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

[queenpea]

If they would have gone with the name "Colonial America" and based it around the Revolution and Articles of Confederation, I agree it would work. Considering Modern America is more based around the late 1800s; I think they would basically have to rework it into a whole different civ for it to work for me personally. I feel almost the same way about Great Britain into potentially a U.K. civ.

Those ones I wouldn't really have a problem with other than the fact how would they design a 1950s Germany and later to make it interesting? Surely not a Berlin Wall improvement, unless they decide to go Oktoberfest.
At least Japan could have an Otaku quarter for video games and anime studios.
But in all seriousness, I think most people are looking more forward to earlier ages of Japan so they can have Samurai etc.

A Berlin Wall tile improvement would be hilarious

 

[stealth_nsk]

I really don't understand the problem with having modern age America and 4th age USA in the game. They clearly will have different gameplay traits, because modern age focuses on exploration and productuon, while 4th age is likely to be about economics and science.

And with the game having India and China spanning through 3 ages, I don't see any problems with other civs having direct successors.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I really don't understand the problem with having modern age America and 4th age USA in the game. They clearly will have different gameplay traits, because modern age focuses on exploration and productuon, while 4th age is likely to be about economics and science.

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.

And with the game having India and China spanning through 3 ages, I don't see any problems with other civs having direct successors.

Those at least are different dynasties/ empires.

 

[socratic]

It’s already been said but a lot of the Modern civs are essentially renamed versions of their other counterparts (Britian is basically just England, Prussia is basically just Germany, Meiji Japan and Russia have units from their later periods, etc). I think a 4-Age system was planned at some point and things were merged into the current Modern later in development.

 

[MutilationWave]

Creating new civs for a 4th age is such a waste of effort. Just keep the same civ from the 3rd age. We need new civs for antiquity and exploration badly, and if we can get more natural progression of civs like China currently has, this could help please the people who are upset by civ switching.

 

[queenpea]

Creating new civs for a 4th age is such a waste of effort. Just keep the same civ from the 3rd age. We need new civs for antiquity and exploration badly, and if we can get more natural progression of civs like China currently has, this could help please the people who are upset by civ switching.

I get why you would say that, but there are a lot of players who might be frustrated by not being able to play as “China” and “India” (etc.) as well.

I think every age needs new Civ additions, but I think the three ages we have now will be developed simultaneously and each age will receive new civs with equal urgency. Otherwise, we may see civ choice bottleneck.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I get why you would say that, but there are a lot of players who might be frustrated by not being able to play as “China” and “India” (etc.) as well.

I think the majority of people wouldn't really care for modern iterations of them, especially on these forums. Maybe you have outliers that don't want to end China as the Qing, and India as the Mughals. But I'm not sure if the answer is to add them which would inevitably also include civs such as Soviets/Soviet Russia, Germany, Canada, Australia, South Africa etc. which might not be as popular choices. Maybe for casuals and marketing purposes, but not the hardcore historians.

 

[queenpea]

I think the majority of people wouldn't really care for modern iterations of them, especially on these forums. Maybe you have outliers that don't want to end China as the Qing, and India as the Mughals. But I'm not sure if the answer is to add them which would inevitably also include civs such as Soviets/Soviet Russia, Germany, Canada, Australia, South Africa etc. which might not be as popular choices. Maybe for casuals and marketing purposes, but not the hardcore historians.

I agree with you on the forum set! I just think there is probably a good number of players (casual players and certainly not historians) out there who may be tempted to pay the $60 for a shot to play these more “traditional” civs in an expansion pack.

At least, I think that’s what the plan has been. I’m not claiming it will necessarily be a success.

 

[Krikkit1]

The game doesn’t have logical predecessor or successor civilizations for most of the civs in the game at present. Yes, you can make an excessively long thread on why Greece to Normans makes sense to you personally, but who is to say that America to USA has to make a lot of logical sense in order for this to be included as a progression in a video game?

It’s not as if the game is perfect and comprised of only perfect civ transitions from age to age.

To play devil’s advocate, and to use the logic of the game against itself in order to propose something that would absolutely anger almost every fan, America could transition to Canada in the fourth age and this would be considered a “geographic” choice. ()

America could also transition to Indonesia or Nigeria due to gameplay unlocks. Which seems reasonable since America could be a Communist Monarchy sprawled across a Tundra Archipelago.

