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

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
A lot of, or perhaps all the contemporary nations/countries are engaged in some pretty bad things. Be it China, Russia, the USA, even Canada. Some form of controversy can be found from every single nation that currently exists in the world. A 4th "Contemporary/Post-Modern" Era would be quite complicated in terms of what to portray, who to portray and in what way should it be done.

This hypothetical 4th Era stops being based on historical facts and becomes more a "Current Events Era" (basically 1950-predent) which is something that Firaxis might want to avoid, considering that current events are far more likely to generate mixed emotions and stronger opinions than more established historical events from the past that might have more academic consensus.
 
As for adding another age before Classical, as far as some players would love a neolithic period, there simply isn't enough features for that "age" to be relevant, sure it would cover 1000s years of human history rather than 1 (or a couple if you go "future era") centuries but you'd likely be limited to a single settlement (if you can even settle), very few research, and the only interesting activity would be scouting for the perfect location of your first settlement to move into the classical era. It might be interesting as an "alternate start" but not a full age.

They'd have to do something pretty different with imho. Maybe more of a "survival" game for that era than a 4x:
  • Map 'zoomed in'. Ie just a subsection of the final map, 6 hexes from prehistoric become 1 hex in classical or such. So you don't actually explore too much.
  • No permanent settlements (but can have several temporary food caches), semi nomadic, animals/predators to hunt (ala early civ), food to gather, other ancient tribes to war/basic trade
  • your actions during this period influence the classical era by:
    • giving you legacy points
    • determining location/existence of 'goody huts' and their rewards
    • determining initial attitude of independent peoples
I think the biggest challenge is that the classical era is designed for you to do a lot exploration, and having half the map already uncovered sort of kneecaps that. That would be hard to get around.
 
The backlash from some to Russia’s addition (despite it being based on 1700-1950 Russia) is what a watered down reaction to a controversial contemporary civ or leader would look like. It’s extremely difficult to tackle the contemporary era and the future without causing a large amount of controversy.

The only way that could be plausible would be through no extra leaders in this hypothetical 4th age and avoiding civs that are heavily shrouded in controversy (which is quite a lot!).

Poor execution would result in the game either making headlines or be the subject of boycotts and or be banned in some countries.

Many contemporary nations have committed atrocities in the last 75 years, however it is important to note that the CCP for example wouldn’t ever be represented in a Civ game anytime soon to avoid a similar controversy with Civ 4 which resulted in the game being temporarily banned in China until Mao was replaced by Taizong. For some if they are clearly distanced from those atrocities they’re somewhat easier to include but for those where the current regime (or even the country itself) is built on blood and various disgusting atrocities it’s very unlikely they could be represented without backlash more severe than that surrounding Russia’s inclusion.
 
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
I mean if that were the case you couldn't have most modern civs in game
 
That’s an utterly false equivalence. Even a modicum of moral clarity reveals the unbridgeable chasm between America not always living up to its ideals and the evil of the CCP’s genocide, social credit scores, IP theft, aggression towards Taiwan, etc. If Firaxis can rule out the Nazis on moral grounds, it can and must rule out the CCP.
I totally agree with you. Of course some contemporary nations have done a lot more bad things than others and it wouldn't be sensible to include those who have exceded certain moral limits (such as the Nazis).

However, my point is that all contemporary nations have some record of immoral actions with living victims in the present which might make a new 4th Age Civilization rooster of Civilizations based around features from between the 1950s and the present a bit of a contentious issue and might spark a lot of unwanted controversy for the developers of the game and might end up harming sales or causing bans of the game in some contemporary countries.
 
This hypothetical 4th Era stops being based on historical facts and becomes more a "Current Events Era" (basically 1950-predent) which is something that Firaxis might want to avoid, considering that current events are far more likely to generate mixed emotions and stronger opinions than more established historical events from the past that might have more academic consensus.
Exactly why it would be much better to have the 4th era be a "Speculative future era". The aesthetics of the near future, with the tech tree starting from computers and ending at futuristic stuff.
 
