex, but I think there is some sense to taking a simpler approach to begin with and building from there. The idea is to limit snowballing and reduce endgame monotony; if it achieves either or both of those, I'd consider it a success - and then hope they start building on those foundations!

 

[TheGrayFox]

It’s way better than the alternative of having no gates and allowing a particularly busted science Civ like Babylon speeding through the tech tree and launching an interstellar spaceship in the Middle Ages…

I disagree but even if I was to entertain this line of reasoning: was splitting the game into three seperated game rounds and forcing civ changes really the only way to address a game play problems like Babylon's civilization ability being too broken or civilizations with early abilities/units/etc gaining too much of an avantage against those whose abilities/units come later...?

The former seems easy enough to solve through basic patching (I play VP and I've never seen Babylon launch a space ship in the middle ages) and I don't think either change introduced in VII was the only means of addressing the latter. All that's happened is that the baby has gotten thrown out with the baby water in an attempt to address snowballing imo.

 

[sTAPler27]

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."

I'm kind of confused because from what I know there isn't any kind of gap unless you mean the crises are the gaps.

 

[sTAPler27]

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.

I thought the same thing but exploration in Civ 6 terms just means anything medieval to pre enlightenment. My guess is they needed something distinct enough from modern France. Still kind of sucks that arguably the most important period for France of the three ages will be by a culture that really doesn't feel very French at all

 

[sTAPler27]

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"

Replace Renaissance is Ending with Enlightenment and I think you've nailed it. I don't remember exactly but I think they showed somewhere that there's like 3 eras of units in an age. But with that tiny tech tree I don't know how they fit all of those in there.

 

[evonannoredars]

I'm kind of confused because from what I know there isn't any kind of gap unless you mean the crises are the gaps.

iirc in the streams we've seen how beginning a new age resets both the turn count and changes the date to a fixed date (was smth like 450AD in exploration) so if you finished the era before ahead of schedule the year counter jumps ahead.

I never pay much attention to the in-game year and personally don't think 'missing' a couple hundred years is a big issue since it's purely cosmetic - I don't think the devs intended it to represent anything wrt the crisis and changing culture, more likely imo just a consequence of how they've coded the game - but I do see how it would be nice if turn counter/year were continuous between eras.

 

[sTAPler27]

It’s way better than the alternative of having no gates and allowing a particularly busted science Civ like Babylon speeding through the tech tree and launching an interstellar spaceship in the Middle Ages…

Humankind didn't have that issue because while there were stronger and weaker civs there weren't any civs with completely broken designs. Everyone brings up Babylon because they were truly a unique case given how gimicky their power was, and not in a fun way. The benefit of having an age based system is that you create abilities that are primarily useful for the age they're from and don't risk getting out of hand in the next.

 

[sTAPler27]

iirc in the streams we've seen how beginning a new age resets both the turn count and changes the date to a fixed date (was smth like 450AD in exploration) so if you finished the era before ahead of schedule the year counter jumps ahead.

I never pay much attention to the in-game year and personally don't think 'missing' a couple hundred years is a big issue since it's purely cosmetic - I don't think the devs intended it to represent anything wrt the crisis and changing culture, more likely imo just a consequence of how they've coded the game - but I do see how it would be nice if turn counter/year were continuous between eras.

Wait really? That's dumb, the ammount of scripting is starting to make this feel like a Paradox game

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

iirc in the streams we've seen how beginning a new age resets both the turn count and changes the date to a fixed date (was smth like 450AD in exploration) so if you finished the era before ahead of schedule the year counter jumps ahead.

I never pay much attention to the in-game year and personally don't think 'missing' a couple hundred years is a big issue since it's purely cosmetic - I don't think the devs intended it to represent anything wrt the crisis and changing culture, more likely imo just a consequence of how they've coded the game - but I do see how it would be nice if turn counter/year were continuous between eras.

I'm in the camp that thinks they should just ditch the years anyway, it's meaningless. Doesn't add anything for me!

 

[Zaarin]

Wait really? That's dumb, the ammount of scripting is starting to make this feel like a Paradox game

In the long run, I don't think it's something most players will even notice. The in-game date doesn't really affect anything.

I'm in the camp that thinks they should just ditch the years anyway, it's meaningless. Doesn't add anything for me!

I wish they'd use indigenous calendars like they did for the Maya in Civ5. I thought that was neat. ETA: It would be difficult for some civs, though, I grant, but they could still use whatever the next best thing is.

