Civ7 seem to leave space for the 4th age?

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.
I consider them to represent historical periods, dynasties, or cultures rather than countries as we define them today.

Your mileage may vary, but I don’t think anything currently announced for the game is on the same level as “modern India,” Saudi Arabia, Turkey, “modern U.S.,” “modern Mexico,” and “modern Japan.” Until sufficient time has passed to put these countries in their proper historical context, it feels wrong to have an age centered around them. I think it would be a big misstep if they went down that road. Expanding upon the third age, sure.
 
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.
I don't think there's any relationship between a blob civ and a civ not based on a single polity. A blob civ attempts to combine multiple civilizations into a single civ--Civ4 Native Americans, Civ5 Celts (and to a lesser extent previous civs called Celts), and Civ5 Polynesians are the worst offenders here. Maya, Phoenicia, and Greece were not united polities except when under foreign conquest, but they weren't blobs, either. Civilization is about a shared culture, not a shared political structure. (That being said, some civs skew the other way: Rome was not a civilization but a shared political structure; other than caesar, Hispania Baetica and Arabia Petraea didn't have much in common.)
 
I don't think there's any relationship between a blob civ and a civ not based on a single polity. A blob civ attempts to combine multiple civilizations into a single civ--Civ4 Native Americans, Civ5 Celts (and to a lesser extent previous civs called Celts), and Civ5 Polynesians are the worst offenders here. Maya, Phoenicia, and Greece were not united polities except when under foreign conquest, but they weren't blobs, either. Civilization is about a shared culture, not a shared political structure. (That being said, some civs skew the other way: Rome was not a civilization but a shared political structure; other than caesar, Hispania Baetica and Arabia Petraea didn't have much in common.)
Well for Rome the Civilization controlled other civilizations… so playing as Rome you control what happens in those other civilizations
 
Well for Rome the Civilization controlled other civilizations… so playing as Rome you control what happens in those other civilizations
Yes, but the Roman city list has always contained cities outside of Latium and has always been presented as the Roman Empire so I think it's fair to say it represents the Roman polity, not the Roman civilization (which would be little more than a city-state in Civ terms).
 
I consider them to represent historical periods, dynasties, or cultures rather than countries as we define them today.

Your mileage may vary, but I don’t think anything currently announced for the game is on the same level as “modern India,” Saudi Arabia, Turkey, “modern U.S.,” “modern Mexico,” and “modern Japan.” Until sufficient time has passed to put these countries in their proper historical context, it feels wrong to have an age centered around them. I think it would be a big misstep if they went down that road. Expanding upon the third age, sure.

Countries or nation-states are just a different way to describe the dynasties and polities of the past. And nothing announced in Civ 7 is a "culture". So yes, my mileage does vary :)and I don't in the least bit consider it wrong to represent the modern states that are the result of all the age 1, 2 and 3 states that Civ 7 is going to feature. To me, its a logical step, not a misstep. But as you say, your mileage may vary, and that's okay!
 
Are we considering they could just "skip" ahead like they have for previous ages? This could alleviate some controversial choices. By skip ahead, I mean starting around the year 2050 or so. But then we are moving into theoretical territory which I don't want my civ games to have. I love those games to be separate. And also keep in mind, while our current reality has some nations split during this time period, for the game representation they don't have to be split since it is an alternate reality. Either way though, I'm just not pumped up for a 4th age. I would just extend the current modern age to the year 2000 and leave it at that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: j51
Are we considering they could just "skip" ahead like they have for previous ages? This could alleviate some controversial choices. By skip ahead, I mean starting around the year 2050 or so. But then we are moving into theoretical territory which I don't want my civ games to have. I love those games to be separate. And also keep in mind, while our current reality has some nations split during this time period, for the game representation they don't have to be split since it is an alternate reality. Either way though, I'm just not pumped up for a 4th age. I would just extend the current modern age to the year 2000 and leave it at that.
They should have a small skip…
it seems an age can finish in 100-200 turns so Modern could finish anuwhere from 1850-1950

A next age could probably start 1960/1970
and go to 2010/2020-2060/2070
so some futuristic stuff but 1/2 to 2/3 stuff now/before now

That way you can start with all civs nuclear…and a decolonization mechanic
 
Just for fun speculation, I tried to leverage chatgpt to create 10 civs for a new age in civ 7 and heres what I ended up with:

