Easing the Unit/War Age Transition

[Krikkit1]

One thing that bothered some people about the Age Transition is the sudden teleporting of units back to your settlements.

So some ideas that might help

On any non final age, when you reach the "Crisis Period" (even if Crises are off)
1. for every age % above 70, units outside of friendly territory cost +5% maintenance, tripled if in enemy territory
2. for every 10 age % above 70, units outside of friendly territory get a -1 CS penalty (every 5 age % if in enemy territory)

That would encourage you to move troops back home during the end of the age

When you transitioned to a new Age your units would not Teleport, instead they would become obsolete versions of the units
1. Obsolete units that were in your settlements would upgrade/be eliminated (according to the regular rules... and only using Commanders that were in your settlements)
2. Remaining Obsolete units
-have a CS penalty of 10? ?5+1 for each other military unit you have?
-could never upgrade to non Obsolete (ie never above the basic for the age)
-never benefit from commanders and never give experience to them


Finally, the insta resolved wars would go away too.
If you ended the Age at war, the first turn of the new Age you would still be at war... but all War Support would be set to 0
When picking Legacy, both players would separately have the option to "Continue the Ancient War" giving the other side a large War Support (if they both separately pick it, it cancels out).. if neither one picks to Continue, the War ends as it does now

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think war resolution (and everything coming with it like units returning home) is an organic part of the age transition. You have your goals changed and continuing previous wars often don't make much sense.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I don't really get the complaints, honestly. It just requires some adjustment. You know it will happen at the beginning of a new Age, so you plan accordingly. Set realistic military goals if warring towards the end of an Age, prepare for the beginning of the next Age by stacking units in Commanders, think about how to get off to a strong start in the next Age if your intention is to immediately go to war again.

The biggest issue with late Age war imo is that units towards the end of the tech tree don't get much chance to shine.

 

[stealth_nsk]

prepare for the beginning of the next Age by stacking units in Commanders

Minor correction - you don't need to stack units in Commanders, the game will do it for you, you just need those commanders somewhere

 

[MrRadar]

I'm quite ok with the transition as it is. Perhaps, the troops composition at the start of the new age might reflect a bit closer what you had before, as now I find myself owning excessive proportions of mortars when emerging into the Exploration from Antiquity and piled up onto a couple of commanders who then have nothing else, so I have to organize a big jamboree for my commanders first thing, to redistribute units among them more evenly, but otherwise it's curtains for the old world and ways.

 

[evonannoredars]

I don't really mind it as it is. Decreasing combat strength could be interesting, although not starting so soon.
One of my #1 wishes for the game would be a fixed countdown towards the end of the age once era progress hits 95% or something. I loveddd trying to figure out how to optimise my last ten turns for that golden age in civ 6, so a countdown for civ 7 could be great. I could see something incentivising players to get their units back home during these last 10 turns being effective (sudden ramp up in barbarian invasion, plagues occuring in neutral territory, needing armies to put down revolts, etc).

 

[MrRadar]

One of my #1 wishes for the game would be a fixed countdown towards the end of the age once era progress hits 95% or something.

And for me the unpredictability regarding the exact final turn is one of the best features. You never know if the next turn some AIs would complete a few major legacy milestones, advancing the end of the age by 20 or 30 turns. And that creates a certain thrill.

 

[evonannoredars]

And for me the unpredictability regarding the exact final turn is one of the best features. You never know if the next turn some AIs would complete a few major legacy milestones, advancing the end of the age by 20 or 30 turns. And that creates a certain thrill.

Very fair, I see the appeal of that too - now I think about it I've had some very tense games where I've just been able to reach a milestone before the era ended and the unpredictability definitely added to that. Maybe five turns once it hits 100% would strike a good balance between uncertainty regarding how long exactly you have left and a few precious last turns to scramble to wrap everything up.

Tbh one of my main issues is the random extra turn or two the game will give you after it says the age is ending, it's a bit anticlimactic

 

[uppi]

I kinda like the cleanup functionality of the age transition. By the end of an age, units tend to be all over the map. Some units are long forgotten in some corner in the map set on sleep to never wake up again. The AI needs to give up its obsolete units it. You just know it would bring hordes of spearmen into the Modern age if it could. Relations get normalized a bit and maybe there is a chance at a new alliance. Just because we have a centuries-long grudge with the Romans does not mean we cannot make an alliance with the Normans. Actually, I would like an even further reduction of relations towards normal than it is now.

Tbh one of my main issues is the random extra turn or two the game will give you after it says the age is ending, it's a bit anticlimactic

As far as I can tell, the message is displayed when the age progress counter hits 100%. However, it will do that even when the counter is at 199/200, but the age will only end when it hits 200/200. If you hover over the counter to see the actual value you should be able to tell whether you will get another turn or not.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

I don't think the age transitions CAN be fixed. Not in a way that will feel "believable" or "immersive".

The entire concept is flawed. Sorry.

 

[misesfan]

I don't think the age transitions CAN be fixed. Not in a way that will feel "believable" or "immersive".

The entire concept is flawed. Sorry.

