Civ7 seem to leave space for the 4th age?

[AlexByrde]

I'm very interested in what gameplay mechanics would exist in a cold war through information age block of time for a Civ VII age, but as has been said before, the roster of civilizations would be dreadful. Even besides the fact that Firaxis has historically avoided polities and leaders from too recent history, the possible roster isn't as interesting to me as historical civs. Any truly interesting one would also fit fine in the Modern Age as we know it now. Have both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union in the same age, I think that's fine.

Decolonization would be an interesting mechanic, but not if I'm just suddenly playing as a decolonized civ. I like the idea of playing in ideological blocs, but it does run the risk of going against the spirit of the game. I love the idea of MAD mechanics, like automating nuke targets in case you get targeted in a first strike, but I'm not sure that's actually compelling gameplay. All of that is workshopable, though. There's something good there, I just don't know how Civ would capture it.

 

[Krikkit1]

I'm very interested in what gameplay mechanics would exist in a cold war through information age block of time for a Civ VII age, but as has been said before, the roster of civilizations would be dreadful. Even besides the fact that Firaxis has historically avoided polities and leaders from too recent history, the possible roster isn't as interesting to me as historical civs. Any truly interesting one would also fit fine in the Modern Age as we know it now. Have both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union in the same age, I think that's fine.

Decolonization would be an interesting mechanic, but not if I'm just suddenly playing as a decolonized civ. I like the idea of playing in ideological blocs, but it does run the risk of going against the spirit of the game. I love the idea of MAD mechanics, like automating nuke targets in case you get targeted in a first strike, but I'm not sure that's actually compelling gameplay. All of that is workshopable, though. There's something good there, I just don't know how Civ would capture it.

The key idea in MAD mechanics would be to allow rapid nuclear buildup... ie a 4th age would begin with every Civ nuclear capable, and getting enough nukes to destroy every city on the map should be fairly easy, and Wars between civs would be MAD (nukes would be the units immune to nukes either in their hardened silos or their subs under the water). The only wars (unless you wanted to lose the game) would be Proxy Wars through IPs.

Decolonization would be a mechanic in the 4th age (and a possible 3rd age Crisis) where it is almost impossible to hold conquered settlements (even if conquered in Exploration...antiquity might be safe)... massive amounts of unhappiness, $ and influence cost and etc. means it would be better dismissing them as an IP... (in some cases they may form a new civ if lost in a 3rd age decolonization crisis)*

but in the 4th Age Globalization and Multinational Companies and Proxy Wars and Foreign Bases means you can do a lot with IPs.... ie Your settlements are locked in, but your IP status can shift constantly due to those factors.

*This would probably be most severe for Democracies, Ideologies that are willing to enforce occupied puppet status on IPs can hold them tighter, but still at significant cost... Ideologies that are willing to raze conquered cities and replace with Settlers will still have some big costs, but they will mostly be external

 

[OzzyKP]

I'm very interested in what gameplay mechanics would exist in a cold war through information age block of time for a Civ VII age, but as has been said before, the roster of civilizations would be dreadful. Even besides the fact that Firaxis has historically avoided polities and leaders from too recent history, the possible roster isn't as interesting to me as historical civs. Any truly interesting one would also fit fine in the Modern Age as we know it now. Have both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union in the same age, I think that's fine.

Decolonization would be an interesting mechanic, but not if I'm just suddenly playing as a decolonized civ. I like the idea of playing in ideological blocs, but it does run the risk of going against the spirit of the game. I love the idea of MAD mechanics, like automating nuke targets in case you get targeted in a first strike, but I'm not sure that's actually compelling gameplay. All of that is workshopable, though. There's something good there, I just don't know how Civ would capture it.

Repost of my speculation on 4th age victory conditions and mechanics:

Economic - They bring back corporations. You get points for spreading your corporations in more cities.
Military - Leaning into the cold war, I think building up a nuclear arsenal will give you points. 1 point for atomic, 2 points for thermonuclear, 3 points for ICBMS, etc.
Science - Landing on Alpha Centauri, as usual.
Culture - Tourism will come back. Probably no rock bands, but maybe something similar. Or they'll incorporate the Internet somehow.

4th age crisis will almost certainly be climate change. But perhaps some trouble with AI/robots as well.

The 4th age will bring back the United Nations. Airports to instantly transport units across the map. Probably satellites. As for decolonization, there is already a mechanic to lose your cities. I expect they'd just have some of them spin off into independent powers at the start of the age.

Automating nuke targets is a pretty cool idea.

 

[Disgustipated]

I've already said I hope they don't have it, rather than extend modern age. Or at least keep our civs, but with updated uniques. We all know America has to be there. And while it has been pointed out America still has the same government, I think modern America is so different from The America of the late 18th century or 19th century. So much so that the founding fathers would be shocked at what this country has become (though many may realize it had to be this way). So the civ name would obviously be Modern United States, or Modern America (really wish they would move away from the America civ name though, United States is not that hard to say).