Contemporary CivLeaderAttributes
United StatesMartin Luther King Jr.Cultural, Economic
European UnionHannah ArendtCultural, Scientific
Soviet UnionYuri GagarinScientific, Expansionist
People's Republic of ChinaDeng XiaopingEconomic, Militaristic
IndiaMahatma GandhiDiplomatic, Cultural
South AfricaNelson MandelaDiplomatic, Expansionist
BrazilSérgio Vieira de MelloDiplomatic, Economic
Saudi ArabiaKing FaisalEconomic, Expansionist
KoreaPark Chung-heeScientific, Militaristic
VietnamVõ Nguyên GiápMilitaristic, Expansionist


also tried to link the contemporary / cold war civs to the modern ones:

Modern CivContemporary Options
AmericaUnited States / Brazil
FranceEuropean Union / Vietnam
EnglandSaudi Arabia / India
PrussiaSoviet Union / European Union
ChinaPeople's Republic of China / Soviet Union
IndiaIndia / South Africa
SiamKorea / Vietnam
BugandaSouth Africa / Saudi Arabia
MexicoUnited States / Brazil
JapanKorea / People's Republic of China
 
I am late to the party

But from what I have seen so far, there isn't much of a case to set apart the "Cold War era and Post Cold-War era" (1945-2025) apart from the rest of the modern era (1750-1950)

If anything, there's a bigger case to set apart the (1945-2008) era with the (2008-2025) one
 
Welcome to the forum!

Personally I have yet another opinion: that "modern era" should end on the level of 80s - because of
1) The end of cold war ---> the end of ideological three way battle between liberalism, marxism-leninism and fascism (well not entirely, as we can see today, but still, it's not nearly the same degree - arguably liberal capitalist globalisation still dominates)
2) Oil crisis of the 70s being connected to the next industrial revolution and the rise of Information Technology
3) Mass media, Internet and the era of digital globalisation radically changing societies from 80s or 90s onwards

So, Crisis of the modern era should the Ideological Struggle which leads to one of those three ideologies dominating the globe via either"world war II" or "cold war" (or both), and to decolonisation, and then we get Information Age (?) which doesn't introduce new civs (??) but provides the ultimate endgame and covers the period of like 1989 - 2050 (2100 at most) and ends with... Well, imo it should really end with the resolution of the climate crisis, with trip to Mars and other victories being less emphasised victory types ;) you can also imagine handling "AI crisis" or finally building utopian post scarcity society or whatever ;)
 
I am late to the party

But from what I have seen so far, there isn't much of a case to set apart the "Cold War era and Post Cold-War era" (1945-2025) apart from the rest of the modern era (1750-1950)

If anything, there's a bigger case to set apart the (1945-2008) era with the (2008-2025) one
I’d say the pax atomica and the wave of decolonization are major changes.
 
Welcome to the forum!

Personally I have yet another opinion: that "modern era" should end on the level of 80s - because of
1) The end of cold war ---> the end of ideological three way battle between liberalism, marxism-leninism and fascism (well not entirely, as we can see today, but still, it's not nearly the same degree - arguably liberal capitalist globalisation still dominates)
2) Oil crisis of the 70s being connected to the next industrial revolution and the rise of Information Technology
3) Mass media, Internet and the era of digital globalisation radically changing societies from 80s or 90s onwards

So, Crisis of the modern era should the Ideological Struggle which leads to one of those three ideologies dominating the globe via either"world war II" or "cold war" (or both), and to decolonisation, and then we get Information Age (?) which doesn't introduce new civs (??) but provides the ultimate endgame and covers the period of like 1989 - 2050 (2100 at most) and ends with... Well, imo it should really end with the resolution of the climate crisis, with trip to Mars and other victories being less emphasised victory types ;) you can also imagine handling "AI crisis" or finally building utopian post scarcity society or whatever ;)
1) Recent events of the past seventeen years put in doubt if liberal capitalist really was the winner of the ideological struggle

2) Talks about the next industrial revolution are exaggerated, factories in 2025 still require as much manpower as factories in the 1980s

3) Internet and associated communication technologies fully bloomed by late 2000s, and they are the reason why past decade and this one are so extremely different than from the 1945-2008 era
 
One more point that would support an additional age after the modern age:

In the most recent game guide on the Russia-Civ they state (red colored marked by me):
Obshchina: Unique Improvement. Ageless [...]

