Asset file hinting at future and/or cut content

[stealth_nsk]

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 …

No, you can't because unless duplicate civs are enabled, that would make base game unplayable.

I honestly don't understand there those ideas of "cut" content come from, but Atomic Age will come in expansion together with full pack of its civs (10 minimum, 13 pessimistic, 15 optimistic), unless Firaxis decide to change plans and scrap it. This will still make the base game playable without any problems, because the ability to finish in any age will come in one of the near future patches anyway.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

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.

Sure, six ages can work, I mean that's how many Humankind used. It's just that Firaxis used only 3 at the launch of their game so any extra age that's put between the 1st and 2nd, is going to have to create a massive overhaul and shift civs, technologies, buildings, wonders, game mechanics etc. to possibly the new age. I think they will want to avoid a mess like that.

 

[queenpea]

Sure, six ages can work, I mean that's how many Humankind used. It's just that Firaxis used only 3 at the launch of their game so any extra age that's put between the 1st and 2nd, is going to have to create a massive overhaul and shift civs, technologies, buildings, wonders, game mechanics etc. to possibly the new age. I think they will want to avoid a mess like that.

I think there is more profit to be made in DLC which only requires the base game. That’s probably the strongest pull towards beefing up the three ages we have now with new civs and leaders. I would be surprised if we see new ages right away.

 

[Evie]

It'd be theoretically possible to program alternate civilizations, in the same way that some civs in VI had different abilities depending on what expansions you had. So if you have the fourth age expansion, you get one civ for each age, but if you don't, you get one ancient, one exploration and two moderns.

 

[Mudkip1001]

Sure, six ages can work, I mean that's how many Humankind used.

I really hope we don't get an ancient/neolithic age ; it made humankind games kinda a slog to get through and really nothing substantial could happen in that age, just a lot of pressing the next turn button...

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think there is more profit to be made in DLC which only requires the base game. That’s probably the strongest pull towards beefing up the three ages we have now with new civs and leaders. I would be surprised if we see new ages right away.

I agree. If any new ages come up that is more likely be to be the big expansion material.

I really hope we don't get an ancient/neolithic age ; it made humankind games kinda a slog to get through and really nothing substantial could happen in that age, just a lot of pressing the next turn button...

I'd personally prefer it to a whole new Atomic/Information Age, with new civs.

 

[Mudkip1001]

I'd personally prefer it to a whole new Atomic/Information Age, with new civs.

Well, I guess we just have inverted views on it cause I really want an Atomic/Info Age, regardless I think we both agree that an age before antiquity or one after modern is more likely than a medieval or industrial age being put in between ages 1-2 or 2-3 respectively.

 

[King of Prussia]

I dont see us ever getting an age between ancient and explo, or explo and modern. To much to shift around. Would need a lot more civs to fill those gaps. Adding some more techs at the start or end of an era are more likely.

Adding a new age post modern wouldnt require moving anything around. It would require a lot more civs, as i dont see them bringing over all the modern ones.

With the likes of Civs like Prussia and Colonial America, it does hint at a post modern age imo. Idk if there is enough content to make it worth it though. How will its goals be noticeably different from moderns? Would it not be better to just add on to the modern era instead?

I wouldnt consider this age "cut content" unless it was done or nearly done. Plenty of ideas have some work done and are scrapped as the game changes direction or it just didnt work out. Ive even written code knowing it wouldnt be used for for a long time. I dont consider it necessary at this time either

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Well, I guess we just have inverted views on it cause I really want an Atomic/Info Age, regardless I think we both agree that an age before antiquity or one after modern is more likely than a medieval or industrial age being put in between ages 1-2 or 2-3 respectively.

I wouldn't mind it if the Atomic/Information was just an extension of the Modern Age, without changing civs. Because I personally wouldn't be a fan of playing with civs such as China (PRC), Soviets, (Republic of) India, Post WWII Germany, Japan etc.
I'd definitely prefer starting out as a neolithic/nomadic tribe compared to these.

 

[moondog385]

Transitioning from “America” to “United States” (???) as some have suggested here would probably be the worst thing in this series since Civ 4’s Native American civ. Prehistoric era is definitely preferable to that.

 

[Krikkit1]

It'd be theoretically possible to program alternate civilizations, in the same way that some civs in VI had different abilities depending on what expansions you had. So if you have the fourth age expansion, you get one civ for each age, but if you don't, you get one ancient, one exploration and two moderns.

Or you just have DLC packs that are better if you have the expansion (2 exploration Civs and 1 Atomic) or (1 Ancient, 1 modern, 2 Atomic)

 

[queenpea]

Transitioning from “America” to “United States” (???) as some have suggested here would probably be the worst thing in this series since Civ 4’s Native American civ. Prehistoric era is definitely preferable to that.

I understand your gut reaction here, but I think the reality is that the game is already full with switches which are much more bonkers than this. This type of switch would also clear the way for Mughals to "India" and Qing to "China."

 

[Daigotsu Max]

Don't know if anyone has mentioned it before, but having visited Rila Monastery just today I think it would make a perfect Bulgarian wonder.

 

[UWHabs]

I dont see us ever getting an age between ancient and explo, or explo and modern. To much to shift around. Would need a lot more civs to fill those gaps. Adding some more techs at the start or end of an era are more likely.

Adding a new age post modern wouldnt require moving anything around. It would require a lot more civs, as i dont see them bringing over all the modern ones.

With the likes of Civs like Prussia and Colonial America, it does hint at a post modern age imo. Idk if there is enough content to make it worth it though. How will its goals be noticeably different from moderns? Would it not be better to just add on to the modern era instead?

I wouldnt consider this age "cut content" unless it was done or nearly done. Plenty of ideas have some work done and are scrapped as the game changes direction or it just didnt work out. Ive even written code knowing it wouldnt be used for for a long time. I dont consider it necessary at this time either

Pre-release, I was thinking an extra age would make sense to fill in the medieval gap. But having seen things, and knowing the game ends earlier, I agree it doesn't make as much sense. All you really need are a couple tweaks to the exploration era to split it up a little more. Like, maybe they could push the first time you can get to the distant lands a couple ticks back in the tech tree, and change religion to not just be distant lands, but give you some reason to fight in your home lands, and you can sort of split up the era in two.

Like, for example, if it wasn't until where shipbuilding was now in the tree that you unlocked the distant lands, and you changed the culture/religion to be a simple "Gain one point if you are the first person to convert a city to your religion, and 2 points if you convert a city in the distant lands to your religion". And have that as like a race to 30 points. You do those, along with a longer age length, and you can basically have a fairly healthy medieval full of really doing whatever on the homelands, a lot of religion, and then once you reach shipbuilding everyone will have had enough time to really start an aggressive push for the new world.

Maybe not exactly that, but those are tweaks that could be done within the current system without the need for a whole new era in the middle. And if we do get a new era, it would be modern.

 

[moondog385]

I understand your gut reaction here, but I think the reality is that the game is already full with switches which are much more bonkers than this. This type of switch would also clear the way for Mughals to "India" and Qing to "China."

It’s having two civs that are literally the same polity and presenting them as two distinct “civs” that rubs me the wrong way, especially when we already have two American leaders and will probably have more.

 

[UWHabs]

It’s having two civs that are literally the same polity and presenting them as two distinct “civs” that rubs me the wrong way, especially when we already have two American leaders and will probably have more.

I think it would be even weird if you could transition from America to become Russia, while Qing China becomes The USA. But yeah, because there'd be no time gap in that transition, it would seem very weird.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think it would be even weird if you could transition from America to become Russia, while Qing China becomes The USA. But yeah, because there'd be no time gap in that transition, it would seem very weird.

Well if it was America to "Soviet Union" and Qing to "United States" it wouldn't be as weird.

At least no more weird than Normans to Buganda or Spain to Meijii

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It’s having two civs that are literally the same polity and presenting them as two distinct “civs” that rubs me the wrong way, especially when we already have two American leaders and will probably have more.

I could understand that idea better if the America we had now was called "Colonial America" and had Minutemen and Founding Father's Great People, and a Town Center quarter with Meeting House and Courthouse, instead of Marines and Prospectors and an Industrial yard focusing on the U.S. after they achieved their independence.

 

[Pokarnor]

Transitioning from “America” to “United States” (???) as some have suggested here would probably be the worst thing in this series since Civ 4’s Native American civ. Prehistoric era is definitely preferable to that.

Well, theoretically the civ we have now is "Colonial America" (at least per the music theme video on the official Civilization Youtube channel), so I'm not sure it'd be altogether too different from France -> France or other silly transitions we might see. Or maybe these civs just won't reappear in the atomic age, although I'd have to say excluding America from the atomic age would feel pretty silly. I agree though, general I think the timeframe for the modern age runs up a bit too late to make a clean break for atomic age civs.

On a somewhat related note, if we do get a fourth age do you think they'll continue the China chain with the People's Republic? Maybe we'll even get Mao back in the game.

 

[untitledjuan]

Transitioning from “America” to “United States” (???) as some have suggested here would probably be the worst thing in this series since Civ 4’s Native American civ. Prehistoric era is definitely preferable to that.

Or "Great Britain" to "United Kingdom"