 

[Leucarum]

I think the game needs a lot more variety within the first 3 ages before it would be remotely ready for a 4th. The game's roster already gets too repetitive, and gameplay within exploration/modern eras is similarly repetitive. Fixing the existing structure has got to be the first priority.

The exception I could see is that if Firaxis reworked the existing civs to remove civ switching, then the problems of repetitive games would be significantly less of an issue.

 

[Xandinho]

I think the game is structured in a way that leaves room for the possibility of a fourth era, especially given the abrupt ending of the Modern Age. Speaking for myself, I definitely don't want another civ switching—especially considering that most civ options for a Contemporary Age wouldn't be very appealing—but a fourth era as merely an extension of the third wouldn't bother me.

That said, I agree with the posters above: the three existing eras still need significant adjustments before a fourth era can even be considered. The Modern Age, in particular, feels like a chaotic rush toward victory, and I barely feel like I'm playing as my civ. For example, if I want to play as France, it's only available in the Modern Age, and I can hardly enjoy its features because I'm forced to focus desperately on just achieving a victory.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think the game is structured in a way that leaves room for the possibility of a fourth era, especially given the abrupt ending of the Modern Age. Speaking for myself, I definitely don't want another civ switching—especially considering that most civ options for a Contemporary Age wouldn't be very appealing—but a fourth era as merely an extension of the third wouldn't bother me.

That said, I agree with the posters above: the three existing eras still need significant adjustments before a fourth era can even be considered. The Modern Age, in particular, feels like a chaotic rush toward victory, and I barely feel like I'm playing as my civ. For example, if I want to play as France, it's only available in the Modern Age, and I can hardly enjoy its features because I'm forced to focus desperately on just achieving a victory.

On the plus aide adding a 4th age means that Modern becomes more like Exploration… getting the Legacies and Territory that set you up for the Final Victory… so you will actually get to play as France/Buganda before win rushing as Soviets/Australia.

 

[Vandlys]

Yes. And I think I made my opinion perfectly clear in the thread I started on it: Age Beyond Earth; Future DLC Possibility?

Then @sTAPler27 made a thread on the topic (Can we Speculate a Potential 4th Age from Civ 6's Era system?) and I posted a comment in that thread explaining my opinion and linking back to my original thread.

Now I'm here doing the exact same thing a third time, and I keep wondering why Civfanatics users have such a tendency to keep opening threads on the same topics.

I'm expecting to see an age after modern, just like Civ VI got after a while. I'm hoping to see a Beyond Earth style DLC after that.

I'll quote myself here:

I've said it before (when Civ VI was released) and I've said it again (when the ages first were introduced I created a thread about it), but I want to see an age beyond earth! Did you hear me @FXS_Sar ?

The way they developed the game is perfect in my opinion for introducing (finally) a hybrid mainline Civ and Beyond Earth. Invent new Civilizations that have certain aspects making them unlockable from earlier Civs and accomplishments. Have us win the Space Race to get a boost in that age. Make a crisis like overpopulation, disease, climate, and off we go to a new planet, or even a drowned version of earth, or a new ice age. I don't know, something weird and futuristic and entirely skippable for people who do not like it. Make it a spin-off that's integrated and charge me 30 credits!

 

[Porry]

I would also like a fourth era in the style of Beyond the Earth. There could also be a change of civilization but, given the problems of proposing a contemporary civilization, they should be fantasy, as someone had already proposed, like Beyond the earth.
I would like to see in this era aquatic and space countries and cities, as they did in Call to Power

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

This is what 'change civs at every age' gives out the problems. Postmodern Age politics will be more of Federations and less of Empires. Evolutionary parts will be compulsory.

- Russia will be Soviet Bloc.
- Qing will be China
- Siam will be ASEAN
- Mughal will be India
- Buganda will be African League
This comes to problems with France, Germany, America and Mexico .. (and Nepal and GB).

 

[Pfeffersack]

Yes I think a ppst-modern Age will happen.

1. WMDs are quite underutilized in the Modern Age and just used as a very late game weapon and a victory condition. We need nukes as deterrent (and yes, Gandhi!) and the posssibility of nuclear warfare and MAD. There can be an apocalypse timer at the end of this age when a certain number of nukes are launched, which will provide in a dystopian end.

