Did People Overreact to Losing Units Between Ages?

[stealth_nsk]

I was over the settlement limit (maybe only by 1), and had just finished wiping out a neighbour, and I got the barbarian crisis. Which frankly wasn't even a crisis. All it was was a bunch of free XP for my generals. Which frankly is the problem with the crisis system when they're not that well balanced. Like I think the worst policy card I slotted was like -10 gold, and I got probably 2 levels each on 2 different generals by just going over a couple camps.

I mean, it could have been a bigger problem - the camps I cleared were all in the north, away from any of my main settlements. There were a few open spots, if the camps were more aggressive at spawning everywhere there was free land, I might have had to fight them off on 4-5 fronts, which might have actually been a challenge. I mean, it wouldn't have been that much of a challenge since my Numidian Cavalry were basically one-shotting the barbarian units, but if every city of mine was threatened, I'd at least have to manage around it.

There's a bug with Numidian Cavalry, which makes it way overpowered at the moment. Without it, barbarian crisis could be quite problematic. But yes, the strength of crisis effect could vary a lot depending on how you play and other random factors.

 

[UWHabs]

There's a bug with Numidian Cavalry, which makes it way overpowered at the moment. Without it, barbarian crisis could be quite problematic. But yes, the strength of crisis effect could vary a lot depending on how you play and other random factors.

Even if I got +10 CS instead of +20 CS, it wouldn't have made that much of a difference in the end. But yeah, obviously having a military civ+leader combo with a lot of other bonuses it's a lot easier. One game before I didn't have a military, and hadn't upgraded my units to the higher tier, so I did lose a bunch of units to one barbarian camp.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Even if I got +10 CS instead of +20 CS, it wouldn't have made that much of a difference in the end. But yeah, obviously having a military civ+leader combo with a lot of other bonuses it's a lot easier. One game before I didn't have a military, and hadn't upgraded my units to the higher tier, so I did lose a bunch of units to one barbarian camp.

Well, that's your playstyle. I often play extremely peaceful games (yesterday I finished Immortal without a single war) where I have only defensive forces. In those games barbarian crises make me significantly grow my army and spend a lot of gold.

 

[DingusEgg]

Hello! I'm new to the boards, but I've been playing since V. I was frustrated by losing units between ages at first too. Recently I played a Fredrich Baroque campaign, deity, standard settings, that gave me a new perspective. I had accumulated so many infantry, other military units, and great generals (I forget what they're called now) that at the transition to the modern age I had enough to immediately eat a previously weakened neighbor. My great general advantage caused the military reduction between ages to impact my neighbors much more significantly than it had affected me.

 

[Taefin]

Hello! I'm new to the boards, but I've been playing since V. I was frustrated by losing units between ages at first too. Recently I played a Fredrich Baroque campaign, deity, standard settings, that gave me a new perspective. I had accumulated so many infantry, other military units, and great generals (I forget what they're called now) that at the transition to the modern age I had enough to immediately eat a previously weakened neighbor. My great general advantage caused the military reduction between ages to impact my neighbors much more significantly than it had affected me.

That’s a good insight, and yet I’m torn about this. With heavy investment (and a synergistic leader) you can get an army that can immediately go to war in a new era without harming happiness, consuming too much influence, or interrupting early economy too badly, and gain the benefit of new settlements. But it feels balanced, and the game shouldn’t prevent a player from using an army they have built up. This is pretty much the only way to have wars represented by tier 1 technologies.

On the other hand, if commanders weren’t needed, it would be even easier for the player to take a larger army into the new era.

Also, I thought the AI usually built enough generals to keep much of its army, certainly possible they fail to do this sometimes.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That’s a good insight, and yet I’m torn about this. With heavy investment (and a synergistic leader) you can get an army that can immediately go to war in a new era without harming happiness, consuming too much influence, or interrupting early economy too badly, and gain the benefit of new settlements. But it feels balanced, and the game shouldn’t prevent a player from using an army they have built up. This is pretty much the only way to have wars represented by tier 1 technologies.

On the other hand, if commanders weren’t needed, it would be even easier for the player to take a larger army into the new era.

Also, I thought the AI usually built enough generals to keep much of its army, certainly possible they fail to do this sometimes.

I think the point here is that units surviving with commanders totally cancels the core idea of unit cap. Age transition is supposed to be soft reset, limiting snowballing, but since you could save as many units as you need, this mechanics don't work and in the area where snowballing has the biggest effect. So, this part really needs rebuild, as I wrote before, probably just increase the cap a bit, but don't make commanders save units.

 

[Taefin]

I think the point here is that units surviving with commanders totally cancels the core idea of unit cap. Age transition is supposed to be soft reset, limiting snowballing, but since you could save as many units as you need, this mechanics don't work and in the area where snowballing has the biggest effect. So, this part really needs rebuild, as I wrote before, probably just increase the cap a bit, but don't make commanders save units.