I agree - this concept was flawed in Humankind, and I dont think Civ 7 has improved it. But lots of people are enjoying it here. I dont get it. It ruins immersion, the game is seemingly on rails, and its arguably incomplete. Its not a good game, currently. I am hoping that Firaxis can turn it around. But given the predatory monetization in the game, my hopes arent that high.....

 

[marius_kaparius]

I am happy with the reset after the age ends. A fun change could be that you could do things to extend the age. Imagine a policy you could slot that doesn't progress the age when scoring on that path and prevents others from doing so. You're essentially locking them into the age to duke it out and maybe they have to score on one of the other paths to break out and get the reset. This sounds a lot like professional wrestling when I read it back.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

In my experience, the 'Happiness' Crises are not bad enough. Admittedly, I have not played Diety yet, but on every level below that both myself and the AI Civs seem to have no trouble going into the Crisis Period (end of Antiquity) with 25 - 50 Happiness, and so sail through any Happiness Crisis with impunity.

Jack up the Happiness penalties (part of a general 'regrading' of the Crisis Periods, perhaps) and you would automatically increase the possibility/probability of cities in Revolt and breaking away. That would, in the game, force the gamer to keep or bring some troops back before or as the Crisis started to keep his/her in-game gains.

This would also (of interest to me if no one else) serve to model the real Crisis at the end of the western Roman Empire, which was more about internal disruption by elements of the Roman Army in revolt and civil war than the migrations of 'German Barbarians' which were far more immigration of people into parts of the Empire that had been depopulated by multiple pandemics than military conquest.

This alternative to the perceived Crisis Problem also addresses what I consider to be the major failing of the game, less Mandatory, as in automatic penalties for not returning troops to your own borders than giving the gamer a really good Reason to do so, with appropriate penalties if the gamer chooses not to.

 

[Sagax]

OT: not a fan of any of these ideas, as I see no value in penalizing players going for the final military push - especially in an environment where age progress is neither linear nor precisely predictable, and instead depends on legacy path progress of all players.

The random teleporting could be solved by just keeping at-home units where they are, and teleporting abroad units back home using the same logic applied during peace deals (but extended to neutral lands as well). That is, put them back to the closest home territory, and maybe garrison one unit for a good measure.

In my experience, the 'Happiness' Crises are not bad enough. Admittedly, I have not played Diety yet, but on every level below that both myself and the AI Civs seem to have no trouble going into the Crisis Period (end of Antiquity) with 25 - 50 Happiness, and so sail through any Happiness Crisis with impunity.

Jack up the Happiness penalties (part of a general 'regrading' of the Crisis Periods, perhaps) and you would automatically increase the possibility/probability of cities in Revolt and breaking away. That would, in the game, force the gamer to keep or bring some troops back before or as the Crisis started to keep his/her in-game gains.

This would also (of interest to me if no one else) serve to model the real Crisis at the end of the western Roman Empire, which was more about internal disruption by elements of the Roman Army in revolt and civil war than the migrations of 'German Barbarians' which were far more immigration of people into parts of the Empire that had been depopulated by multiple pandemics than military conquest.

This alternative to the perceived Crisis Problem also addresses what I consider to be the major failing of the game, less Mandatory, as in automatic penalties for not returning troops to your own borders than giving the gamer a really good Reason to do so, with appropriate penalties if the gamer chooses not to.

While all three Antiquity crises are manageable, I actually found Happiness crisis the most disrupting of them all, especially for AIs that spread too thin or are getting dragged down by warfare. Note that having 25-50 positive happiness on the ribbon is not indicative of healthy happiness in all settlements. Negative local happiness does not subtract from global happiness, instead it’s treated as zero. So you may have all your settlements unhappy and about to revolt, and only the capital being at +25 happiness - and the displayed global happiness yield will still be 25.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

While all three Antiquity crises are manageable, I actually found Happiness crisis the most disrupting of them all, especially for AIs that spread too thin or are getting dragged down by warfare. Note that having 25-50 positive happiness on the ribbon is not indicative of healthy happiness in all settlements. Negative local happiness does not subtract from global happiness, instead it’s treated as zero. So you may have all your settlements unhappy and about to revolt, and only the capital being at +25 happiness - and the displayed global happiness yield will still be 25.

Exactly: the Happiness Crisis set is very close to what I'd like to see, but not quite.

Thats also why I put +25 as the minimum 'reasonably safe' Happiness total: it allows for some of your 'marginal' settlements to be much less but still positive. I have also seen AI Civs going into the Crisis period with Happiness totals of less than +10 and they all got into serious trouble, whereas I have never seen an AI Civ with +25 or better Happiness lose a settlement only from the Crisis events (Full Disclosure: I haven't played Diety yet).

I would like to see losing a settlement be much more 'normal' in the course of a Crisis, but I would also like for the 'lost settlement' to not be permanent - as in, have it show up in the new Age as a Non-Hostile IP ready to be Suzed back into your empire rather than lose everything that you put into it in the previous Age.

Bottom Line: more flexibility of Events and Outcomes and Consequences, all based on both the Crisis Period and the gamer decisions.