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

[stealth_nsk]

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.

Politically all 3 versions of China are monarchies.

If we speak about immersion, that's a matter of personal preference. To me, 19th century USA with it's slavery, civil war, settling on the west, conflicts with Native Americans and so on is very different from post-industrial version of the USA.

And gameplay-wise the difference is even bigger. Frontier Expansion? Gold Rush? Wartime Manufacturing? Prospector? Steel Mill? Most of modern USA properies don't make any sense for 4th age. Same with UK.

 

[queenpea]

Politically all 3 versions of China are monarchies.

If we speak about immersion, that's a matter of personal preference. To me, 19th century USA with it's slavery, civil war, settling on the west, conflicts with Native Americans and so on is very different from post-industrial version of the USA.

And gameplay-wise the difference is even bigger. Frontier Expansion? Gold Rush? Wartime Manufacturing? Prospector? Steel Mill? Most of modern USA properies don't make any sense for 4th age. Same with UK.

I agree with you on the US, but the Modern Age ends with the space race—early 1960s. This ain’t the gold rush no more. That is why I said the Modern age will need to be tweaked.

If Modern ended in the 19th century, then yes it could work without major changes and the transition would make obvious sense.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I agree with you on the US, but the Modern Age ends with the space race—early 1960s. This ain’t the gold rush no more. That is why I said the Modern age will need to be tweaked.

If Modern ended in the 19th century, then yes it could work without major changes and the transition would make obvious sense.

TGings not spanning through the whole age timeline could be viewed as problem or not, but it's not related to the situation with 4th age.

What's important for 4th age is that those 6 civs which need repetition from modern, will have enough differences between their modern and 4th age versions.

Moreover, I suspect America was done that way for modern age exactly because Firaxis was having 4th age in mind.

 

[queenpea]

TGings not spanning through the whole age timeline could be viewed as problem or not, but it's not related to the situation with 4th age.

What's important for 4th age is that those 6 civs which need repetition from modern, will have enough differences between their modern and 4th age versions.

Moreover, I suspect America was done that way for modern age exactly because Firaxis was having 4th age in mind.

Sure, but the civ design and timeline that you described above doesn’t reflect what we have currently.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Sure, but the civ design and timeline that you described above doesn’t reflect what we have currently.

I think I don't get what you're trying to say and why it's a problem for 4th age implementation.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I’d probably go EU over any European states (that way multiple could be represented at the end point)

Hard pass if EU was a civ.

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.

You'd leave out the Soviets which would come from Russia?

If we speak about immersion, that's a matter of personal preference. To me, 19th century USA with it's slavery, civil war, settling on the west, conflicts with Native Americans and so on is very different from post-industrial version of the USA.

And gameplay-wise the difference is even bigger. Frontier Expansion? Gold Rush? Wartime Manufacturing? Prospector? Steel Mill? Most of modern USA properies don't make any sense for 4th age.

Marines still exist today. It would also be the biggest overlapping of cities between civs considering they are the same country. The U.S. is still producing steel too, just not as much as other countries and wartime manufacturing still definitely takes place.

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.

Which is why I've been saying that if they went with a more colonial version of America, a 4th age America would make more sense. It's quite possibly they were originally going to go with a more Colonial themed America in the beginning based off of the music theme.

 

[stealth_nsk]

You'd leave out the Soviets which would come from Russia?

Part of USSR is already represented by modern age Russia. And post WW2-Russia is a mess of 3 different political entities. Not to mention current controversy due to war.

All in all, I'm pretty sure modern age is enough for Russia representation.

Marines still exist today.

Yes, some things are still actual, but it doesn't prevent different implementation. Maybe some fighter jet would represent 4th age USA better.

It would also be the biggest overlapping of cities between civs considering they are the same country.

Ok, that's the biggest problem I've seen so far. Handling city names is an interesting task for Firaxis to handle.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Part of USSR is already represented by modern age Russia. And post WW2-Russia is a mess of 3 different political entities. Not to mention current controversy due to war.

All in all, I'm pretty sure modern age is enough for Russia representation.

True, but in that same argument you could say that parts of post WWII America are already represented in Modern America with the things I mentioned above, more so I think than Russia representing the USSR.

I think that's a telling sign including WWII units for Russia, Prussia, and Japan that they aren't looking to create whole new civs for the fourth age. One would think that they would want to save those units for a later civ. A post-modern Age without the Soviets, even if they are considered controversial, would be a major omission.

 

[stealth_nsk]

True, but in that same argument you could say that parts of post WWII America are already represented in Modern America with the things I mentioned above, more so I think than Russia representing the USSR.

Yes, but USA can't be omitted for marketing reasons.

I think that's a telling sign including WWII units for Russia, Prussia, and Japan that they aren't looking to create whole new civs for the fourth age.

I agree here, although I believe Prussia leaves enough design space due to it specifically not named Germany. Probably we'll not see Germany for 4th age on expansion release, but it could be reserved for future.

One would think that they would want to save those units for a later civ. A post-modern Age without the Soviets, even if they are considered controversial, would be a major omission.