I personally do not like the idea of losing units at the age reset, and enjoy that the current system creates a need to build commanders as a way to grow an army long-term. Conversely someone less concerned about losing units could build them and lose them in one age to great effect, if those units aren’t needed later.

At least at higher difficulties (and/or beyond those with mods) the AI seems to have no problem fielding more units and commanders than the player (even if they don’t use the commanders for anything other than preserving units), and so I think this is one way the player can find an edge, with investment, that doesn’t inherently advantage them over the AI.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I personally do not like the idea of losing units at the age reset, and enjoy that the current system creates a need to build commanders as a way to grow an army long-term. Conversely someone less concerned about losing units could build them and lose them in one age to great effect, if those units aren’t needed later.

At least at higher difficulties (and/or beyond those with mods) the AI seems to have no problem fielding more units and commanders than the player (even if they don’t use the commanders for anything other than preserving units), and so I think this is one way the player can find an edge, with investment, that doesn’t inherently advantage them over the AI.

It's not about AI vs. human. It's about snowballing effect regardless of whether it's AI or human exploiting it (but at least AI could be limited with its coding, human players could only be limited by rules). Same also works in MP.

 

[DingusEgg]

I think the point here is that units surviving with commanders totally cancels the core idea of unit cap. Age transition is supposed to be soft reset, limiting snowballing, but since you could save as many units as you need, this mechanics don't work and in the area where snowballing has the biggest effect. So, this part really needs rebuild, as I wrote before, probably just increase the cap a bit, but don't make commanders save units.

I wonder if maybe the commander mechanic creates like... a soft unit cap? These commanders get mighty expensive. In the game I'm playing now, as antiquity is approaching an end, I chose to pivot away from creating more buildings and toward making more commanders and units to fill them. This way I have a better position in the next age, whatever direction I choose to take at that time. However, I'll be in a bit of a worse position on my yields. Maybe there's chewy decisions to make here?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I wonder if maybe the commander mechanic creates like... a soft unit cap? These commanders get mighty expensive. In the game I'm playing now, as antiquity is approaching an end, I chose to pivot away from creating more buildings and toward making more commanders and units to fill them. This way I have a better position in the next age, whatever direction I choose to take at that time. However, I'll be in a bit of a worse position on my yields. Maybe there's chewy decisions to make here?

The idea is interesting, but I don't think so. Commanders keep their quality and even increase it in time, since they could accumulate experience. The majority of infrastructure investmestments degrade with age transition, so once you get base for getting legacy paths, commanders become one of the best investments even before this unit saving.

 

[y10]

The idea is interesting, but I don't think so. Commanders keep their quality and even increase it in time, since they could accumulate experience. The majority of infrastructure investmestments degrade with age transition, so once you get base for getting legacy paths, commanders become one of the best investments even before this unit saving.

I think that is true to a point. At least in my games, I tend to have one or two highly experienced commanders that I use for my offensive wars, and then a ton of commanders that sit around doing nothing, whose only purpose was to preserve my units from age to age. It feels like such a waste to me especially because these inexperienced commanders are usually the ones produced last which means they cost the most to produce.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think that is true to a point. At least in my games, I tend to have one or two highly experienced commanders that I use for my offensive wars, and then a ton of commanders that sit around doing nothing, whose only purpose was to preserve my units from age to age. It feels like such a waste to me especially because these inexperienced commanders are usually the ones produced last which means they cost the most to produce.

That's interesting. What is your offensive force composition in antiquity and exploration?

 

[Atchulhu]

It isn't some kind of gamebreaking problem, but it is a completely pointless middle finger to the player. It serves no purpose. There isn't some underlying design rationale behind arbitrarily deleting some of the player's units at certain points throughout the game. It goes against one of the oldest, most fundamental principles of the series: what you've built is yours, and unless you lose it through the choices you made in the game (such as an unsuccessful war, or stationing your army under an active volcano), the game doesn't take your stuff away from you. Except in Civ7, the game does repeatedly just remove things that you spent time and resources making, and shaped your plans around.

If the idea was to prevent players from stockpiling a bunch of ancient units and then upgrading them in the next age, that could have been accomplished much more reasonably by saying that units can only be upgraded to the highest tier that exists in the era that they came from. This would limit the extent to which you can slingshot into a huge, up-to-date army at the start of an era, without just erasing your investment. You're given a handful of current-era units regardless, so you still have the foundation of an army.

If the idea was to represent realism and not have slingers loitering around in the industrial age, what's the point of that? Firaxis abandoned the symbolic realism of the series in Civ7 with such nonsensical eyesores as Benjamin Franklin of the Mongol Empire. If they're willing to let something that goofy be a defining feature of this game, there's no justification for favoring realism over enjoyable gameplay in other aspects of the game. It most certainly shouldn't be a priority in cases such as this, where the cost of it is a nuisance for players.

