Do you think a post-modern era could be added to the game?

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If we take beginning of 21th century as the core period, USA would differ much. Wars are more about bringing Aircraft Carriers and bombing enemy to dust, that's why unique unit could be a fighter jet or even cruise missile. The significant part of industry was moved abroad and the country now mostly produce informational products, so no more industry-focused buildings or policies, with heavy focus on high-tech corporations instead, etc.

Yeah, I don't think anyone else here was thinking the 4th Age would start in the 21st century.

 

[Skojardu]

My problem isn't about gameplay traits at all. It's the fact that the U.S. of today is essentially the same country/government as the U.S. of the 1800s. So, that's why I don't get the need for them to be separate.
And it's not just the U.S. I have a problem with. I wouldn't want a 4th age United Kingdom either. I feel like that idea is too similar to Great Britain and both of those don't seem like progressing into new civs. At least not compared to having post-Modern China, India, or even Soviets, which I could at least justify them getting in, even if I personally wouldn't want to play an age with all of them.

Those at least are different dynasties/ empires.

Gradually there was more of a national feel vs a states-first feel. The US was a collection of United States before it was "America".

It was also an own goal by the devs for not having Age 3 England and Age 4 United Kingdom or Great Britain

 

[Krikkit1]

Gradually there was more of a national feel vs a states-first feel. The US was a collection of United States before it was "America".

It was also an own goal by the devs for not having Age 3 England and Age 4 United Kingdom or Great Britain

Great Britain/UK was the entire 3rd Age…we might still see a separate England 4th Age.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Technically playable... Not even close to being re-playable.

I disagree here. First, civs are much more distinctive. Second, they have different combinations with leaders and previous age civs. Overall I see more variety already than in Civ6, which had a lot of civs, but most of them aren't significantly different as opponents.

Yeah, I don't think anyone else here was thinking the 4th Age would start in the 21st century.

Yeah, surely not start, but focus on it. Similarly to how modern nor start or end in 19th century, but is mostly focused on it.

 

[Leucarum]

I disagree here. First, civs are much more distinctive. Second, they have different combinations with leaders and previous age civs. Overall I see more variety already than in Civ6, which had a lot of civs, but most of them aren't significantly different as opponents.

I'd hoped that would be true before Civ7 launched but in practice I don't find that it is. Especially as you say when it comes to opposing civs, where I barely even keep track of what someone is playing at that given moment and everything still feels vanilla. I like the more in depth civs, but they don't really help with civ diversity.

That said we're arguing over how something feels. Can't get more subjective than that. This might be an agree to disagree situation?

For what it's worth I think that the devs were at least planning a 4th age. I just personally hope that either those plans get scrapped, or that civ switching is removed before a 4th age is added. If they try to launch with a new age's worth of civs I'm probably gonna sit the rest of this iteration out. That is not even remotely what's needed to turn Civ7 around.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'd hoped that would be true before Civ7 launched but in practice I don't find that it is. Especially as you say when it comes to opposing civs, where I barely even keep track of what someone is playing at that given moment and everything still feels vanilla. I like the more in depth civs, but they don't really help with civ diversity.

That said we're arguing over how something feels. Can't get more subjective than that. This might be an agree to disagree situation?

Yes, that's the key point here, personal perception is surely different. To me Civ7 gives more variety in opponents than Civ6, but I understand that not everyone may feel the same way.

One thing to note here - I'm talking about opponent civs specifically. There are other ways where Civ7 limits variety, but those are outside the theme of this thread.

For what it's worth I think that the devs were at least planning a 4th age. I just personally hope that either those plans get scrapped, or that civ switching is removed before a 4th age is added. If they try to launch with a new age's worth of civs I'm probably gonna sit the rest of this iteration out. That is not even remotely what's needed to turn Civ7 around.

I personally hope 4th age will come in one of the expansions, not necessary first, but only if Firaxis will found a way to make it interesting. Doing so on a fully settled map after Modern is really a challenge.

The reason why I want 4th age in expansion is because in civs 4-6 the game became very cluttered after second expansion with too many mechanics barely stitched together. Having one of the expansion focused on general game mechanics and one - on additional age, should make the game complexity just about right.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

It was also an own goal by the devs for not having Age 3 England and Age 4 United Kingdom or Great Britain

Great Britain/UK was the entire 3rd Age…we might still see a separate England 4th Age.

