Civ7 seem to leave space for the 4th age?

[stealth_nsk]

The more info we have about modern civs, the more probable it looks for one of the future expansions to add 4th era. All modern civs announced so far ceased to exist in 1870-1950 period and names like Qing China or Meiji Japan suppose there is more modern (contemporary?) age for those civs. The choice of Buganda as modern civ also implies Firaxis wanted modern age civs which didn't survive by now.

For not yet announced civs, the harder one to fit into this concept is, probably USA as it went the least changed from its independence period. The rest looks quite clear:
British Empire (modern) -> Great Britain (contemporary)
Prussia (modern) -> Germany (contemporary)
Russian Empire (modern) -> Russian Federation (contemporary)
etc.

 

[AriochIV]

If it turns out that the Space Race is just a Moon mission, then yes it would seem that they've left room for a future Age expansion.

Insufficient data at present to form a clear hypothesis.

 

[Krikkit1]

If it turns out that the Space Race is just a Moon mission, then yes it would seem that they've left room for a future Age expansion.

Insufficient data at present to form a clear hypothesis.

It seems possible, I hope it is not the case though as more eras adds more complications and makes the game more disjointed.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If it turns out that the Space Race is just a Moon mission, then yes it would seem that they've left room for a future Age expansion.

If such expansion really come out, the first thing it will change will be victory conditions, so it's possible we have some decent space race now, which will be upgraded and moved to the 4th age.

Actually, we've seen it in Gathering Storm, where science victory was enhanced from Martian Expedition to Exoplanet Expedition.

 

[bite]

I would say that there are neat gaps for Medieval-Industrial-Future to fit into the future of the series

 

[stealth_nsk]

I would say that there are neat gaps for Medieval-Industrial-Future to fit into the future of the series

I'm not sure I like the idea splitting the game that much. It would require shorter ages, which doesn't look fun with civ per age.

 

[AriochIV]

I would say that there are neat gaps for Medieval-Industrial-Future to fit into the future of the series

While we don't know all the civilizations yet, so far I'm not seeing gaps in between the current Ages. There are late Classical and early Medieval civilizations. Adding new Ages in between would involve completely reshuffling everything.

 

[ombak]

Some people have expressed (not just in this thread) that it would be counter to the game's intent because it would make era switches less meaningful and eras might no longer be long enough to matter. I'm in that camp.

What I would be interested in seeing is a way to tie in a future Sci-Fi game (the next Alpha Centauri or Beyond Earth). Just the option of importing a save file to add some flavor to the beginning of your future Civ would be fun to me.

That said, it wouldn't surprise me to see them tweak with ages in an expansion and even add one more. I just worry it would take things in the wrong direction.

 

[moondog385]

I hope there’s not a fourth age myself. Just focus on expanding the three we have. Future was by far the most boring part of VI anyway.

 

[Siptah]

I hope there’s not a fourth age myself. Just focus on expanding the three we have. Future was by far the most boring part of VI anyway.

The good thing about a 4th age: all/most of the post-colonial civs would go there and there would probably be a game setting to just play age 1-3. I could live with that very well.

 

[chaosprophet]

I would love a future era going into sci-fi-ish territory, but probably not likely.

The more info we have about modern civs, the more probable it looks for one of the future expansions to add 4th era. All modern civs announced so far ceased to exist in 1870-1950 period and names like Qing China or Meiji Japan suppose there is more modern (contemporary?) age for those civs. The choice of Buganda as modern civ also implies Firaxis wanted modern age civs which didn't survive by now.

Take in account they always tend to leave the end of tech tree for later. So we don't really know how far it goes. If there is one hint would be Ed saying before the game goes up to the division of the atom, albeit that could just be a generic comment not wanting to spoil what the end of the tech tree will look like. Also global warming should be in, which indicates the tech going further than just 1950-ish

Regarding the civs, I think it is more likely they trying to avoid representations of actual current nations as people can easily be very sensitive about it, just like how they avoid leaders that are current alive people or recent controversial ones. For previous games it didn't matter much because the civs were supposed to represent the nation whole history, but now that they're representing a moment in their history, I can see they trying to avoid very current representations. To the point where, if we ever get a future age, I would expect more likely a generic representation or completely invented ones, maybe inspired by sci-fi novels and the like.

Insufficient data at present to form a clear hypothesis.

Pretty much, yeah.

I would say that there are neat gaps for Medieval-Industrial-Future to fit into the future of the series

I think it is extremely unlikely for them to add ages in the middle, as it would need a completely rebalance of the game. Too much for even an expansion.

On the other hand, a future age could be released on a separated big DLC for it, where people who are not interested could just not buy it and continue to buy other dlcs that would work normally up to modern age, and even those who buy it, it would be easy to add an option on new game to make it end on the modern age for when someone with it want a shorter game.

I hope there’s not a fourth age myself. Just focus on expanding the three we have. Future was by far the most boring part of VI anyway.

I think part of that is the result of the problems like snowballing and how even if you get there you already would clearly know if you can win or not, so it would often feel like just passing the turns to finish doing what you need to win. But that is exactly what the age system is made to avoid, so if implemented well, it could be as fun as any other age.

 

[Awsny]

Regarding the civs, I think it is more likely they trying to avoid representations of actual current nations as people can easily be very sensitive about it, just like how they avoid leaders that are current alive people or recent controversial ones. For previous games it didn't matter much because the civs were supposed to represent the nation whole history, but now that they're representing a moment in their history, I can see they trying to avoid very current representations. To the point where, if we ever get a future age, I would expect more likely a generic representation or completely invented ones, maybe inspired by sci-fi novels and the like.