As a person who was born in USSR I kind of disagree. Launching people to space was the pinnacle of its achievements. After this there were 30 years of going downwards. If 4th age will not focus on cold war (and I don't think it will due to ideologies being modern age thing), I don't think it would lose anything without soviets. Especially if it will have focus on technologies, internet, etc.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

As a person who was born in USSR I kind of disagree. Launching people to space was the pinnacle of its achievements. After this there were 30 years of going downwards. If 4th age will not focus on cild war (and I don't think it will due to ideologies being modern age thing), I don't think it would lose anything without soviets. Especially if it will have focus on technologies, internet, etc.

That's more of a design problem with the game having the Modern Age spanning from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to the Space Race. That way they could lump Germany into Prussia and Soviets into Russia without the need for a future age filled with potential controversial choices.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That's more of a design problem with the game having the Modern Age spanning from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to the Space Race. That way they could lump Germany into Prussia and Soviets into Russia without the need for a future age filled with potential controversial choices.

Any game has its level of abstraction. I don't expect Civ7 to change its core mechanics, so with that assumption it totally could skip USSR.

 

[Leucarum]

Any game has its level of abstraction. I don't expect Civ7 to change its core mechanics, so with that assumption it totally could skip USSR.

Hopefully even if there is a 4th age it skips any new civs for it. 3 eras with a diverse enough roster to be satisfying is still very, very far away, a 4th era with a new lineup before that is sorted would be a very bad move on Firaxis' part.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Hopefully even if there is a 4th age it skips any new civs for it. 3 eras with a diverse enough roster to be satisfying is still very, very far away, a 4th era with a new lineup before that is sorted would be a very bad move on Firaxis' part.

I wouldn't say it's far away, after the next bunch of DLCs will be released, we'll be like 3-4 civs per era before fully satisfying roster.

My expectations are:

• We'll get 13 civs per age (39 total) by the end of Founder's edition content. That's already confirmed.
• If the next expansion will be focused on 4th age, it could have 2 civs for existing age and 15 civs for 4th age. That's 21 civ in the expansion and 60 civs total with it (15 per age). This scale of expansion generally fits expansions to previous civ games.
• Some popular civs will be left for later DLCs and/or second expansion.

 

[Leucarum]

I wouldn't say it's far away, after the next bunch of DLCs will be released, we'll be like 3-4 civs per era before fully satisfying roster.

My expectations are:

• We'll get 13 civs per age (39 total) by the end of Founder's edition content. That's already confirmed.
• If the next expansion will be focused on 4th age, it could have 2 civs for existing age and 15 civs for 4th age. That's 21 civ in the expansion and 60 civs total with it (15 per age). This scale of expansion generally fits expansions to previous civ games.
• Some popular civs will be left for later DLCs and/or second expansion.

I guess the point of difference is that I think it's likely gonna need a lot more than 3-4 per age to feel good. Probably more like 8-12 more civs per age. Playing exclusively small maps things are pretty repetitive there, and untenable on large. So for larger maps to be viable we need a lot more IMO. Rather than ramping up the number of civs, I think for a 4 age structure to work, it's far more likely that Civ switching would probably have to go first.

I'd overwhelmingly prefer Firaxis to keep adding more civs to a smaller number of ages than spreading themselves any thinner. If the box feature of an expansion was a new age worth of civs... I'll probably become an EU5 main at that point.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I wonder if Firaxis will simply extend the Modern Age into present day or add a distinct 4th Age after the Modern Age?

I think both approaches would require some restructuring of the game. Extending the Modern Age would require adding a bunch of new techs and civics and changing the tech and civics trees. And the devs would need to change the victory conditions too. Some of the legacy milestones could stay but not be game ending victories anymore. They would need to add new final milestones as victories. If the devs opt for adding a 4th Age, they could keep the Modern Age legacy milestones, just not make them game-ending anymore. Instead they would provide legacy bonuses. And then the 4th Age would be the new tech and civics trees with new victory paths.

In any case, I really hope we get more contemporary and future techs/civics. The game just feels like it is missing something to end with 1950-60s military tech. I want stealth bombers! LOL.

We know that late game fatigue and players not finishing games was one of the devs' big concerns. So I wonder if maybe the devs purposely ended the game in the 1960s to prevent the game from "dragging on" and causing late game fatigue.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I think both approaches would require some restructuring of the game. Extending the Modern Age would require adding a bunch of new techs and civics and changing the tech and civics trees. And the devs would need to change the victory conditions too. Some of the legacy milestones could stay but not be game ending victories anymore. They would need to add new final milestones as victories. If the devs opt for adding a 4th Age, they could keep the Modern Age legacy milestones, just not make them game-ending anymore. Instead they would provide legacy bonuses. And then the 4th Age would be the new tech and civics trees with new victory paths.

I think if it were to happen, triggering a "victory" condition could result in a crisis such as building the World Bank could create a Stock Market Crash etc.

 

[socratic]

I wonder if Firaxis will simply extend the Modern Age into present day or add a distinct 4th Age after the Modern Age?

