Civ VII Forced Civ change in Eras?

[Malexander]

If I understood the initial Civ VII release videos correctly, there is a new feature that forces a player to change his civilization nation at every era change. For example, you can start the game as Egypt and end up finishing the game as Great Britain.

I find this idea both interesting and quite disturbing, very disturbing especially if the player is forced to change his civ. I would personally like the option to finish the game with the civ I started. For me at least, one big motivation to play the game is to experience or see an ”alternative reality” compared to the world we live in. I want to see Zulus and Native American tribes dominating the map.

The new feature could be a good thing but only if it is not mandatory. If this is indeed planned as mandatory, I suggest that it is made optional so that die hard Aztecs and Zulus can finish the game like they started it.

Thanks for reading.

 

[Shirotora Kenshin]

Yeah, i totally agree. But, i fear this will not be easy, to make it optional. Because if i understand all this right, then some civs, like Japan for instance, are ONLY available in the third era, and some civs, like Egypt, ONLY in the first era…

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

There should be options to either switch to new civ, or stay with old civ (Transcent) with rather strong culture bonus but weak at adapting with those of the same era.

About 'Three Ages System'. myself is not agree with the number of THREE but i'm more on FOUR
There'd better be
1. Antiquity (8000 BC - 500 AD)
2. Feudal (500 - 1399 AD
3. Modern (1400 - 1899)
4. Contemporary (1900 - Present)

 

[GeneralZIft]

We need a social media management mini game in the contemporary era

 

[BackseatTyrant]

There should be options to either switch to new civ, or stay with old civ (Transcent) with rather strong culture bonus but weak at adapting with those of the same era.

About 'Three Ages System'. myself is not agree with the number of THREE but i'm more on FOUR
There'd better be
1. Antiquity (8000 BC - 500 AD)
2. Feudal (500 - 1399 AD
3. Modern (1400 - 1899)
4. Contemporary (1900 - Present)

Not gonna lie, this is an extremely euro-centric way of dividing history. Where FXS placed the dividers makes a little bit more sense on a global scale, where you have:

1. The time period where each region of the world were still relatively left to their own devices
2. The time period where everyone were either 'exploring', or ended up on the receiving end of the 'exploration'
3. The time period where the whole world got rapidly and heavily industrialized

If a fourth era were to be included, it would be for the future, so as to properly communicate that history has not ended. Not by a long shot

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

so Antiquity and Feudal are fused in one era suits global scale better??
i don't know if @Boris Gudenuf will say about it. agree or disagree or agree to disagree with me or you?

 

[BackseatTyrant]

so Antiquity and Feudal are fused in one era suits global scale better??

Once you look at a global scale, yes. I'm grossly over-simplifying here, but pretty much all paradigm shifts between the invention of agriculture and the age of exploration, were local and political in nature, so using the Antiquity-Medieval-Renaissance divide doesn't really make sense if you look at Chinese history or Mesoamerican history, or really any historical timeline outside of Europe. Heck, there's something to be said about not including any era divides between the start of the game and the industrial revolution, as most people's lives within that time period remained virtually the same, with any changes in living standards occurring at a glacial pace

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Once you look at a global scale, yes. I'm grossly over-simplifying here, but pretty much all paradigm shifts between the invention of agriculture and the age of exploration, were local and political in nature, so using the Antiquity-Medieval-Renaissance divide doesn't really make sense if you look at Chinese history or Mesoamerican history, or really any historical timeline outside of Europe. Heck, there's something to be said about not inclining any era divides between the start of the game and the industrial revolution, as most people's lives within that time period remained virtually the same, with any changes in living standards occurring at a glacial pace

so now. Civ7 Three Ages equivalency of Civ6: "Many Eras System".
what 'Industrial Era' of Civ6 fits in which Age of Civ7? Age 2 or Age 3?

 

[BackseatTyrant]

Well, humanity as a whole has ever only had three globe-spanning revolutions so far: the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, and the information revolution

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In a much earlier post, I postulated replacing the Eras with 'Singularity Events" that would force major changes in the way Civs were played. I tried to stay in the old Civ format with as many Singularities asw there were (roughly) Eras, so had Agriculture, Metal Working, Writing, Steam Power, etc.

The Design Team, obviously, was 'way ahead of me by several years and several concepts and conclusions. They recognized that if one accepts Singularities that cause Massive Changes in thought and deed, then they cannot come too early in the game or it trivializes the early game - if everything is going to change by Turn 50, why bother playing turns 1 - 49? That eliminates Writing and early Metal-Working as Singularities, and probably places Agriculture as a Game Starting Event rather than an in-game event.