One way to get around this would be to let players create their own custom contemporary/future civ. I know people are already asking for the option to rename civs in historical eras, but my guess is players care most about seeing their present home countries represented. This would allow things like Exploration Spain -> French Empire -> Modern Spain or Mughals -> Pakistan. The city and unit art could be generic, or based on the geography of civs chosen in previous eras.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I would love a future era going into sci-fi-ish territory, but probably not likely.

Well, it happened in all previous Civ games - flight to Alpha Centauri, plus things like giant robots.

Regarding the civs, I think it is more likely they trying to avoid representations of actual current nations as people can easily be very sensitive about it, just like how they avoid leaders that are current alive people or recent controversial ones. For previous games it didn't matter much because the civs were supposed to represent the nation whole history, but now that they're representing a moment in their history, I can see they trying to avoid very current representations. To the point where, if we ever get a future age, I would expect more likely a generic representation or completely invented ones, maybe inspired by sci-fi novels and the like.

I don't think it's that big of a problem. Not the same as alive leaders. I wouldn't want to see Putin as a leader, but I don't see why Russian Federation (or lack of it) would be an issue.

On the other hand, a future age could be released on a separated big DLC for it, where people who are not interested could just not buy it and continue to buy other dlcs that would work normally up to modern age, and even those who buy it, it would be easy to add an option on new game to make it end on the modern age for when someone with it want a shorter game.

Yep, I imagine one of the expansion packs focusing on it.

I think part of that is the result of the problems like snowballing and how even if you get there you already would clearly know if you can win or not, so it would often feel like just passing the turns to finish doing what you need to win. But that is exactly what the age system is made to avoid, so if implemented well, it could be as fun as any other age.

Totally agree here.

 

[Leucarum]

If the 4th Age was a sneaky way to reintroduce SMAC I wouldn't be mad TBH

 

[chaosprophet]

Well, it happened in all previous Civ games - flight to Alpha Centauri, plus things like giant robots.

Albeit in cases like civ 7, it feels very anachronistic with the rest. You have the ability to make the death robots and to actually get ready an exoplanet expedition, but the rest of tech stays pretty much current age. If they make a future age I could see it going more on the call to power line (iirc how things went late on that game) with being able to make cities in sea or ocean, adding an space layer (as in earth atmosphere) where you could send units to, etc. Considering that like the other ages, they would want to add new mechanics just for it, having particular things like it's specific trade mechanism, specific combat, etc.

I don't think it's that big of a problem. Not the same as alive leaders. I wouldn't want to see Putin as a leader, but I don't see why Russian Federation (or lack of it) would be an issue.

If it is something that could represent a country since about 50 years ago to know, sure. But anything too recent and political I can see a bigger backslash (albeit just having global warming already is controversial for some people...), especially if representing current autocratic governments. Would doubt we would get things like north korea, current china, and maybe even current russia, but who knows.

One way to get around this would be to let players create their own custom contemporary/future civ. I know people are already asking for the option to rename civs in historical eras, but my guess is players care most about seeing their present home countries represented. This would allow things like Exploration Spain -> French Empire -> Modern Spain or Mughals -> Pakistan. The city and unit art could be generic, or based on the geography of civs chosen in previous eras.

Besides renaming option that if introduced will likely be for any age, one way I could see is you have civs for that era with generic names like Union, Federation, Technocracy, etc with their own civ bonuses like the others, but the default name for it ending up being the mix of that with your previous civ name, or like you said any of the three names from the path you took. So you pick Technocracy and you wen thre by going Rome -> Normans - France you could then pick as default name the Technocracy of Rome, Technocracy of Normandy or Technocracy of France, etc.

 

[tedhebert]

I really feel we should see how a three ages game pans out before hoping for a 4th one… I feel a full 3 ages game will already be long enough… and maybe after 2 switches in a game, we won’t be so eager for another one

 

[humble serf]

Having to adjust to a whole new suite of civs appearing in 1950 would be much less fun and much less logical than new suites of civs in ~800 and ~1750. If "Rome" can represent the kingdom, the republic and the empire in a single era, I really don't see why the Kaiserreich and the Bundesrepublik need to be two separate things.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Having to adjust to a whole new suite of civs appearing in 1950 would be much less fun and much less logical than new suites of civs in ~800 and ~1750. If "Rome" can represent the kingdom, the republic and the empire in a single era, I really don't see why the Kaiserreich and the Bundesrepublik need to be two separate things.

It's not strictly 1950, it's more 1870-1950. The main problem is what in the current list it looks like modern civs start around XVII century and not many countries span through this period to modern times without having dramatic changes and it would be great to see them reflected.

It's not something I really wish for, I need to look at the game first. I just think Firaxis keeps in mind the possibility of such expansion.

 

[Xandinho]

Honestly, the late game is the most boring part of Civ - it's just an endless turn-taking with nothing much to do in three gigantic ages to represent a historical period of approximately 120 years. As if it wasn't enough, they added the future age to make the journey even more tiring.

We definitely don't need a fourth age - or rather, we don't need any more age. More ages means less connection with each civ, making it something more like HK.

And America and maybe Mexico as modern age civs makes me pretty convinced that there won't be a fourth one, because if there was, it would make more sense for these civs to be there.

 

[Professor Phobo]

Personally, I'm all for a fourth age that does sci-fi emergency/quasi-postapocalyptic fictional variants of modern civilizations. Kind of like the sponsors in Beyond Earth; you're picking from a roster of "American Recovery Corporation", "New France", "Azanian Federation", "Saharan Republic", "Exiled States of America", just weird stuff.