As for other civs. United Kingdom for sure. European Union perhaps? Russian Federation. Modern China. Modern Japan. Indonesia. Modern India. Malaysia. Australia. Canada. Iran, Turkey (or use the other spelling), and Saudi Arabia could perhaps get some representation this time around. As for Korea... yeah that's a dicey one. Not sure it's worth including them because of the controversy that would arise. And speaking of controversy, I'm sure they would have to stay away from a certain country whose name starts with I, even if they are an important power player. Brazil most certainly needs to be in, perhaps Argentina as well. As for African nations, I feel like South Africa, Egypt, and Nigeria should be in, after that I'm not sure.

 

[gdr_willter]

Not sure it's worth including them because of the controversy that would arise. And speaking of controversy, I'm sure they would have to stay away from a certain country whose name starts with I, even if they are an important power player.

What "a certain country whose name starts with I"? I can't read your intention from this statement even though I am Korean. Imperial Japan? Imperial Korea? (while those were actually "Empire of~") I'm not sure you meant them considering they all failed before 1950s.

 

[Sagax]

What "a certain country whose name starts with I"? I can't read your intention from this statement even though I am Korean. Imperial Japan? Imperial Korea? (while those were actually "Empire of~") I'm not sure you meant them considering they all failed before 1950s.

Pretty sure it’s Israel. And we should stop here before the topic spirals out of control.

The main point still stands, though - modern political entities are such a landmine that I wonder if FXS really want to deal with it.

 

[Krikkit1]

Pretty sure it’s Israel. And we should stop here before the topic spirals out of control.

The main point still stands, though - modern political entities are such a landmine that I wonder if FXS really want to deal with it.

That’s why I like the custom civ idea for the 4th age…no Wonder, Civics,or Infrastructure/Buildings
Just pick from 3 lists Military unit, Civilian unit, Ability

 

[Disgustipated]

The main point still stands, though - modern political entities are such a landmine that I wonder if FXS really want to deal with it.

Exactly. It's why I included Saudi Arabia with Iran. Putting in one without the other would be controversial to some.

 

[gdr_willter]

Pretty sure it’s Israel. And we should stop here before the topic spirals out of control.

Well IDK why you guys really worried about Korea-Israel relationship making yourself to deny the participation of modern Korea. (Because it's not so special, just one relationship of the First World nations - you'd better to worry about the real special US-Israel relationship.) But I guess Israel will still be no more than Jerusalem as Independent Power in Civ 7 so it will not be such a problem.

 

[Sagax]

Well IDK why you guys really worried about Korea-Israel relationship (because it's not so special, just one relationship of the First World nations - you'd better to worry about the real special US-Israel relationship), but I guess Israel will still be no more than Jerusalem as Independent Power in Civ 7 so it will not be such a problem.

The original comment was about Israel’s reputation on its own, irrespective of Korea.

 

[gdr_willter]

So @Disgustipated you just consider that the modern Korea will not be shown in the hypothetic 4th Age of Civ 7, because of the two Korea problem? Then what about China? FXS can just put "Korea" which was not really name of this country before the modern republics came. Same solution with China. (Don't say those are from Goryeo and Qin) If you think we need China despite the controversy, Korea will have no bigger argument than China so there's no problem for it. (Honestly, who care of the anger of North Korean gamers?)

 

[Kankan]

I imagine if there is a 4th age it will probably include more postcolonial civs and given that civs are now decoupled from leaders this sort of reduces the issue of controversy for some civs (like how Stalin and Mao being in civ games from 1-4 were very controversial choices). However, it should also be noted that some postcolonial countries are just inherently controversial regardless of leader (by that I mean the controversy surpasses just a leader) and chances are if you are reading this you likely know what countries they are so either way they'd probably be avoided. Countries like Nigeria, Australia, Algeria, India, Kenya have very little controversy attached to the state itself (however it is undeniable they have all had controversial leaders). Cold War US and USSR both are rather controversial but not on a severe enough level to the point it could result in massive outrage. West Germany is somewhat controversial but not as much as East Germany. South Africa I feel is a landmine because it depends on how recent they would base a civ's abilities on because the end of apartheid came in the early 90s and I imagine FXS would not want to include Apartheid South Africa in the game. Turkey is somewhat 50/50 controversy wise as well. Modern China is also a landmine as it's very easy to misrepresent it and risk getting the game outright banned in China. (HOI4 is banned in China for misrepresentation of the Warlord Era)

If I had to make a short list of potential 4th age civs it would be, The US, the USSR, Nigeria, India, UK, Australia, Post WW2 Japan (which in itself is still quite controversial), Brazil and Algeria just to name a few.

I don't imagine there being many postcolonial and post-WW2 leaders either except maybe Konrad Adenauer, Gandhi, Clement Attlee and maybe Si Larbi and Murtala Muhammad without running into the issue of recency as if the leader is far too recent it could risk a similar controversy with Poundmaker where the Cree people found his representation in Civ 6 inaccurate and misrepresentative of his values and the values of the Cree nation. Realistically speaking however if Algeria got a leader it would likely be one from the 1800s (either Emir Abdelkader or Lalla Fatma N'Soumer).