Their choice of the Post-Roman/Dark Ages/early 'Medieval" period as a Singularity Event between Antiquity and Exploration is an example of logical continuation of the concept. This doesn't really coincide with any Technological change or, except over half a millenium, any set of technological changes, but it does coincide with major intellectual/social/cultural/political changes over a great deal of the world: the rise of aggressive multi-cultural Religions, the collapse of Antiquity Empires (Roman, Tang China) the (eventual) rise of 'national' Monarchial and other governments over much of the world, etc. After some delay, technological changes like new sailing and navigation and military techniques collect into the world-girdling ships that propelled the Exploration/Exploitation of the world by Europeans - or, in game, whoever gets to those conditions First.

The one Singularity Event I postulated that remains in the game is the transition from Exploration to Modern Ages: roughly, the combination of technological and social/political events that produced Industrialization, artificial Power, and the economics required to fund all of that, which in turn resulted in whole new organizations of human populations ("Industrial Labor") and political thought that produced modern Ideologies - all attempting to deal with the new 'modern' Industrial Reality.

Note also that this conceptual framework leaves out the last of the 'world-wide revolutions' postulated: the Information Revolution brought on by the computer, electronic communications and massive spread of information systems. This leads me to suspect that one DLC/Post-Release addition will be a Near Future one, covering, roughly, the time from about 1975 to 2025+. This may include the old Science Victory extra-solar exploration/colonization and some of the speculative political changes and governments and many of the modern military developments showcased by the current conflicts.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

In a much earlier post, I postulated replacing the Eras with 'Singularity Events" that would force major changes in the way Civs were played. I tried to stay in the old Civ format with as many Singularities asw there were (roughly) Eras, so had Agriculture, Metal Working, Writing, Steam Power, etc.

The Design Team, obviously, was 'way ahead of me by several years and several concepts and conclusions. They recognized that if one accepts Singularities that cause Massive Changes in thought and deed, then they cannot come too early in the game or it trivializes the early game - if everything is going to change by Turn 50, why bother playing turns 1 - 49? That eliminates Writing and early Metal-Working as Singularities, and probably places Agriculture as a Game Starting Event rather than an in-game event.

Their choice of the Post-Roman/Dark Ages/early 'Medieval" period as a Singularity Event between Antiquity and Exploration is an example of logical continuation of the concept. This doesn't really coincide with any Technological change or, except over half a millenium, any set of technological changes, but it does coincide with major intellectual/social/cultural/political changes over a great deal of the world: the rise of aggressive multi-cultural Religions, the collapse of Antiquity Empires (Roman, Tang China) the (eventual) rise of 'national' Monarchial and other governments over much of the world, etc. After some delay, technological changes like new sailing and navigation and military techniques collect into the world-girdling ships that propelled the Exploration/Exploitation of the world by Europeans - or, in game, whoever gets to those conditions First.

The one Singularity Event I postulated that remains in the game is the transition from Exploration to Modern Ages: roughly, the combination of technological and social/political events that produced Industrialization, artificial Power, and the economics required to fund all of that, which in turn resulted in whole new organizations of human populations ("Industrial Labor") and political thought that produced modern Ideologies - all attempting to deal with the new 'modern' Industrial Reality.

Note also that this conceptual framework leaves out the last of the 'world-wide revolutions' postulated: the Information Revolution brought on by the computer, electronic communications and massive spread of information systems. This leads me to suspect that one DLC/Post-Release addition will be a Near Future one, covering, roughly, the time from about 1975 to 2025+. This may include the old Science Victory extra-solar exploration/colonization and some of the speculative political changes and governments and many of the modern military developments showcased by the current conflicts.

Under 'Three Ages Systems'
where should Siam and Vietnam be?
Age 2 or Age 3?
I don't really feel right that Khmer is in Age2 and not Siam (Ayutthaya Kingdom), it should be in Age1

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Under 'Three Ages Systems'
where should Siam and Vietnam be?
Age 2 or Age 3?
I don't really feel right that Khmer is in Age2 and not Siam (Ayutthaya Kingdom), it should be in Age1

That depends entirely on what the game and game designers want to model.

Some Civilizations are firmly in single Era:
Rome, either the Kingdom, Republic, or Empire - First Age.
United States, either Colonial or Republic - Third Age.