At the end of the day, losing most of your units during age transition is not some huge problem that ruins the game, but it does represent a trend that is far too frequent in Civ7: meaningless nuisances that annoy or punish the player without being grounded in some sensible gameplay purpose that justifies it. Far too often, features in this game lack a window into the design principles behind them, and that seems to be because there were no design principles behind them. Firaxis just messed with stuff for the sake of making things different, and they didn't seem to put a lot of thought into whether or not it would actually be good for the game. Most of the time, it isn't.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

There isn't some underlying design rationale behind arbitrarily deleting some of the player's units at certain points throughout the game.

You might not like it but there absolutely is a design rationale which the devs have clearly stated - keeping the magic of the first 100 turns throughout the game. If you don't like the idea or the implemementation that's your choice but you should read the dev diaries to understand the vision they have.

Gameplay | Sid Meier's Civilization VII

Learn more about the gameplay of Sid Meier's Civilization VII in the Game Guide!

civilization.2k.com

 

[thecrazyscot]

Also, people gotta stop approaching the gameplay arc of a 3 age game like a full game in previous iterations. It's different - adjust. If you're unintentionally losing massive numbers if units in an age transition that's due to your poor planning - the mechanic itself is very straightforward. Plus, if you do go on a conquering spree in Antiquity for example you have a Military golden age which gives you enough free infantry to get right back to it.

There's plenty of options for the player.

It's not perfect, of course - the LACK of options for maintaining an Antiquity navy is a mistake which should be rectified.

 

[aelf]

Asking people to change is a very tall order.

So if you want to sell to people, give them more of the same... until they complain that everything is always the same.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Asking people to change is a very tall order.

Given the major changes to Ages and Civs they really needed to nail everything else including the UI, bit of an own goal there unfortunately.

 

[Krikkit1]

It isn't some kind of gamebreaking problem, but it is a completely pointless middle finger to the player. It serves no purpose. There isn't some underlying design rationale behind arbitrarily deleting some of the player's units at certain points throughout the game. It goes against one of the oldest, most fundamental principles of the series: what you've built is yours, and unless you lose it through the choices you made in the game (such as an unsuccessful war, or stationing your army under an active volcano), the game doesn't take your stuff away from you. Except in Civ7, the game does repeatedly just remove things that you spent time and resources making, and shaped your plans around.

If the idea was to prevent players from stockpiling a bunch of ancient units and then upgrading them in the next age, that could have been accomplished much more reasonably by saying that units can only be upgraded to the highest tier that exists in the era that they came from. This would limit the extent to which you can slingshot into a huge, up-to-date army at the start of an era, without just erasing your investment. You're given a handful of current-era units regardless, so you still have the foundation of an army.

If the idea was to represent realism and not have slingers loitering around in the industrial age, what's the point of that? Firaxis abandoned the symbolic realism of the series in Civ7 with such nonsensical eyesores as Benjamin Franklin of the Mongol Empire. If they're willing to let something that goofy be a defining feature of this game, there's no justification for favoring realism over enjoyable gameplay in other aspects of the game. It most certainly shouldn't be a priority in cases such as this, where the cost of it is a nuisance for players.

At the end of the day, losing most of your units during age transition is not some huge problem that ruins the game, but it does represent a trend that is far too frequent in Civ7: meaningless nuisances that annoy or punish the player without being grounded in some sensible gameplay purpose that justifies it. Far too often, features in this game lack a window into the design principles behind them, and that seems to be because there were no design principles behind them. Firaxis just messed with stuff for the sake of making things different, and they didn't seem to put a lot of thought into whether or not it would actually be good for the game. Most of the time, it isn't.

This was probably the right idea... your settlements and Buildings stay but they downgrade Cities->Town, buildings obsolete, etc.

If instead you kept all your units but (other than the 6/9 that are in your settlements) they became obsolete
Can't be upgraded (still auto upgraded so no uniques but they have a -10 Combat Strength)
No longer benefit from Commander bonuses
Don't gain experience for Commanders
Healing penalty (max heal of 5 hp)

Then let players cash them in back at home for 20-50 gold each

 

[stealth_nsk]

This was probably the right idea... your settlements and Buildings stay but they downgrade Cities->Town, buildings obsolete, etc.

If instead you kept all your units but (other than the 6/9 that are in your settlements) they became obsolete
Can't be upgraded (still auto upgraded so no uniques but they have a -10 Combat Strength)
No longer benefit from Commander bonuses
Don't gain experience for Commanders
Healing penalty (max heal of 5 hp)

Then let players cash them in back at home for 20-50 gold each

Maybe some simple, but more brutal approach. Keep all units, but turn all of them into some kind of "militia" with a lot of restrictions. No more 6/9 or commander saving, just a bunch of pretty weak units you can't upgrade and probably look to replace as soon as possible.

 

[Yzman]

I think that is true to a point. At least in my games, I tend to have one or two highly experienced commanders that I use for my offensive wars, and then a ton of commanders that sit around doing nothing, whose only purpose was to preserve my units from age to age. It feels like such a waste to me especially because these inexperienced commanders are usually the ones produced last which means they cost the most to produce.

How many units do you have?? Between cities and commanders holding units....how can you possibly need multiple more?