So, if there isn't going to be another age after the modern age at some point with a DLC or update, why would it make sense to explicitly mention that a building/improvement from the modern age is ageless?
It could just be a technicality, but if I were to make an educated guess, I'd say they are internally supporting future ages in the game engine, if not for mainline content atleast for mods. But I bet that an expansion will indeed have a 4th age based on all the statements made so far.
 
One more point that would support an additional age after the modern age:

In the most recent game guide on the Russia-Civ they state (red colored marked by me):


So, if there isn't going to be another age after the modern age at some point with a DLC or update, why would it make sense to explicitly mention that a building/improvement from the modern age is ageless?
It could just be a technicality, but if I were to make an educated guess, I'd say they are internally supporting future ages in the game engine, if not for mainline content atleast for mods. But I bet that an expansion will indeed have a 4th age based on all the statements made so far.
It has been stated by FXS that this "ageless" is a standard description for all unique improvements. So, I wouldn't read too much into it.

That said, I think we'll see 4th age at some point as a DLC. But not in the way that most seem to think (starting 1970s or even earlier). Instead, it will be kind of Beyond Earth 2: you start on a foreign planet, while your traditions and some achievements from your play on Earth carry over in form of bonuses, unique events, social policies, etc. This would also mean: no need to choose a new civ, because your previous choices give you access to some stuff to play with (but of course, there still could be new future civs as well).
 
Last edited:
That said, I think we'll see 4th age at some point as a DLC. But not in the way that most seem to think (starting 1970s or even earlier). Instead, it will be kind of Beyond Earth 2: you start on a foreign planet, while your traditions and some achievements from your play on Earth carry over in form of bonuses, unique events, social policies, etc.
Don't you make me hope for something that won't happen. Don't you do it.

Ugh, I'd love a BE2.
 
It has been stated by FXS that this "ageless" is a standard description for all unique improvements. So, I wouldn't read too much into it.

That said, I think we'll see 4th age at some point as a DLC. But not in the way that most seem to think (starting 1970s or even earlier). Instead, it will be kind of Beyond Earth 2: you start on a foreign planet, while your traditions and some achievements from your play on Earth carry over in form of bonuses, unique events, social policies, etc. This would also mean: no need to choose a new civ, because your previous choices give you access to some stuff to play with (but of course, there still could be new future civs as well).
The game like Beyond Earth is likely to come (a lot of time passed since it), but clearly as a separate game. New age with totally new map doesn't make any sense for a game. So, I do believe in contemporary age starting with space race and later incorporating well-known Civilization memes like flight to Alpha Centauri or GDR.
 
The game like Beyond Earth is likely to come (a lot of time passed since it), but clearly as a separate game. New age with totally new map doesn't make any sense for a game.
Of course, it has limited sense to it to tack a game on a new map onto a civ 7 game. I also guess that its main purpose would be to be played separately. But it would be nice touch if the possibility to continue your game into space would be there to make that game a bit more epic.
 
Last edited:
Of course, it has limited sense to it to tack a game on a new map onto a civ 7 game. I also guess that its main purpose would be to be played separately. But it would be nice touch if the possibility to continue your game into space would be there to make game a bit more epic.
I think Firaxis tries this before by connecting Beyond Earth with Starships. I don't think it worked.
 
make game a bit more epic . . .
. . . Oh, nothin', just oversaw every element of a civilization's development from the invention of agriculture to manned space flight. Ya know. Ho hum.
 
That said, I think we'll see 4th age at some point as a DLC. But not in the way that most seem to think (starting 1970s or even earlier). Instead, it will be kind of Beyond Earth 2: you start on a foreign planet, while your traditions and some achievements from your play on Earth carry over in form of bonuses, unique events, social policies, etc. This would also mean: no need to choose a new civ, because your previous choices give you access to some stuff to play with (but of course, there still could be new future civs as well).
A 4th age in space would be a blast (pun unintended). Win instead by conquering the moon, establishing a colony on mars, excavating an alien artefact or bringing capitalism to Alpha Centauri.

In whatever way we do get a fourth age, I hope it's optional like a game mode. I'd be surprised if whatever fourth age we get is as substantial as the other three (considering how much extra work it would be and how much they've emphasised the simple three-act structure as a way to make the game more digestible) so something smaller makes sense, plus they'd have more freedom to do be a lot sillier than they could if it was a default game feature.
 
Back
Top Bottom