Does winning in ancient and exploration matter?

[protocol7]

I’ve seen some complaints about how much on rails you are to complete legacy paths and it gets very samey. But since yesterday I’ve run three games where I’ve:

1. Start a new game on deity
2. Just play around, intentionally lose every legacy path during exploration and ancient
3. Easily win any modern path

I get the allure to try to win those paths in the first eras, but after this testing I don’t think you’re really on rails forced into similar strategies. In reality it doesn’t matter at all what you do in those eras (as long as you survive) because it’s so easy to win with a clean slate in modern. Arguably winning on modern is even easier than the earlier eras.

What do you think, has anyone had different experiences where it mattered once you got to modern that you had done anything in particular in the other eras?

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Against the AI? Not sure it matters at all. Multiplayer might be different though.

 

[Sagax]

Legacy points from earlier eras shave off a few turns worth of cost from the final victory projects in Modern, but that’s about it. If you’ve snowballed enough in Modern, then indeed they don’t matter much. In theory, they would matter if you ever ended up in a tight race, but looks like it’s not a concern for now when the AI doesn’t seem to actively pursue a victory.

That said, I try to clear Science legacies anyway, because I’ve got no patience to wait for three space projects to complete at their normal cost.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I’ve seen some complaints about how much on rails you are to complete legacy paths and it gets very samey. But since yesterday I’ve run three games where I’ve:

1. Start a new game on deity
2. Just play around, intentionally lose every legacy path during exploration and ancient
3. Easily win any modern path

I get the allure to try to win those paths in the first eras, but after this testing I don’t think you’re really on rails forced into similar strategies. In reality it doesn’t matter at all what you do in those eras (as long as you survive) because it’s so easy to win with a clean slate in modern. Arguably winning on modern is even easier than the earlier eras.

What do you think, has anyone had different experiences where it mattered once you got to modern that you had done anything in particular in the other eras?

Sure it matters. Game's about the journey not the destination and always has been.

 

[King of Prussia]

Even with the rubberbanding that the era system brings to pull you back together, how you played the first 2 eras matters a lot. If you planned ahead properly, you can rubberband yourself forward pretty far in the modern era.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Even with the rubberbanding that the era system brings to pull you back together, how you played the first 2 eras matters a lot. If you planned ahead properly, you can rubberband yourself forward pretty far in the modern era.

For sure, but what matters most is the same thing that has always mattered in Civ: do you have good land and can you defend it? I don't know that the legacy paths themselves matter much, although you naturally complete some of them as you go, of course.

 

[Buckets]

For sure, but what matters most is the same thing that has always mattered in Civ: do you have good land and can you defend it? I don't know that the legacy paths themselves matter much, although you naturally complete some of them as you go, of course.

Land and pop. In fact maybe population is the only important factor as land is just a way to hold pop. If you have pop you have yields.

 

[chazzycat]

They certainly help if you want to play in specific ways. For example, I can't imagine going tall specialist-heavy without the left side of the expansionist attribute tree. There's also a really key attribute in each of the culture & science trees to compliment that style. So if you don't accrue a decent number of military, science & culture points in the first two ages, that option will be far less attractive in modern age (or maybe off the table completely).

So overall to me they do matter, and can reward proper planning. But at the same time, aren't necessary. As everyone is saying, it's totally viable to ignore them and go grab some land. I think that is a pretty good design.

 

[BrianKindly]

Will likely matter more in multiplayer and in the future when they get the AI reasonably tuned and not doing crazy ****

 

[GeneralZift]

We went from Modern Era doesn't matter to only Modern Era matters?

 

[protocol7]

What was the modern era doesn’t matter idea? As far as I know it’s the one where you win the game.

 

[vorlon_mi]

In previous Civ titles, including (but not limited to) Civ6, it was possible to snowball in earlier eras to have all but guaranteed a win by the Renaissance era. Conquer enough land, build up your gold and/or faith yields enough, and the AI could not catch you.

 

[Gori the Grey]

What was the modern era doesn’t matter idea? As far as I know it’s the one where you win the game.

In previous Civ titles, including (but not limited to) Civ6, it was possible to snowball in earlier eras to have all but guaranteed a win by the Renaissance era. Conquer enough land, build up your gold and/or faith yields enough, and the AI could not catch you.

. . . and then a lot of people quit playing (I have a folder of saves titled "call it a win").

. . . and Civ VII's major design focus was to remedy that.

(so "doesn't matter" = "people don't bother playing it")

 

[aelf]

You probably don't have to win anything in the earlier ages, but the legacy points are certainly nice. In any case, the legacy paths seem to serve as good guidelines for strong gameplay. Pursuing the science legacy paths, for example, tends to set you up with a strong science base.

 

[GeneralZift]

I still don't believe anything is inherently wrong with Civ's design that requires such a drastic remedy as the Ages system.
I think this concept that games are 'done' by the Renaissance is just underlying issues like game balance, AI intelligence and catch-up mechanic designs.

In other words, people say that the late game is boring because it's never competitive are blaming the late game itself rather than the surrounding issues. If the AI was better (competent) and the game was more balanced, and the players had improved mechanics to catch-up, I think you'd find that the game would be interesting all the way until the end.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I still don't believe anything is inherently wrong with Civ's design that requires such a drastic remedy as the Ages system.

I don't think "require" is the right word here. It was surely possible to make another game with more or less classic recipe. Just adding things like commanders, influence-based diplomacy and navigable rivers with some smaller features would make the game feel fresh enough...

But I really like that Firaxis had courage to make some revolutionary changes. Yes, not all fans enjoy it and yes, the scale of new things didn't leave enough time to polish the game yet. But to me it still much better than releasing some Civ 6½.

 

[GeneralZift]

I don't think "require" is the right word here. It was surely possible to make another game with more or less classic recipe. Just adding things like commanders, influence-based diplomacy and navigable rivers with some smaller features would make the game feel fresh enough...

But I really like that Firaxis had courage to make some revolutionary changes. Yes, not all fans enjoy it and yes, the scale of new things didn't leave enough time to polish the game yet. But to me it still much better than releasing some Civ 6½.

I appreciate this opinion to be honest and I respect this. I believe all the changes minus the ages would've been fresh enough actually, but the team does experiment heavily every game with one huge new feature so it makes sense.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

Does how the performance in Legacy paths effect the number of 'points' you get in Modern? I though they were holding back the information in the run up to the game because they had not finalized the system, but the game is here and I still don't know.

I think loosing at a video game is easy to take personally, and my unfounded speculations is there is data that suggests games sell less if they have a reputation of being difficult to win.

Once/if the UI is better I think the Modern point systems will be reworked. They could also add some additional challenge for difficulty such as you have hit a gold age millstone or two level two milestones to complete the game, or remove default unlocks and force you to unlock a civ to continue.

 

[Zaarin]

Does how the performance in Legacy paths effect the number of 'points' you get in Modern? I though they were holding back the information in the run up to the game because they had not finalized the system, but the game is here and I still don't know.

It affects how much you have to invest in the victory projects, I believe.

 

[ProMeTheus112]

I think if you aren't winning the legacy paths in ancient or exploration, it can be quite all right as long as you still own a good bunch of things in modern (in higher difficulty). You could be in a good spot in modern because you have good towns and some other stuff but behind in legacy points. It matters what you do in ancient or exploration, but it's not just about legacy points.