I totally agree with you. Of course some contemporary nations have done a lot more bad things than others and it wouldn't be sensible to include those who have exceded certain moral limits (such as the Nazis).

However, my point is that all contemporary nations have some record of immoral actions with living victims in the present which might make a new 4th Age Civilization rooster of Civilizations based around features from between the 1950s and the present a bit of a contentious issue and might spark a lot of unwanted controversy for the developers of the game and might end up harming sales or causing bans of the game in some contemporary countries.
Which is why almost all 4th age civs should just be the generic country name…not CCP, but just China, just India, just Korea…in most cases you can name it after the least offensive incarnation.. and just avoid some of the most problematic leaders. (they are all somewhat problematic, some are just ban/boycott levels)
 
A lot of, or perhaps all the contemporary nations/countries are engaged in some pretty bad things. Be it China, Russia, the USA, even Canada. Some form of controversy can be found from every single nation that currently exists in the world. A 4th "Contemporary/Post-Modern" Era would be quite complicated in terms of what to portray, who to portray and in what way should it be done.
I completely agree, except I think every country should still be included for that reason. If your country is prominent enough then it has its fair share of skeletons in its closet. All of the victory conditions from Civ 6 basically represent a grossly unfair power dynamic if done irl would be considered global emergencies on some scale. The killing off of all opposing faiths, one country leading the UN, someone basically creating a colony ship while the rest of the world is likely to suffer from pollution, complete cultural imperialism and actual world domination. If you want to win Civ you have to play as dirty if not dirtier than real world countries.
 
That's why I steadily talk about the 4th Age Civs not based on IRL countries. My 4th Age China have no need to be one of the ROC and PRC, I only want the name China and I will fill its uniques with my playthrough.
 
The reveal of Prussia certainly points to "Germany" in the fourth age, IMO.
Same with China, India and France which have signifiers they aren't their modern varients, Only ones that don't really fit that mold are the US and Mexico. Russia too arguably but this is clearly pre Russian Revolution in which case their modern variant would by either Russia or even the Soviet Union
 
That's why I steadily talk about the 4th Age Civs not based on IRL countries. My 4th Age China have no need to be one of the ROC and PRC, I only want the name China and I will fill its uniques with my playthrough.
A modern China would still represent the PRC even if it didn't explicitly say that. Unless they did the ballsy move of making Taiwan China, which would get the game banned there and probably wouldn't make for good gameplay as it would make for a lackluster civ and kind of make the China historical path end in a fizzle, no disrespect to Taiwan of course. More than likely they will pull the Humankind appraoch. Mind you the edgiest that game gets is making America and the USSR expansionist civs with Militaristic unique districts.
 

Attachments

  • 1737088164013.png
    1737088164013.png
    172.5 KB · Views: 30
Last edited:
They don’t have China or India… they have Han, Ming, Qing, Maurya, Chola, Mughal
I must've misread these then.
1737098462820.png
1737098477047.png
1737098500476.png
1737098490362.png


Jokes aside my point is that these nations have signifiers to make them distinct for a reason, it allows for the devs to add different versions of the core civ later. If they went with just "China" "India" or "France" in the Modern Age it would be hard to create a Contemporary version of them
 
guys i dont get why this is so hard

civ 7 4th age is obviously going to be released as a major expansion, and be shipped with ten contemporary superpowers, organized neatly by continent:

USA + Brazil, the EU + the Soviet Union, Nigeria + South Africa, China + Korea, India + Australia

there are cultural flavors to each superpower but unlike the other 3 ages the civs are more cosmetic, with only mild gameplay differences.

in age 4, no more settling of the map -- all unpopulated land at the end of modern age is filled with IPs of various sizes. they will effectively be like nations, in a contemporary sense.

suzerainty disappears, is replaced with ideology / culture alliance / "sphere of influence" mechanic.

ideologies selected in the modern age carry to the 4th age and culture is used to push the ideology to other civs and IPs. your ideology can be converted to another if enough of that ideology is present in your settlements.

food is shared globally & creates trade surplus/deficit if you grow more/less than your pop needs.

