Asset file hinting at future and/or cut content

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I'm also against further ages. But, if they were going to do one, I would have rather had a medieval era.

Yes, it would have been better to do it at launch. Right now, I think it would be too hard to rework one in the middle of the game. So that would leave an Atomic/Information age end game, or a Prehistoric one at the start.

 

[Lord Lakely]

They are adding the fourth age anyway. I don't see much point in adding a post-1950 era.

The Atomic era will probably be an extension of the Modern Era, with the purpose of ending the game in style.

Certainly beats that apparently highly broken Culture Victory that can be won 30 ish turns into the Modern Era.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

The Atomic era will probably be an extension of the Modern Era, with the purpose of ending the game in style.

Certainly beats that apparently highly broken Culture Victory that can be won 30 ish turns into the Modern Era.

That calls for a "Counterculture" crisis.

 

[Lord Lakely]

That calls for a "Counterculture" crisis.

I certainly don't want a full new set of Civs for the Atomic age, that's for sure. Ideally, the Civ that you picked in Modern is either retained or reskinned into its present-day equivalent, with the same Uniques. (so say, that Mughal automatically is called India or Pakistan, while Siam becomes Thailand and Nepal remains known as "Nepal". Just as an example.)

AT MOST an additional unique ability for the endgame or an improved version of the Modern Age one.

 

[marius_kaparius]

I certainly don't want a full new set of Civs for the Atomic age, that's for sure. Ideally, the Civ that you picked in Modern is either retained or reskinned into its present-day equivalent, with the same Uniques. (so say, that Mughal automatically is called India or Pakistan, while Siam becomes Thailand and Nepal remains known as "Nepal". Just as an example.)

AT MOST an additional unique ability for the endgame or an improved version of the Modern Age one.

Could you foresee a situation where Pakistan/India are handled like Ideologies are now? The Civ stays Mughal but you just unlock a new Culture tree for the Nation that results as the follow-up.

 

[faber_avgust]

Man what's everyone hate for the idea of new civs in a 4th era. I understand people are up in arms about wanting to flesh out the oh so important "pathways." Like man I'm here for the historical flavor as much as anyone and would love hella pathways. But give me 4th era civs!

Yeah, totally agree. I wanna play through historic path, as i always do. No transision from Maya to Mongolian. Only historic way, only hardcore .

 

[faber_avgust]

My wish for 4th age is more varity for units look. Not 3 tanks variety like in modern age. At least late cold war period T-80, Leopard 2, Abrams, Challenger 2, C1 Ariette, AMX 32, same with infantry and other armored wehicles.

 

[queenpea]

I'm also against further ages. But, if they were going to do one, I would have rather had a medieval era.

If you place a 4th age between Antiquity and Exploration, then the bottleneck effect worsens. Civ choice would then go from 20 to 10 to 20 to 20.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Your All-briton path is two-thirds Germanic, not actually Briton.

That's because by the Exploration Age, England, the leading power in the isles and primary seed of Great Britain, between Anglo-Saxons and Normans is mostly Germanic.

What kind of power did ancient Britons have by the later Middle Ages, after the passage of Romans, Germans, Vikings and French Vikings? Exploration Age Scotland is a parallel option I'd suggested, if that can be considered a more Celtic choice, and can have its rivalry with the odd England-but-Normans vanilla choice. The Norman curveball remains an obstacle for the future inclusion of England, as I've already implied, I agree with you.

On a semi-related note, I suppose we need the Franks in the Exploration Age to fill that France-shaped hole in the period. Even if the definition per se was kind of extinct by the time of the real Age of Exploration. Same weirdness as the Normans.

Also on the France track, definitely Gauls in Antiquity.

 

[AD1730]

If you place a 4th age between Antiquity and Exploration, then the bottleneck effect worsens. Civ choice would then go from 20 to 10 to 20 to 20.

It's a fundamental flaw of the civ switching mechanic, one of many reasons I don't support it. If you can do it well, it takes far too many resources to do so.

 

[Krikkit1]

The only tangible argument, in my mind, against adding further Ages to the game is the issue of DLC bottleneck.

For simplicity's sake, let's say they add ten new civilizations to Antiquity, Exploration, and Modern before the new Fourth Age DLC is announced. That DLC includes ten new "Information Age" civilizations. We then would have 20 choices for Antiquity, 21 in Exploration (including Shawnee), 20 for Modern, and 10 for the Fourth Age. Naturally, that would feel imbalanced and strange to players who are used to greater player choice.