Great Britain/British Empire is a fine name for a Modern Age civ. If a civ called England were to exist it should be in Exploration.

 

[Leucarum]

Yes, that's the key point here, personal perception is surely different. To me Civ7 gives more variety in opponents than Civ6, but I understand that not everyone may feel the same way.

One thing to note here - I'm talking about opponent civs specifically. There are other ways where Civ7 limits variety, but those are outside the theme of this thread.


I personally hope 4th age will come in one of the expansions, not necessary first, but only if Firaxis will found a way to make it interesting. Doing so on a fully settled map after Modern is really a challenge.

The reason why I want 4th age in expansion is because in civs 4-6 the game became very cluttered after second expansion with too many mechanics barely stitched together. Having one of the expansion focused on general game mechanics and one - on additional age, should make the game complexity just about right.

I can agree with a lot of this sentiment...

Though I think so many folks are alienated with Civ7, there needs to be a ground-up re-evaluation of the game's core systems if it's gonna make it past a single expansion. If that happens who knows what the age system will be like, and if it doesn't I doubt it'll matter...

Also if Firaxis wanted to tailor-make a 4th age expansion to me it's an Alpha Centauri remake/spinoff not a modern era...

 

[Krikkit1]

I personally hope 4th age will come in one of the expansions, not necessary first, but only if Firaxis will found a way to make it interesting. Doing so on a fully settled map after Modern is really a challenge.

The reason why I want 4th age in expansion is because in civs 4-6 the game became very cluttered after second expansion with too many mechanics barely stitched together. Having one of the expansion focused on general game mechanics and one - on additional age, should make the game complexity just about right.

I think something they would need to do is "unsettle" the map and allow you to compete over it again.
You would have to do this in a way that the player would not hate the process... so

1. have a means to "Liberate" one of your settlements to become a friendly CS (ie something I can do with an extra settlement)

2. Let those friendly CS be able to be "stolen" back and forth (unlike suzereins of the first three eras currently).

3. Have a process whereby achievements You make (civics/techs) lower the Settlement Limit of the Other players [which means they lower yours.. and you end up with a much lower settlement limit by early through the Era...say 8-12]

And now you have Decolonization, Proxy Wars (because Nukes means no more Civ-Civ wars...although they should have MAD mechanics if you want to rule over the ashes), etc.

 

[reddishrecue]

A fourth age? That's what you guys think would fix this whole sudden civilization 7 drop?

Yes, that's the key point here, personal perception is surely different. To me Civ7 gives more variety in opponents than Civ6, but I understand that not everyone may feel the same way.

One thing to note here - I'm talking about opponent civs specifically. There are other ways where Civ7 limits variety, but those are outside the theme of this thread.


I personally hope 4th age will come in one of the expansions, not necessary first, but only if Firaxis will found a way to make it interesting. Doing so on a fully settled map after Modern is really a challenge.

The reason why I want 4th age in expansion is because in civs 4-6 the game became very cluttered after second expansion with too many mechanics barely stitched together. Having one of the expansion focused on general game mechanics and one - on additional age, should make the game complexity just about right.

So what kind of age do you have in mind? A future era? After the modern one like they used to have in civ 1? Or an era before ancient? For examples.. of what I would imagine you would want..

 

[Patine]

And yet the Byzantines called themselves the Roman empire.

Why is a self-referential label, largely of legacy, always used as a supposed definitive argument in this matter. Bolivar, in his day, referred to the independentist forces under his command, fighting Spain, as, "Americans."

 

[stealth_nsk]

A fourth age? That's what you guys think would fix this whole sudden civilization 7 drop?

Those are totally unrelated topic. 4th age is a planned expansion. Dealing with negative reviews is mostly marketing and bugfixing work. And drop in simultaneous players doesn't look like something which needs fixing yet (from data analytics standpoint this data doesn't indicate any problems in Firaxis, although Firaxis itself surely have more meaningful metrics, so they know if there are problems).

So what kind of age do you have in mind? A future era? After the modern one like they used to have in civ 1? Or an era before ancient? For examples.. of what I would imagine you would want..

Contemporary/Atomic/Information age, stating in 1960s and ending in the second half of 21th century with standard Civilization things like flight to Alpha Centaury.

