Civ7 seem to leave space for the 4th age?

[Krikkit1]

It's interesting to see. With current modern era timing, I doubt climate change could be a challenge for it. However, if hypothetical 4th era will be announced, it could be part of this era gameplay.

If the modern era is ~150-200 turns and starts at 1800… you could have the first 100 turns be 2yr/turn, the next 100 be 1 yr/turn so the game would end between 2050 and 2100. Quite reasonable for a Mars colonization science win or Serious global warming issues.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If the modern era is ~150-200 turns and starts at 1800… you could have the first 100 turns be 2yr/turn, the next 100 be 1 yr/turn so the game would end between 2050 and 2100. Quite reasonable for a Mars colonization science win or Serious global warming issues.

Modern era in civ7 starts around 1700 and ends in the middle of XX century

 

[Core Imposter]

It was odd to have a space victory in the game in the first place. I mean, it fit with the whole end of history thing but as we are simply rolling directly into WW3 it seems that a 4th age of Civ7 should be Mad Maxish. That is certainly a more likely to be an accurate future path for civilization than the idea that we are getting off this rock. Cause, we aren't.

But I am guessing they aren't going that route.

 

[Josephias]

it seems that a 4th age of Civ7 should be Mad Maxish.

But I am guessing they aren't going that route.

Well, IF there is a 4th age included and it is not the Medieval (I’ve come to some thoughts confortable with having it, but in these I would rename it to “Feudal” and have some mechanics related to managing a semi-independent empire for it to be trully unique) but a future age, it would be most likely DLC.

If it is DLC, it would be optional, and it being optional, they can go all the way with it and provide multiple, alternative ages with a different, semi-fantastic theme.

This is, they can try to extrapolate on current contemporary and try to introduce mechanics and victories based on a network-connected, information-war, globalised word.

Or go fully domsday to a hellish scenario (may be not fully red-death), but something mad max with civs fighting for limited resources.

They could go fully ecopunk and devise a world were fossil fuels are forbidden and the most sustainable civ gets the best benefits.

Or maybe trully ciberpunk with the world being covered in metallic cities, wit cyborgs and robots making warfare…

You may chose which future path you want at the start of your game, or make it random / depending on how 3rd age ends. Or just de-activate the DLC and don’t worry about any futuristic nonsense (wish I could have done so in VI wit the GDR…)

 

[chaosprophet]

Modern era in civ7 starts around 1700 and ends in the middle of XX century

That is currently just speculation, no? especially the end of it.

 

[vorlon_mi]

That is currently just speculation, no? especially the end of it.

Yes. We know almost nothing about the 3rd era. All the eras could last as many as 200 turns, with different measures to shorten that.
We've seen a Saturn V launch in several official videos, with every mainline Civ game (I thru VI) having a science victory.
They've described 4 victory conditions for the whole game. As I write this, I'm not sure that I know they have announced any 3rd era Civs.
We have lots of reasonable guesses, but very little confirmed knowledge.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That is currently just speculation, no? especially the end of it.

Yes. But so far everything points out to it, including the turn number calculation from the previous post.

 

[Disgustipated]

I wouldn't mind seeing a Beyond Earth 2 at the end of Civ 7 cycle. It would have been too soon after Civ 6, but after 7 may be the right time. I think they've learned enough since then to do a better job, and it could turn out quite well. But I wouldn't want that to be a part of Civ 7 itself, just a separate game. I feel like if you stretch the length of Civ 7 out too much, it will lose too much focus. We are already going to lose focus twice in Civ 7 as it is with the era switching.

 

[Krikkit1]

Modern era in civ7 starts around 1700 and ends in the middle of XX century

Says who?
So far the only dates are
antiquity 4000 BC
exploration 400 AD

there is the “steam power to splitting the atom” quote…but that doesn’t mean splitting the atom ends the game. it’s just the general principle.

They also talked about global warming which was completely insignificant in 1950 (if talking about human caused…which hasn’t really had any significant influence until the past couple decades…and probably wouldn’t be worth a mechanic until 2050 or so)

The Modern age will probably start between 1650-1850. If it starts at 1700, they could still have the “long game” go as far as 2100 (200 turns, 2 years per turn..usual win in 2000 AD)
They could also have it go 1850-1950 (200 turns 1/2 year per turn…usual win in 1925 AD)

If they are ending the 3rd age in 1950…where the space race win is putting a satellite in orbit. Then they are definitely planning a “Contemporary” Age…but I hope they aren’t.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Says who?
So far the only dates are
antiquity 4000 BC
exploration 400 AD

there is the “steam power to splitting the atom” quote…but that doesn’t mean splitting the atom ends the game. it’s just the general principle.