It is also possible that for a 4th age there isn't any progression into a new civ to entirely avoid running the risk of controversy and instead the Modern Age civs get a change in music for the 4th age.

 

[Krikkit1]

So @Disgustipated you just consider that the modern Korea will not be shown in the hypothetic 4th Age of Civ 7, because of the two Korea problem? Then what about China? FXS can just put "Korea" which was not really name of this country before the modern republics came. Same solution with China. (Don't say those are from Goryeo and Qin) If you think we need China despite the controversy, Korea will have no bigger argument than China so there's no problem for it. (Honestly, who care of the anger of North Korean gamers?)

Exactly China, Korea, Germany…no need to worry about splits
For the civs that are in 3rd age
French Empire->modern France
Britain->UK
America->US
Mexico->?modern Mexico?
Meiiji Japan->Japan

 

[Xandinho]

As for other civs. United Kingdom for sure. European Union perhaps? Russian Federation. Modern China. Modern Japan. Indonesia. Modern India. Malaysia. Australia. Canada. Iran, Turkey (or use the other spelling), and Saudi Arabia could perhaps get some representation this time around. As for Korea... yeah that's a dicey one. Not sure it's worth including them because of the controversy that would arise. And speaking of controversy, I'm sure they would have to stay away from a certain country whose name starts with I, even if they are an important power player. Brazil most certainly needs to be in, perhaps Argentina as well. As for African nations, I feel like South Africa, Egypt, and Nigeria should be in, after that I'm not sure.

Brazil in era 4 could never come from the Portuguese, who will most likely be era 2. The same goes for Argentina in era 4 and Spain.

The European Union would be very strange. If there is era 4, for Europe, I believe they will repeat France (from the Empire of), the United Kingdom (coming from the British), Germany (perhaps coming from Prussia), Finland/Sweden, Belgium, Italy and the Soviets. These would be my bets on a possible, now unfortunately probable, era 4.

 

[Black Gate]

I think the modern age was specifically chosen to start in 1750 to explicitly avoid these conversations. A fourth age would be a terrible idea, especially when victory conditions could just be extended or added on to, to take into account the Pax Americana. I don't think our place in history is so special that the creators of Civ CVI in 2304 will be chomping at the bit to specifically cut out the Cold War and whatever this post-1991 era will be called as its own thing. The game doesn't model the bronze age collapse, or the intense droughts that killed the Classical Mayans, or anything on that scale. If done well, the ideology system should already produce its own cold war without too much effort anyway.

 

[stealth_nsk]

If we have modern age in first expansion, it would probably have 13-14 civs for this age on start. It's totally possible to assign this roster with representation from all parts of the world and without triggering big controversies.
Just a quick example: Modern US, Brazil, UK, EU, Russia, Japan, Korea, China, India, Indonesia, Australia, Nigeria, South Africa, Saudi Arabia

Later countries like Ukraine (will trigger Russia, but nobody cares) or Canada could be added in DLC.

 

[Krikkit1]

If we have modern age in first expansion, it would probably have 13-14 civs for this age on start. It's totally possible to assign this roster with representation from all parts of the world and without triggering big controversies.
Just a quick example: Modern US, Brazil, UK, EU, Russia, Japan, Korea, China, India, Indonesia, Australia, Nigeria, South Africa, Saudi Arabia

Later countries like Ukraine (will trigger Russia, but nobody cares) or Canada could be added in DLC.

I’d replace Russia with Soviet Union, but otherwise good.

 

[moondog385]

None of the civ rosters tossed around here sound particularly compelling to me because, well, they’re not really “civs” but states. Just not as fluid as the previous three ages in my view. Civs should represent something broader than that — not a 70 year snapshot of a country.

 

[OzzyKP]

If we have modern age in first expansion, it would probably have 13-14 civs for this age on start. It's totally possible to assign this roster with representation from all parts of the world and without triggering big controversies.
Just a quick example: Modern US, Brazil, UK, EU, Russia, Japan, Korea, China, India, Indonesia, Australia, Nigeria, South Africa, Saudi Arabia

Later countries like Ukraine (will trigger Russia, but nobody cares) or Canada could be added in DLC.

I think that's a good list. Mostly my thoughts on the subject. EU would certainly be interesting to have and would be a great (perhaps controversial) way to avoid clogging up the civ roster with a ton of Europeans. Other options, for DLC or to replace those, would be Ethiopia, Philippines, Argentina, Iran, Mexico, Turkey, Egypt, and Israel (sorry for triggering y'all!). Unless they wanted to make a big political statement I doubt they'd include Ukraine.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

None of the civ rosters tossed around here sound particularly compelling to me because, well, they’re not really “civs” but states. Just not as fluid as the previous three ages in my view. Civs should represent something broader than that — not a 70 year snapshot of a country.

None of the "civs" announced so far for Civ 7 are civilizations, they're polities that existed at various times during history. Attempts in past versions of the game to include civilizations without representing them with a polity drew fierce criticism as "blob civs". People like to guide political entities, particularly ones they've heard of, most particularly the one they now reside in.