Others, the game can (and does, I'm certain) pick which Age of the Civ they want to model. China extends in some form through all three Ages, as does Japan, Persia, India (as distinct States, to be sure)
Vietnam and Siam/Thailand are both, potentially, multi-Age, so it depends on whether they think modern Communist Vietnam or the anti-Chinese Medieval Vietnam is more interesting to the gamers to play.

And since each Age has specific Civs in it, I would be very surprised if, on release, many Civs have more than one - two versions: I suspect they are going to run with the opportunity to show off as many different Civilizations as possible but we will see an explosion of Modded 'alternative' states/Civs in other Ages very soon after February 2025 regardless of any DLC schedule.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

That depends entirely on what the game ancd game designeers want to model.

Some Civilizations are firmly in single Era:
Rome, either the Kingdom, Republic, or Empire - First Age.
United States, either Colonial or Republic - Third Age.

Others, the game can (and does, I'm certain) pick which Age of the Civ they want to model. China extends in some form through all three Ages, as does Japan, Persia, India (as distinct States, to be sure)
Vietnam and Siam/Thailand are both, potentially, multi-Age, so it depends on whether they think modern Communist Vietnam or the anti-Chinese Medieval Vietnam is more interesting to the gamers to play.

And since each Age has specific Civs in it, I would be very surprised if, on release, many Civs have more than one - two versions: I suspect they are going to run with the opportunity to show off as many different Civilizations as possible but we will see an explosion of Modded 'alternative' states/Civs in other Ages very soon after February 2025 regardless of any DLC schedule.

And there are also ambitious 'Dai Viet' of the first half of 19th Century. and there were even war against Siamese Empire of Rattanakosin (founded about one or two generations ago after Ayutthaya fell.), and saw intensive uses of gunpowder weapons more than any previous wars. By that Time a british merchant named Robert Hunter came to Bangkok to dump sale a large number of Brownbess Fusil (and that was the time British Empire is already done with Brownbess and moving on towards percussion musketry, these sold to Siam was more or less unconverted second hands that he (or even British Army Arsenal) analyzed marketing potentials. though i'm not sure if both sides begin to use the same Fusiliers as any Whitemen Empires at that time?

 

[notNamed]

so it depends on whether they think modern Communist Vietnam or the anti-Chinese Medieval Vietnam is more interesting to the gamers to play.

It's really more anti-Chinese Communist Vietnam and Medieval Vietnam.
And of course there's always the Vietcong Vietnam that pollutes any discourse of Vietnamese history harder than a drop of ink in a glass of clear water.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

It's really more anti-Chinese Communist Vietnam and Medieval Vietnam.
And of course there's always the Vietcong Vietnam that pollutes any discourse of Vietnamese history harder than a drop of ink in a glass of clear water.

And not ones that has a big rival to the West in early half of 19th Century?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Under 'Three Ages Systems'
where should Siam and Vietnam be?
Age 2 or Age 3?
I don't really feel right that Khmer is in Age2 and not Siam (Ayutthaya Kingdom), it should be in Age1

I would personally put Siam in Age 3, to represent the Rattanakosin Kingdom, considering they would be the best bet for a Modern Age one. Humankind put them in that era.

United States, either Colonial or Republic - Third Age.

I think America will firmly be in the third age considering the 2nd age ends at around 1750 and the third starts at 1850 representing the various revolutions of the world, wars and industrial.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

I would personally put Siam in Age 3, to represent the Rattanakosin Kingdom, considering they would be the best bet for a Modern Age one. Humankind put them in that era.

And same as VN (under Nguyen Dynasty?, the big rival to the east that replaced Burma to the West)

 

[notNamed]

And not ones that has a big rival to the West in early half of 19th Century?

The Vietnam civ for Civ6 was done by a historian focusing on Laos and Indianised kingdoms of SEA.
And it's still a very obvious Vietcong-based fantasy of a supreme defender pulling off herculean feats in jungles to drive out invaders.

It makes the point relatively clear about what the expectation for a "Viet Nam" civ is and Firaxis is not going to be fighting that to show the escapades of the Nguyen, Bourbon and the Siamese. At least IMO, no matter how much I'd like to see otherwise.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

And it's still a very obvious Vietcong-based fantasy of a supreme defender pulling off herculean feats in jungles to drive out invaders.

?? But Vietnamese kingdoms did pull off fantastic feats in driving out Chinese and Mongol invaders

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

?? But Vietnamese kingdoms did pull off fantastic feats in driving out Chinese and Mongol invaders

And not their ambitions of the Early 19th Century that put them against Rattanakosin Kingdom. a big hella war to bid for a control over Laos and Cambodia as well as smaller princedoms in between