 

[Leucarum]

I'm in the camp that thinks they should just ditch the years anyway, it's meaningless. Doesn't add anything for me!

Especially with eras creating natural breaks!

I can see why they don't change it though! 1358 CE is much more memorable and immersive than Exploration-24

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Especially with eras creating natural breaks!

I can see why they don't change it though! 1358 CE is much more memorable and immersive than Exploration-24

I agree it's more immersive in theory, but in reality I end up ignoring it and paying attention only to the era and turn timer.

 

[evonannoredars]

In the long run, I don't think it's something most players will even notice.

Yeah if I hadn't seen people point it out here I'd probably have never noticed that all ages start on the same date
Turn number is something I do wish would carry over across eras though as a total turns count alongside the current turns in this era.

 

[Gorbles]

I disagree but even if I was to entertain this line of reasoning: was splitting the game into three seperated game rounds and forcing civ changes really the only way to address a game play problems like Babylon's civilization ability being too broken or civilizations with early abilities/units/etc gaining too much of an avantage against those whose abilities/units come later...?

Nobody, at any point, has ever said, suggested, or inferred that what Civ VII appears to be doing is the "only" way to handle the problems Firaxis (and at times, the community) has identified.

Games design is about having a toolbox, and having to construct a solution out of the tools and materials you have to work with (hamfisted analogy time), and then actually getting it finished and working for a specific deadline. By its very nature games development requires trade-offs that people who think about this a lot in their free time simply do not have, and never have to deal with.

But certainly, what Firaxis are doing is a way to tackle the problems they've identified, and people are free to like it or not like it as they want. Or, with all their free time, use the hopefully decent, welcoming and yet powerful (I'll settle for two out of three) mod tools that are hopefully coming to work on their own ideas.

 

[sTAPler27]

In the long run, I don't think it's something most players will even notice. The in-game date doesn't really affect anything.

I like it for the alternate histroy aspect. It's fun to look at the time and be like "Wow in this universe flight was discovered in the 1880s"

 

[TheGrayFox]

Nobody, at any point, has ever said, suggested, or inferred that what Civ VII appears to be doing is the "only" way to handle the problems Firaxis (and at times, the community) has identified.

You know what an alternate is, right bud? The post I was quoting said that it was either one way or the alternate and all I'm guilty of is pointing out that no, thats a false dictotomy. (which is simply true)

Games design is about having a toolbox, and having to construct a solution out of the tools and materials you have to work with (hamfisted analogy time), and then actually getting it finished and working for a specific deadline. By its very nature games development requires trade-offs that people who think about this a lot in their free time simply do not have, and never have to deal with.

Okay? Still doesn't mean I have to accept or agree with the game Firaxis has designed

But certainly, what Firaxis are doing is a way to tackle the problems they've identified, and people are free to like it or not like it as they want. Or, with all their free time, use the hopefully decent, welcoming and yet powerful (I'll settle for two out of three) mod tools that are hopefully coming to work on their own ideas.

Nobody, at any point, has ever said, suggested, or inferred that this wasn't A WAY to tackle the problem they identified..... and you're right people are free to like or not like it. As evidence of this topic and this very conversation.

One thing we can agree on though, is that I hope we're given enough modding tools to make everyone happy.

 

[Gorbles]

You know what an alternate is right bud? The post I was quoting said that it was either one way or the alternate and all I'm guilty of is pointing out that no, thats a false dictotomy. (which is simply true)

It read as a pretty straightforward question to me, my bad.

Okay? Still doesn't mean I have to accept or agree with the game Firaxis has designed

Nowhere did I say you or anyone had to. In fact, I explicitly said people are free to not like it. To borrow your phrase, that's a false dichotomy.

Nobody, at any point, has ever said, suggested, or inferred that this wasn't A WAY to tackle the problem they identified

Actually I'd argue a lot of effort has been spent by some folks on how this wasn't actually a way to tackle the problem(s) presented. Some opinions have gone much further than "I don't like it" and have strayed into "this won't even work". But again, as nobody asked this question, this is another false dichotomy.

That said, I didn't at all mean to inspire such an escalation, so I'll bow out again here. Cheers.

 

[Zaarin]

I like it for the alternate histroy aspect. It's fun to look at the time and be like "Wow in this universe flight was discovered in the 1880s"

I agree, except that I've never played a game of Civ where flight was discovered that late.