They also talked about global warming which was completely insignificant in 1950 (if talking about human caused…which hasn’t really had any significant influence until the past couple decades…and probably wouldn’t be worth a mechanic until 2050 or so)

The Modern age will probably start between 1650-1850. If it starts at 1700, they could still have the “long game” go as far as 2100 (200 turns, 2 years per turn..usual win in 2000 AD)
They could also have it go 1850-1950 (200 turns 1/2 year per turn…usual win in 1925 AD)

If they are ending the 3rd age in 1950…where the space race win is putting a satellite in orbit. Then they are definitely planning a “Contemporary” Age…but I hope they aren’t.

Wikipedia gives the following definition:

The modern era or the modern period is considered the current historical period of human history. It was originally applied to the history of Europe and Western history for events that came after the Middle Ages, often from around the year 1500. From the 1990s, it is more common among historians to refer to the period after the Middle Ages and up to the 19th century as the early modern period. The modern period is today more often used for events from the 19th century until today. The time from the end of World War II (1945) can also be described as being part of contemporary history. The common definition of the modern period today is often associated with events like the French Revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the transition to nationalism towards the liberal international order.

Which generally includes 2 definitions:
1. Traditional, which starts from around 1500 and ends in the end of 19th or beginning of 20th century (this mentioned in the beginning and end of the paragraph
2. The alternative term, which starts from around 19th century up to now

I probably messed with the beginning, it clearly should be earlier.

 

[Krikkit1]

Wikipedia gives the following definition:

Which generally includes 2 definitions:
1. Traditional, which starts from around 1500 and ends in the end of 19th or beginning of 20th century (this mentioned in the beginning and end of the paragraph
2. The alternative term, which starts from around 19th century up to now

I probably messed with the beginning, it clearly should be earlier.

I think 19th century-today (1800-2024)

or French+Industrial Revolution-current international order (1700?1790-1950?2000) depending on liberal international order definition

or 1500-today

1800-2050?2100 seems like a good match

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

I think including a forth, future age with the same mechanics of culture switching as in previous ages would be a mistake. There is no need to create 20 more factions with their uniques and culture trees.

Instead late game civilizations should be distinct due to the history of the culture switching in previous eras + the choice of ideology and government type in modern/future age. Ideologies/governments, at least in the late ages should have their own culture trees which anyone who adopted this ideology can research, which can include unique units/infrastructure and policies available as long as a particular government type is active. So, for instance, tank T-34 is not a unique unit of Russia, but a unit that requres adopting communism and researching a particular tradition of its culture tree.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think 19th century-today (1800-2024)

or French+Industrial Revolution-current international order (1700?1790-1950?2000) depending on liberal international order definition

or 1500-today

1800-2050?2100 seems like a good match

Those aren't the definitions in Wikipedia (except the first one, but it doesn't seem to match civ7 as most of the modern age civs seem to end in 19th century. The term "modern" age/era is either used in the original meaning, so it ends somewhere around 19th or first half of 20th century, or it could be used as a replacement for "contemporary" age/era. I'm pretty sure Firaxis uses the first term as it's more established, but sure they have freedom to stretch it whenever they like.

I think including a forth, future age with the same mechanics of culture switching as in previous ages would be a mistake. There is no need to create 20 more factions with their uniques and culture trees.

Instead late game civilizations should be distinct due to the history of the culture switching in previous eras + the choice of ideology and government type in modern/future age. Ideologies/governments, at least in the late ages should have their own culture trees which anyone who adopted this ideology can research, which can include unique units/infrastructure and policies available as long as a particular government type is active. So, for instance, tank T-34 is not a unique unit of Russia, but a unit that requires adopting communism and researching a particular tradition of its culture tree.

As we see now, the "modern age" civilization don't include any post-colonial countries, so there sure is a space for 15 more fraction, including later forms of previous countries like Russia, China or India, plus new countries (but appeared in previous civ games) like Australia and Canada. As I said, the only civ which is a bit harder to name is America as USA didn't change that much in 20th century. But it's still possible to use term "Contemporary America" or something like this.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

The more info we have about modern civs, the more probable it looks for one of the future expansions to add 4th era.

I may be wrong but adding 4th age to me implies most people are finishing the third age. That's a good thing. Having a era with sub-one year turns brings in seasonal weather changes.