Because an Expansion Pack being a one-and-done DLC delivery, no further civilizations would be added to the additional age. Unless, of course, they walk the dreaded path of DLC for DLC. If Firaxis/2K is wise, they will avoid this misstep at all costs. That said, it would be the only way out of the bottleneck, unless the Fourth Age does not require a civilization switch.

Well there is an issue of DLC all being disconnected

so right now it is Max (min)
10(10)-11(10)-10(10)
once all the announced DLCs are in
13(10)-13(10)-13(10)** This is the point they can start doing bigger maps (12 players with a possibility of duplicates depending on if you have enough DLC)

Then it depends on When you add this new Age? (IRL not in game)
after
14(10)? civs each era
15(10)? civs each era
20(10)? civs each era

What I could see is a new age would be part of a pack where it takes
15(10)-15(10)-15(10) [45 civs]
to
17(12)-17(12)-17(12)-12(12) [63 civs]
ie it adds a new age and 18 total civs... so that everyone with the expansion has 12 civs minimum in all ages (regardless of what other DLC they have)... so no bottleneck except for people who want to play the huge maps with 18 players

then they go on and the DLCs [slightly favoring the modern] go up to
20-20-20-18 (still 12 all the way at minimum) [78 civs]+3+3+3+6... no more bottleneck for people who want to play huge maps if they have all the DLC
25-25-25-25 (still 12 at a minimum) [100 civs] +5+5+5+7... no bottleneck for any player who wants to play huge maps if they have enough DLC

 

[queenpea]

Well there is an issue of DLC all being disconnected

so right now it is Max (min)
10(10)-11(10)-10(10)
once all the announced DLCs are in
13(10)-13(10)-13(10)** This is the point they can start doing bigger maps (12 players with a possibility of duplicates depending on if you have enough DLC)

Then it depends on When you add this new Age? (IRL not in game)
after
14(10)? civs each era
15(10)? civs each era
20(10)? civs each era

What I could see is a new age would be part of a pack where it takes
15(10)-15(10)-15(10) [45 civs]
to
17(12)-17(12)-17(12)-12(12) [63 civs]
ie it adds a new age and 18 total civs... so that everyone with the expansion has 12 civs minimum in all ages (regardless of what other DLC they have)... so no bottleneck except for people who want to play the huge maps with 18 players

then they go on and the DLCs [slightly favoring the modern] go up to
20-20-20-18 (still 12 all the way at minimum) [78 civs]+3+3+3+6... no more bottleneck for people who want to play huge maps if they have all the DLC
25-25-25-25 (still 12 at a minimum) [100 civs] +5+5+5+7... no bottleneck for any player who wants to play huge maps if they have enough DLC

My point is that once they tie an expansion pack to an age, let’s say optimistically they deliver 15 civs for that age. Unless they want to publish DLC for DLC, then we are stuck at 15 civs. While that pack is stuck at 15, the three base game ages can continue to receive updates and an inflated roster.

Also, we should consider the DLC pricing. Both upcoming packs deliver only 4 civs each and both are priced at US $30 without including new gameplay. That’s $7.50 per civ.

 

[AD1730]

My point is that once they tie an expansion pack to an age, let’s say optimistically they deliver 15 civs for that age. Unless they want to publish DLC for DLC, then we are stuck at 15 civs. While that pack is stuck at 15, the three base game ages can continue to receive updates and an inflated roster.

Also, we should consider the DLC pricing. Both upcoming packs deliver only 4 civs each and both are priced at US $30 without including new gameplay. That’s $7.50 per civ.

How many civs do you think they need to get to when it’s all said and done?

 

[queenpea]

How many civs do you think they need to get to when it’s all said and done?

I think they would love to develop Civ VII for around ten years? I don’t think there is a limit. It ends when the DLC stops being profitable.

 

[canadamufc]

If you place a 4th age between Antiquity and Exploration, then the bottleneck effect worsens. Civ choice would then go from 20 to 10 to 20 to 20.

I am against a fourth age being added, but in fairness they can put a lot of the current Antiquity/Exploration civs into this new medieval era. They can't do something like that as easily for any Information era, which is why it is an awful idea that should never appear ever.

 

[Chasethemage]

So apparently the game files contain some scrapped (?) clips of leaders, similar to the ones we see for civs at the end of each age. They are the basis for leader banners you get from customization unlocks.