 

[Krikkit1]

A potential 4th age Timeline/Tech-Civic Tree
(each entry is a tier)..
Time Period for inspiration of tier: Techs of Tier / Civics of Tier

1960-1970: Modern Biology, SpaceFlight, NuclearPhysics / Multinational Corp, Gender Equality, Decolonization

1970-1990: Ecology, Composites / Neocolonialism, Adult Education

1990-2010: Genetics, Internet / Globalization, Asymmetric Warfare

2010-2030: AdvElectronics, AI, AdvRocketry / Sustainability, Social Media

2030-2050: Bioengineering, Lasers, Robotics, Geoengineering / Industrial Ecosystems, Virtual Society

250-2070: Biospheres, Ion engines, Military Future Tech(repeats but doesn’t advance age)/ Autonomous Economy, Personalized Society

2070-2090: Nanotech, Superconductors / Cultural Future Civic (repeats but doesn’t advance age, Economic Future Civic (repeats but doesn’t advance age)

Below Techs only to advance Space Race Win

2090-2110: Quantum computing

2110+: Science Future Tech (repeats but doesn’t advance age)

2 Victories
Expansionist Victory: Colonize Mars, Requires Economic an Science Legacies

Diplomatic Victory: Dominate World, requires Cultural and Military Legacies

Those achieving a victory would probably be ahead of those…assuming actual average Victory in 80-100 turns for 2040-2060…so the later tech/civics may be more

 

[Lord Lakely]

The game doesn't need a fourth age. It should expand its roster of Civs first, then hopefully redesign Exploration in an XPac. Those are the mechanics it needs to address (UI aside).

If you're really that keen on post-modern science fiction nonsense, then petition Firaxis to release a pack of 20th century leaders. I'd rather have that.

 

[Leucarum]

If you're really that keen on post-modern science fiction nonsense, then petition Firaxis to release a pack of 20th century leaders. I'd rather have that.

Just let the mods roll in to be honest...

 

[socratic]

Great Britain/UK was the entire 3rd Age…we might still see a separate England 4th Age.

This is another problem. A lot of the contemporary choices they have are rife for controversy. England coming AFTER Britian has a loooot of political undertones and probably wouldn’t be received very well in the UK. Same with having the EU or NATO portrayed as one unified civ, any portrayal of China, etc

 

[Krikkit1]

This is another problem. A lot of the contemporary choices they have are rife for controversy. England coming AFTER Britian has a loooot of political undertones and probably wouldn’t be received very well in the UK. Same with having the EU or NATO portrayed as one unified civ, any portrayal of China, etc

I agree with the England... but a UK as distinct from Britain.. ie UK v British Empire should be fine.

For China... just portray as "China"... probably its uniques should NOT include Cultural Revolution/Leap Forward or Tianamen Square...But Dengs reforms, Belt and Road.. all things that could be good uniques. (no more controversial than Robber Barons)
Similar for... well any Modern civ... have its uniques reflect things about it that aren't too controversial (everything is somewhat controversial).

For an EU... they had ancient Greece which was often at war with itself... have the blurbs and unique ability reflect the fact that the EU is a loose alliance, and have the different Civics/Traditions represent different contributions of different regions (can't do individual nations is too many... but say Central (Germany), Western (France), Atlantic(Anglodutch), Southern (Spain/Italy), Eastern(Balkan/Poland), Northern(Scandanavian)

I probably would have too many "groupings" like that as civs.. not NATO/ASEAN... maaybe Warsaw Pact as it was a lot more united under the Soviet Union..East African Federation possibly, but I think that and EU would be it....

 

[Kurtbob]

Not against a modern age, but I would prefer something else (hopefully its not too off topic).

It would require quite the heavy lift (probably far more than creating a modern age), but I want to see a new medieval/renaissance age (drawing a blank on a better term...) in between antiquity and exploration. The exploration age in Civ7, to me, was made awkward and ahistorical in order to push the 'discovering distant lands' gameplay.

The Medieval/Renaissance era could focus on establishing religions in your civ through building certain buildings/wonders (culture track), urbanization/specialists (science track), guilds/owning multiples of unique resources (economic track) and obtaining vassals/conquest (diplo/military track).

The Exploration age (which should encompass the premodern era just prior to the enlightenment) could continue the religion game with the introduction of religious units that can spread religion to other civs and remove religions from your own civ (culture track), building institutes of higher education (science track), treasure fleets (economic track), and conquest of distant lands (military track).