to keep things simple, population does not grow or shrink naturally anymore. a town/city's rural district population remains constant. urban district population / specialists can (somewhat freely) move between cities in civs with open borders, based on a happiness/culture/etc mechanic.

researching a tech means you get a certain number of turns of exclusivity to its benefits (i.e. research "AI" first and get a boost to all yields for 5 turns) before it becomes common knowledge to all civs

diplomacy and influence become powerful in their own right, sanctions or embargoes are crippling when many resources are globalized

victory conditions on each legacy path are different for each civ based on a random draw or a pool of choices, like mission cards in some board games. espionage actions can also now reveal a player's mission objective. cyberwarfare is also a thing.

military campaigns can result in annexing tiles (culture bombing with actual bombs) not just capturing settlements.

economic legacy obviously is corporations.

ideas for crises at the end of the 4th age:
*climate change
*terrorism
*nuclear escalation
*lack or loss of natural resources
*pandemics
*natural disasters

space race could essentially be a prelude to a fifth age = Civ VII: Beyond Earth II

i'm now accepting all offers of money and fame for predicting the future 😂
 
guys i dont get why this is so hard

civ 7 4th age is obviously going to be released as a major expansion, and be shipped with ten contemporary superpowers, organized neatly by continent:
This is a lot of speculation and while i'm not sure ho wmuch of this will come true I don't get why people are denying the inevitability of some kind of 4th age. The game will be fun as is but it feels like the lack of the religion system in Civ 5, something is clearly supposed to be there that isn't
 
civ 7 4th age is obviously going to be released as a major expansion, and be shipped with ten contemporary superpowers, organized neatly by continent:
I am against having a 4th age

Combat mechanics at the 21st century flow seamlessly from what has been done at the 20th century, except it has a lot more focus on missile spamming and air defence
 
I am against having a 4th age

Combat mechanics at the 21st century flow seamlessly from what has been done at the 20th century, except it has a lot more focus on missile spamming and air defence
Combat maybe? But so much has changed since 1960 that would make for new mechanics
 
A speculative future age may as well be released as an entirely new game.
 
Combat maybe? But so much has changed since 1960 that would make for new mechanics
The Exploration Age spans roughly from 700 to 1700. I bet the world in 800 was a lot more different than the world in 1500, yet they are lumped together in a single Age. In the wide scope of history, the 1960's are very, very similar to the present, especially when comparing the Early Middle Ages to the Renaissance, which are truly different eras and shouldn't be lumped into a single in-gamd Age.

The 1960's had the Cold War. We still have some sort of West-East Cold War between the USA and Russia/China and the current war in Ukraine shows that things have really not changed much. Neo-colonialism still goes strong in Africa, even if African countries have de iure achieved independence. Contemporary warfare is just modernised WWI and WWII tactics. Some people still dream about space exploration as we did back in the Cold War. We are also still quite vulnerable to pandemics, as we were during the Spanish Flu a hundred years ago. Etc, etc.

Not enough years have passed from WWII to the present to already claim we are in a different Era and it's kind of weird to create a whole other in-game era for less than a century, when we already have in-game eras of thousands of years were things did change a lot from century to century.

Also, a whole new Era at the end of the game might risk unnecessarily extending the game and might go against the devs idea of making late game much less tedious and boring. It's better to include contemporary/post-modern times up to the present into the already existing in-game "Modern Era".

New mechanics can appear as the era progresses and the same could work for previous eras.
 
I am against having a 4th age

Combat mechanics at the 21st century flow seamlessly from what has been done at the 20th century, except it has a lot more focus on missile spamming and air defence
Combat mechanics in everything past 1950 are drastically different because they revolve around no longer doing total war anymore. No one will ever write about the firebombing of New York like Dresden or Tokyo, because if it happens no one who knows about it will be alive for long.

Also going from 1750-2050 means in the first 2/3 you build these massive Industrial empires that fight total wars with each other. Which collapse in the last third into nation states, that never actually fight each other.

They could design a totally new 3rd age… but honestly it would be better shoving the current 3rd age into the Exploration rather than uniting it with the current period.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom