Can we Speculate a Potential 4th Age from Civ 6's Era system?

For some 3rd age civs the peak of their power could be somewhere around 19th century or even earlier. Buganda or Mughal India aren't great candidates for contemporary age. Having Nigeria and/or South Africa would be better sub-saharan representation and modern post-colonial India is likely to need quite different design.
That's true. However, most 3rd Age Civs don't need that change. The USA, Mexico, Russia, France, Siam and potential future Germany and/or Britain could easily continue into a 4th Age without switching into anything else. Russia in the 3rd Age even has unique features from their Soviet period.

If they ever implement a 4th Age (which I hope they don't, they can easily just extend the 3rd Age), they shouldn't create a whole new set of Civilizations for that age.

If we had space race Phoenicians, nuclear Aztecs and Romans fighting with aeroplanes in previous games, I don't see a problem with contemporary/post-modern Buganda, Mughals or Qing.

(Also, portraying contemporary China (PRC) would definitely be controversial and might risk the game not being sold in China, which is a huge market)
 
That's true. However, most 3rd Age Civs don't need that change. The USA, Mexico, Russia, France, Siam and potential future Germany and/or Britain could easily continue into a 4th Age without switching into anything else. Russia in the 3rd Age even has unique features from their Soviet period.

If they ever implement a 4th Age (which I hope they don't, they can easily just extend the 3rd Age), they shouldn't create a whole new set of Civilizations for that age.
Siam could be replaced with another regional country like Indonesia, Malaysia or Vietnam. Mexico, as I wrote, could be replaced by Brazil, for example. Sure, America, Russia, India, China, Britain, Germany and France are likely to stay (unless EU will be the thing), but two of them already span through 3 ages, so it doesn't look like a big deal. And for all other civs there could be really interesting replacements.

If we had space race Phoenicians, nuclear Aztecs and Romans fighting with aeroplanes in previous games, I don't see a problem with contemporary/post-modern Buganda, Mughals or Qing.
It's a problem from gameplay perspective. One of the concepts behind age splitting is to have civs with abilities and units actual for their age and tied to this age specific rules, so I really expect to see new version of America, Russia, China and India built around space race and information warfare, not industrialization.

(Also, portraying contemporary China (PRC) would definitely be controversial and might risk the game not being sold in China, which is a huge market)
1. We already had Great Firewall in Civ6. Didn't break anything.
2. There are plenty of things which could be used to represent modern China without going too deep into controversial themes.
 
With no Germany or Britain and "The French Empire", it all really points to a 4th age being part of the planned development for civ VII. I'm honestly more interested into what does that mean for "gap filling" earlier eras with civ, for example we could be looking at:
  • Normans (exploration)
  • "The British Empire" (modern)
  • Great Britain (4th age)
Or maybe just "England" on modern with British units...that's sort of like civ has always done it.

I'm not entirely thrilled about a contemporary Era, but as long as It's restrained to WWII, Cold war, and a bit of present day I'll be fine, just no Giant Death Robots Firaxis please.
 
Well, CIV tends to add quite a lot of mechanisms in each extension. And, yes, seeing the modern civs we have so far, they seems to be up to early 1900s, so there could be room for another age.

The difficulty would be to find enough "advance modern" age civs to have sufficient pannel, while not reducing the number of choices in the "modern age"...
I think they could very well add futuristic/hypothetical nations for the future era. Saves the political burden. Something like Buganda> East African Federation could work very well
 
I think they could very well add futuristic/hypothetical nations for the future era. Saves the political burden. Something like Buganda> East African Federation could work very well
But it will be weird to see those name when your Civ is not on the continent named "Africa".
 
You could say the same for the USA as well :)
I always thought we need to call them United State Civ instead of America Civ, but at least they actually adopted that continent name as their country name.

I think the regional political union like EU and ASEAN have to be a mechanic for future Age, not the Civ.
 
I always thought we need to call them United State Civ instead of America Civ, but at least they actually adopted that continent name as their country name.

I think the regional political union like EU and ASEAN have to be a mechanic for future Age, not the Civ.
ASEAN or NAFTA/NATO I’d agree, but EU I’d disagree. EU is the perfect for Blobbing up Europe after probably a lot of extra Euro civs in Modern and Exploration (after the first few DLCs)
 
ASEAN or NAFTA/NATO I’d agree, but EU I’d disagree. EU is the perfect for Blobbing up Europe after probably a lot of extra Euro civs in Modern and Exploration (after the first few DLCs)
No need to blob them as Civ, let them have a real chance to make a peaceful century and build their special union.
 
The advantage of adding a fourth Age instead of extending the third Age is that it preserves the existing mechanics rather cleanly; the victory conditions in the current Modern Age can be seamlessly demoted into normal Legacy Paths. The disadvantage is that they would need to add a third more civilizations, structures and units, which is a big ask.
Exactly, the Medieval age just doesn't have enough material there to draw from in terms of new mechanics so an entirely new age feels necessary. While i'd like for them to add new civs I can see them going of you keeping your current civ but picking your own bonuses. Given that the Modern Age Civs aren't depicted as their modern versions though there's still a hope that that's so they can leave room for said modern versions.
 
The main problem for contemporary Civs is political sensitivity, as has been mentioned by Firaxis with regard to Civ/leader choices in earlier games.
I can understand that as I raised a similar concetn. As the ages progress its going to be harder to get away with having Civs switch into vague "Historical Choices". I mean the Shawnee and Hawaiians still exist don't have a native Civ to become in the Modern age unless you include America. And Mexico is represented in game to be kind of a dead end compared to the French EMPIRE, MING China and MUGHAL India. I think a lot of this can be mitigated with a lot of foresight in planning how to represent the entire history of most civs.
 
(Also, portraying contemporary China (PRC) would definitely be controversial and might risk the game not being sold in China, which is a huge market)
1737058738684.png


While the Chinese government is strict things eventually get through. I mean Mao has been the leader of China in multiple games now. I mean so long as we're not having Hitler lead Germany or Leopold II lead Belgium I think we're in the clear.
 
ASEAN or NAFTA/NATO I’d agree, but EU I’d disagree. EU is the perfect for Blobbing up Europe after probably a lot of extra Euro civs in Modern and Exploration (after the first few DLCs)
I said this on another discussion but personally I think this has the potential to create gameplay issues and just issues with relationship with some fans. It seems like the first 3 ages at launch will have at least 2 European Civs. So when they get past the modern age who becomes the EU? This issue will further increase as more civs are added.

And given how representation of the player base is a tenet of this game I feel like a lot of palyers will feel like they got shafted when their country is avoided because it gets lumped into some conglomerate.

Along with that the age starts around 1960 ish give or take and we don't even have countries like that 50+ years after the fact, closest we have as the EU but each state still functions as a sovereign entity. This works for Beyond Earth which starts off in a completely speculative period but for one that begins a good few decades into our past I can't see it making much sense.

That being said National Unions should have a presence in the game but rather as an extension of the diplomacy system which would unlock new types of Endevours that further bring your countries together while remaining their independence.
 
View attachment 715331

While the Chinese government is strict things eventually get through. I mean Mao has been the leader of China in multiple games now. I mean so long as we're not having Hitler lead Germany or Leopold II lead Belgium I think we're in the clear.
If I remember correctly, Mao doesn’t actually appear in the Chinese version of any of the Civ games he appears in as in Civ 3 and 4 he is replaced by Taizong of Tang.
 
Had the exact some thought in regard to the age divisions of previous Civilization games.
Antiquity = Ancient + Classical
Exploration = Medieval + Renaissance
Industrial = Industrial + Modern
Therefore...
"The Information Age" (let's call it) = Atomic + Information

The discrete age divisions in previous games were in large part built around each game's techs (and civics, come Civ 6), though the usefulness and fun of those late game techs was spotty as a matter of pacing and balance. A fourth age would certainly allow those techs and civic to shine more than they usually could in the past.

Maybe they'll take an unexpected turn, like expanding every age instead of adding new ones. As it stands, Firaxis is telegraphing their future plans harder than a Marvel after-credits scene.
 
The discrete age divisions in previous games were in large part built around each game's techs (and civics, come Civ 6), though the usefulness and fun of those late game techs was spotty as a matter of pacing and balance. A fourth age would certainly allow those techs and civic to shine more than they usually could in the past.
Exactly, the age system allows for things to be balanced around those last 200 turns instead of just being an afterthought. The Contemporary Age can actually recieve mechanics that make it feel unique, theres a whole 100 years for the devs to mess around with.
 
View attachment 715331

While the Chinese government is strict things eventually get through. I mean Mao has been the leader of China in multiple games now. I mean so long as we're not having Hitler lead Germany or Leopold II lead Belgium I think we're in the clear.
They actually banned Civ4 in China because of this, Firaxis had to change Mao and replace him with a Chinese Emperor in order to be able to sell the game in China again. Games featuring Mao are very controversial in China, the PRC government doesn't like the idea of being able to defeat Mao, their founder, in a game.
 
I don't mind a fourth age but I don't want it to have new civs, I think having another civ change is a bit too much.
I want new civs if for no other reason than America deserves a civ that has unique Great People (and altogether better mechanics than its Modern Age version).

My only hesitation would be in how China is implemented. It’s one thing for the collapsed Soviet Union to be in the game; it’s another altogether for CCP China, which is currently engaged in a genocide and threatens to invade Taiwan
 
Back
Top Bottom