文明7【全领袖事迹CG】_哔哩哔哩bilibili_文明6_演示

更多实用攻略教学，爆笑沙雕集锦，你所不知道的游戏知识，热门游戏视频7*24小时持续更新,尽在哔哩哔哩bilibili 视频播放量 29606、弹幕量 149、点赞数 372、投硬币枚数 35、收藏人数 197、转发人数 33, 视频作者 丸宝导师, 作者简介 人类+文明7+无尽帝国2の社区导师，相关视频：【文明5】全奇迹语音，文明7全胜利动画以及项目，全兵种助眠：条顿骑士，【文明7】全特色建筑与城区一览，罗马-古典文明主题｜文明VII原声带，为了和大宋做生意，该国不惜发动侵略战争！【文明7】新势力前瞻第一回：朱罗，【IGN】《文明7》真人宣传视频，文明7征服胜利(击败所有文明)胜利动画...

www.bilibili.com

Honestly, some of these would look amazing as leader screens, similar to the ones as Civ 5. I get that those took a lot of development, but they would be so cool. Imagine Xerxes meeting you on his palanquin, accompanied by his entourage, or Augustus greeting you while Rome is being built in the background.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Yes, it would have been better to do it at launch. Right now, I think it would be too hard to rework one in the middle of the game. So that would leave an Atomic/Information age end game, or a Prehistoric one at the start.

I don't. I think there's something you could do.

I've been prototyping a game of mine that uses our timeline as a basis (just a different execution and aristic license as it's set in a different world).

One thing that came about is how if you divide the timeline into 12 individual ages, some of them make quite sense, and if you build the game up into 6 distinct chapters:

Chapter 1: the Ancient and Classical timeperiod
Chapter 2: The Post-Classical/Dark Age and Medieval period.
Chapter 3: The Renaissance and Enlightenment period.
Chapter 4: The Industrial and Modern/World War I period.
Chapter 5: The World War II period and the aftermath of the Cold War. (Atomic/Rocketry ages)
Chapter 6: The Information and Ecology Ages. (I realised you could add a specific Ecology age in the game to focus on the modern times of Global Warming, while having INformation to be the early 90-10s or whatever.

When I break the game down I feel like all 6 have valid gameplay systems that could be used or designed. The primary problem however would be 6's nations, though one could just implement the: Use 5's nations) as an extension.

 

[Krikkit1]

My point is that once they tie an expansion pack to an age, let’s say optimistically they deliver 15 civs for that age. Unless they want to publish DLC for DLC, then we are stuck at 15 civs. While that pack is stuck at 15, the three base game ages can continue to receive updates and an inflated roster.

Also, we should consider the DLC pricing. Both upcoming packs deliver only 4 civs each and both are priced at US $30 without including new gameplay. That’s $7.50 per civ.

They also add 2 leaders and some additional Wonders/ graphics....
the base game adds 31 civs for ~70$ ~$2.30/civ

They would definitely have DLC that only works with an expansion (some civ 6 civs only worked with various expansions)
and DLCs with 4th age civs could also include 1-3 age civs that you could use even if you hadn't gotten the 4th age expansion. (or 1-3 age civs could be separate.)

The point is the ages are plug and play... a expansion that adds a 4th age (and updates the first 3 ages) could have the update to the first 3 ages be done as a free update and you only have to pay for the new 4th age game mechanics (and the 1-4th age new civs)

 

[queenpea]

They also add 2 leaders and some additional Wonders/ graphics....
the base game adds 31 civs for ~70$ ~$2.30/civ

They would definitely have DLC that only works with an expansion (some civ 6 civs only worked with various expansions)
and DLCs with 4th age civs could also include 1-3 age civs that you could use even if you hadn't gotten the 4th age expansion. (or 1-3 age civs could be separate.)

The point is the ages are plug and play... a expansion that adds a 4th age (and updates the first 3 ages) could have the update to the first 3 ages be done as a free update and you only have to pay for the new 4th age game mechanics (and the 1-4th age new civs)

Which additional civs in VI were for owners of expansions only?

A fourth age expansion would have to include leaders. We are focusing way too much on leaders as if they add extra value. Every civ in VI was delivered with a unique leader, which is more than we can say for VII.

 

[Siptah]

You absolutely can make the 4th age available for free and then only put 3-5 civs in it without paying for DLC. That wouldn‘t be nice in an age in the middle that you have to play, but it works fine for a tacked-on age after the third, because playing it remains optional. Then you launch it with a $50 pack that has the remaining civs and leaders …