 

[Pistol90]

Please no future-era stuff .... Let the game end with drones and AI, lets say year 2030

I dont wanna robots etc ... just normal sim game

If they want more ages, just split existing ones ... Exploration could be Dark age and Renaisanse age ... Modern could be Nationalism and Ideologies age

etc

 

[Leucarum]

I doubt we'll see any more ages TBH. That would imply adding enough civs to make that age's roster comparable/sufficiently comparavle to the other ages, and given the pace of revealed DLC that could be a pretty big ask!

 

[Vitruvian Guar]

As we see now, the "modern age" civilization don't include any post-colonial countries, so there sure is a space for 15 more fraction, including later forms of previous countries like Russia, China or India, plus new countries (but appeared in previous civ games) like Australia and Canada. As I said, the only civ which is a bit harder to name is America as USA didn't change that much in 20th century. But it's still possible to use term "Contemporary America" or something like this.

It's possible to do it, but as I said, in my opinion, that would be a mistake.

Russian Empire, Soviet Union and Russian Federation may look different, but it's difference of a another *kind* than between Romans and Normans or even between Roman and Byzantine Empires.

Take the later example. Two cultures as similar as it gets, and yet the later has more distinct focus on religion and influence from the East and somewhat different ethnical composure, while having very similar government form. Now let's look at Tsarist Russia and Soviet Union. The core difference is government type, all the cultural difference originate from it. Osman Empire and Ataturk's Turkey? Similar story.

I think it's very important to be clear about what is implied by culture switching mechanics. That it's about ethnos, influence from neighbours that accumulate through hundreds of years, some very specific feature of these peoples compared to others. But not the change of government type - this is a different mechanics and we shouldn't confuse them.

And if you want Canada and Australia, well, nothing prevents from adding them as age 3 civs.

 

[stealth_nsk]

It's possible to do it, but as I said, in my opinion, that would be a mistake.

Russian Empire, Soviet Union and Russian Federation may look different, but it's difference of a another *kind* than between Romans and Normans or even between Roman and Byzantine Empires.

Take the later example. Two cultures as similar as it gets, and yet the later has more distinct focus on religion and influence from the East and somewhat different ethnical composure, while having very similar government form. Now let's look at Tsarist Russia and Soviet Union. The core difference is government type, all the cultural difference originate from it. Osman Empire and Ataturk's Turkey? Similar story.

It's debatable. To me, switch from Rome and Byzantium is totally comparable with Russian Empire / USSR or Ottoman Empire / Modern Turkey switches.

I think it's very important to be clear about what is implied by culture switching mechanics. That it's about ethnos, influence from neighbours that accumulate through hundreds of years, some very specific feature of these peoples compared to others. But not the change of government type - this is a different mechanics and we shouldn't confuse them.

And if you want Canada and Australia, well, nothing prevents from adding them as age 3 civs.

Yes, that's possible approach as well. Since each age involves it's own rules, it's possible the final switch doesn't involve culture switch and just have optional renaming.

 

[Mudokon Pop]

I think they simply haven't showcased the modern era. And the modern period spans centuries by definition so just because some modern nations don't exist now doesn't mean they weren't from the modern age. If another era is added - it would most likely be a middle age period.

Personally I'd love to see an earlier antiquity era - other than Egypt, the rest of the Antiquity Age Civs shown so far are from the c.500 BC onwards. That's a lot of ancient history unexplored. It would be hard to find viable ancient era civs for all regions but so far this is what I have for the revealed Antiquity Civs.

Old Kingdom (2649 BCE - 2130 BCE) => New Kingdom (Egypt)
Kingdom of Saba (1200 BCE- 275 CE) => Aksum (there's also the option of the Dm't civilization c.900 BCE but less is known about it).

Zhou Dynasty (1046 BCE - 256 BCE) => Han Dynasty (or Shang Dynasty => Han)
Brihadratha Dynasty (1700 BCE - 682 BCE) => Mauyra (falls into legend/pre-history but legends at least have character which is more than we have for the Indus Valley)

Minoan Civilization (3000 BCE - 1100 BCE) => Greece
Etruscan Civilization (900 BCE - 27 CE) => Rome ( somewhat contemporary with Rome but i'm not sure who else to choose)

Olmec (1200 BCE - 350 BCE) => Maya

 

[Disgustipated]

I dont wanna robots etc ...

This. I should add if Civ 7 is shipping with a Giant Death Robot I'm not buying it. Seriously though, while it seems cool in a way (visually), I see the trend for automated warfare getting smaller, not larger. Drone swarms are now looking like the future of warfare. Not a huge thing on 2 legs.