2. A concept of climate change can be introduced and more disaster mechanics and prevention. Dams and canals can make an appearance here, as well as concept of Power as an economic resource. Geothermal, Solar, Nuclear plants can be introduced. The apocalypse timer suggested in #1 can trigger more frequent environmental disasters. Pollution mechanics can also appear here.

3. Postmodern civs. I am a bit biased here, because our national hero Rizal deperately needs a civ attached. We also need a different take on Russia in the form of USSR, another China, another India, Germany, and other postcolonial civs.

4. Post modern Age may overhaul diplomacy mechanic and put it front and center in the form of Civ Unions. While civs tend to align in Ideologies in Modern Age, a fourth age may introduce a mechanic where civs can form unions, with joint declaration of policies and sanctions, a form of World Congress and diplomatic victory condition.

5. Post modern Age sees science moving ahead and introduce Scientific Breakthroughs. These Breakthroughs mark scientific milestones towards the final science victory. We can see the return of Moon Landing, the creation of ISS (may also tie up with some diplomacy-related bonus), and Mars Colonization. Other tech can introduce the Internet, Drone Technology, etc.

6. We need Tourism concept back and Post Modern Age can implement it. Old relics should be persistent across Ages including their yields) but also add a Tourism yield during the final age. Wonders will now also yield Tourism points. Cinema building can be seen here and relic slots will be in the form of movies, which yields Tourism as well. I may also suggest to rework the Migrant mechanic that can make them usable in other civs. Once activated in other civ, they provide boost to production, influence and culture, but will add Tourism to the civ in which they were activated.

Agreeing with almost everything, though the dams/canals (especially the latter I really, really miss from Civ6...it was just too cool to puzzle cities with two canals to pass through a three tile isthmus) would already fit in the 3rd age.

 

[Krikkit1]

This is what 'change civs at every age' gives out the problems. Postmodern Age politics will be more of Federations and less of Empires. Evolutionary parts will be compulsory.

- Russia will be Soviet Bloc.
- Qing will be China
- Siam will be ASEAN
- Mughal will be India
- Buganda will be African League
This comes to problems with France, Germany, America and Mexico .. (and Nepal and GB).

This is assuming there is a “stack”
Russia, Buganda don’t have to “become” anything they just have to unlock at least one of the new civs that are made.
Same as Inca doesn’t become Mexico…it does unlock Mexico though.

so Soviet Union/Bloc, sure
China, India sure
Probably not African League/Union…but
Nigeria, South Africa, East African Federation…sure
I’d probably go EU over any European states (that way multiple could be represented at the end point)

Before they do this they should give players narrative control over the names of their civ changes…so can go from Meijii Japan to getting the EU uniques and continue to call it Meiji Japan if I want. (or continue to call it Rome..because that’s what I’ve been calling it since Antiquity)

 

[socratic]

On the plus aide adding a 4th age means that Modern becomes more like Exploration… getting the Legacies and Territory that set you up for the Final Victory… so you will actually get to play as France/Buganda before win rushing as Soviets/Australia.

This kinda creates the same problem though. You’re going to have to rush with the new set of civs. I think the solution is not to make a new era, but to expand the Modern era with content that would go to this 4th age

 

[stealth_nsk]

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.

I think there are enough differences if you look at 19th century vs. 21th century version. But that's the question of personal perception.

Creating new civs for a 4th age is such a waste of effort. Just keep the same civ from the 3rd age. We need new civs for antiquity and exploration badly, and if we can get more natural progression of civs like China currently has, this could help please the people who are upset by civ switching.

There will be needed less than half civs to be renewed. USA, UK, Germany, France, China and India are the only mandatory 4th age civs which have modern age counterpart. All others are better to be replaced.

I don't think it makes sense to break the game approach for 6 civs out of 60 we'll likely have after 4th age expansion (providing it will be the first expansion).

 

[queenpea]

I think there are enough differences if you look at 19th century vs. 21th century version. But that's the question of personal perception.

I think the difficulty is that Modern Age ends somewhere in the early 1960s-ish with the science victory representing the moon landing.

Obviously between the 1960 and current day the United States has changed a great deal culturally, but politically it’s still the same system of government, and it makes the Civ switch seem very subtle (or non existent) compared to other era changes.

To make it work, they will need to tweak the Modern age models pretty significantly.