I think both approaches would require some restructuring of the game. Extending the Modern Age would require adding a bunch of new techs and civics and changing the tech and civics trees. And the devs would need to change the victory conditions too. Some of the legacy milestones could stay but not be game ending victories anymore. They would need to add new final milestones as victories. If the devs opt for adding a 4th Age, they could keep the Modern Age legacy milestones, just not make them game-ending anymore. Instead they would provide legacy bonuses. And then the 4th Age would be the new tech and civics trees with new victory paths.

In any case, I really hope we get more contemporary and future techs/civics. The game just feels like it is missing something to end with 1950-60s military tech. I want stealth bombers! LOL.

We know that late game fatigue and players not finishing games was one of the devs' big concerns. So I wonder if maybe the devs purposely ended the game in the 1960s to prevent the game from "dragging on" and causing late game fatigue.

Modern age already goes wayyy too fast for me. Id be fine if they added more stuff to pan it out.

 

[queenpea]

I think I don't get what you're trying to say and why it's a problem for 4th age implementation.

The version of America you are describing is not what we really received in Vanilla.

To me, 19th century USA with it's slavery, civil war, settling on the west, conflicts with Native Americans and so on is very different from post-industrial version of the USA.

And gameplay-wise the difference is even bigger. Frontier Expansion? Gold Rush? Wartime Manufacturing? Prospector? Steel Mill? Most of modern USA properies don't make any sense for 4th age. Same with UK.

In VII, the Modern age spans from the 18th century to close to the end of the 20th century. Yes, we have the Prospector and "Frontier Expansion". These are basically gold bonuses on resources. There are no references to slavery or civil war, and the connection between the prospector unit and westward expansion/manifest destiny is pretty tenuous.

"Yankee Ingenuity" speaks to early American history. Captains of Industry refers to the Gilded Age. Wartime Manufacturing brings us to the Depression and WWII. The model of the UU, the Marine, shows infantrymen riding in an armored vehicle. Again, we are closer to WWII in this timeline. Yes, this is due to the awkward nature of ages. France in Modern is the same -- it references the Revolution(s), two Empires, and multiple Republics. Russia is similar.

My point isn't that I disagree with you and that differentiating between two versions of America is impossible. My point is that it is more difficult than you are suggesting. If you want to have a 20th century / 21st century America for a fourth age, then the version of America we have in Modern will require some serious changes. If Civ VII had presented an America that was more uniformly attached to its earlier, colonial and pre-war history, then I would feel differently about the ease of designing a successor.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I guess the point of difference is that I think it's likely gonna need a lot more than 3-4 per age to feel good. Probably more like 8-12 more civs. Playing exclusively small maps things are pretty repetitive there, and untenable on large. So for larger maps to be viable we need a lot more IMO.

Huge map in Civ6 by default has 12 players, so with 15 civs per age it will be already totally playable. And anyway, if we look at those calculations, with, say 20 more civs coming in second expansion, we'll have 20 civs per age after it (80 total) even without any additional DLCs.

Even then I'd overwhelmingly prefer Firaxis to keep adding more civs to a smaller number of ages than spreading themselves any thinner. If the box feature of an expansion was a new age worth of civs... I'll probably become an EU5 main at that point.

I don't expect adding any more ages past 4th. Those four has significant core gameplay differences, others won't make such sense.

The version of America you are describing is not what we really received in Vanilla.

In VII, the Modern age spans from the 18th century to close to the end of the 20th century. Yes, we have the Prospector and "Frontier Expansion". These are basically gold bonuses on resources. There are no references to slavery or civil war, and the connection between the prospector unit and westward expansion/manifest destiny is pretty tenuous.

"Yankee Ingenuity" speaks to early American history. Captains of Industry refers to the Gilded Age. Wartime Manufacturing brings us to the Depression and WWII. The model of the UU, the Marine, shows infantrymen riding in an armored vehicle. Again, we are closer to WWII in this timeline. Again, this is due to the awkward nature of ages. France in Modern is the same -- it references the Revolution(s), two Empires, and multiple Republics. Russia is similar.

My point isn't that I disagree with you and that differentiating between two versions of America is impossible. My point is that it is more difficult than you are suggesting. If you want to have a 20th century / 21st century America for a fourth age, then the version of America we have in Modern will require some serious changes. If Civ VII had presented an America that was more uniformly attached to its earlier, colonial and pre-war history, then I would feel differently about the ease of designing a successor.

I see. The main disagreement here is that I don't think any retroactive changes are needed.

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.

So, while some things surely still exist, like marines or lend-lease or some steel plants, they aren't as core as they were. So, the new version focused on 4th age gameplay could totally coexist with the modern version.

 

[Leucarum]

Huge map in Civ6 by default has 12 players, so with 15 civs per age it will be already totally playable.

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

I don't expect adding any more ages past 4th. Those four has significant core gameplay differences, others won't make such sense

I don't expect any more than 4 either. Maybe a misunderstanding of what I was saying? I was saying that there's a high chance that if a 4th age is added, that would push me to play EU5 instead of Civ7. Civ7 is not diverse enough with 3 ages, adding a 4th when the first three are struggling would be a dealbreaker for me I think. Especially if they do it before a big increase in the civ lineup... Give me those imaginary 20 civs spread out among the other ages please.