Era should NOT be global.

[GeneralZift]

In both Civ6 and Civ7, one of my lesser liked changes was taking the personal era that each Civ was in and making it a global era that all Civs followed.
I will make the case that is the wrong way to go for the Civ series for several reasons.

1. Embrace non-linear tech progression

In reality, a lot of nations in the world had vastly different tech at any one period of time. During the Industrial Revolution, it's not like every country on earth had industrial technology.
And aiming to make everyone develop linearly is going to lead to a boring, linear experience.

Instead of accepting linearity and presuming everyone to reach the same era at the same time and designing around that, the Civ titles would be innovating greatly by accepting that some people would be lower in the tech tree than others and creating interesting dynamics between players under this basis.

2. Contrast in player dynamics, realism/believability.

The dichotomy between the Spaniards and the Aztecs for example is something that would be very interesting to play with, but we can't if the developers force everyone to tech up together, or force them to be in a new era together, and so on.

I understand that this was done for balance reasons, so this is why I'm suggesting that the developers instead look at ways to add interesting and unique catch-up mechanics and unique developments for each player as to avoid curbstomping.

For example, Aztecs happen to develop around Jungle, so they would happen to have faster movement in the Jungle, even though that would be totally unrelated to their unique Civ ability -- instead it's related to the map.
Maybe being in Jungle lets them have Poison arrows.
When the Spaniards invade in this hypothetical scenario, they have the technological upper hand, because perhaps they were in a region with flat fertile land, plenty of resources, etc., BUT they don't have the regional upper hand.

Then we essentially develop an interesting gameplay dynamic without compromising on balance or believability.

3. More alternative balance arrangements

I would also very heavily recommend, as a base mechanic, that defeated soldiers of a higher tech provide bonus science towards that tech for the player.
Trade routes should provide science for Techs that each player is missing from the other, but, at an exponential rate. So one trade route would be 90% coin, 10% science. But once you have 10 trade routes with one player, you'd be recieving 50% coin, 50% science (relatively speaking).
So you'd need sheer numbers of trade routes to absorb techs from other players.

Mechanics like these serve absolutely no harm to Singleplayer games -- players who are losing hard to the AI, have an out to their aggressive and technologically superior units. Whereas players who are winning hard, at least giving the AI some sort of boost when they lose units. I think it's a total win scenario.
In PvP it acts as a realistic, non-obtrusive, comeback mechanic for players.

---

Anyway, that concludes my little essay. I really don't see the benefit of this universal age system they have, except to streamline gameplay, which I really don't like, because it bites the replayability in my opinion.

 

[Leucarum]

Setting aside realism arguments as I'd prefer to focus on gameplay personally...

I'd say Civ7 has the most interesting combat in a civ game yet, and I think in a large part it's down to every civ always being squished into using a narrow range of similarly powered units rather than creating windows where you have a large tech lead over your opponents as happened in previous civs. It's more about how you use your units than how you set up your empire to get a lead. Your mileage may vary but I definitely find that 7 promotes the use of mixed arms and combat is genuinely dynamic and intricate.

The trouble is that for a lot of players the playstyle of "get technological edge and whack opponent with it before they can catch up" is their preferred gameplay style. We have lost players from our MP group because not being able to get that tech lead feels like an attack on how they like to play the game.

So I don't have a clear answer. IMO 7 has created a really good combat system, which unfortunately runs intrinsically against what a proportion of players want. It's a recurring theme in 7 I think...

 

[GeneralZift]

Setting aside realism arguments as I'd prefer to focus on gameplay personally...

I'd say Civ7 has the most interesting combat in a civ game yet, and I think in a large part it's down to every civ always being squished into using a narrow range of similarly powered units rather than creating windows where you have a large tech lead over your opponents as happened in previous civs. It's more about how you use your units than how you set up your empire to get a lead. Your mileage may vary but I definitely find that 7 promotes the use of mixed arms and combat is genuinely dynamic and intricate.

The trouble is that for a lot of players the playstyle of "get technological edge and whack opponent with it before they can catch up" is their preferred gameplay style. We have lost players from our MP group because not being able to get that tech lead feels like an attack on how they like to play the game.

So I don't have a clear answer. IMO 7 has created a really good combat system, which unfortunately runs intrinsically against what a proportion of players want. It's a recurring theme in 7 I think...

I understand this reasoning. In some ways, its like chess, the Civ7 Combat is interesting because all the players are on the same playing field in terms of power level in units.

However my suggestion is to have the players be different but still on a fair playing field. In other words, more like a fighting game. The high tech player has an inherent advantage, but the low tech player has other advantages, like regional advantages. Plus, the comeback systems I mentioned would reduce the gap, the longer the high tech player is in losing combat.

If they want to make the combat more interesting WITHOUT streamlining it - they should add more unique, niche, combat systems. Let jungle dweller Civs hide in the stealth while the invaders try to burn through it. Let the tundra dwellers take advantage of their resistance of the cold. The more Camels you have, the more your Civ understands how to use them effectively in combat and production. The combat doesn't always need to come down to who has the higher tech. Civ 7 got that bit right at least, but when everyone is the same era, it loses the sheer potential it has in storytelling and gameplay opportunities.

 

[luca 83]

Setting aside realism arguments as I'd prefer to focus on gameplay personally...

I'd say Civ7 has the most interesting combat in a civ game yet, and I think in a large part it's down to every civ always being squished into using a narrow range of similarly powered units rather than creating windows where you have a large tech lead over your opponents as happened in previous civs. It's more about how you use your units than how you set up your empire to get a lead. Your mileage may vary but I definitely find that 7 promotes the use of mixed arms and combat is genuinely dynamic and intricate.

The trouble is that for a lot of players the playstyle of "get technological edge and whack opponent with it before they can catch up" is their preferred gameplay style. We have lost players from our MP group because not being able to get that tech lead feels like an attack on how they like to play the game.

So I don't have a clear answer. IMO 7 has created a really good combat system, which unfortunately runs intrinsically against what a proportion of players want. It's a recurring theme in 7 I think...

In both Civ6 and Civ7, one of my lesser liked changes was taking the personal era that each Civ was in and making it a global era that all Civs followed.
I will make the case that is the wrong way to go for the Civ series for several reasons.

1. Embrace non-linear tech progression

In reality, a lot of nations in the world had vastly different tech at any one period of time. During the Industrial Revolution, it's not like every country on earth had industrial technology.
And aiming to make everyone develop linearly is going to lead to a boring, linear experience.

Instead of accepting linearity and presuming everyone to reach the same era at the same time and designing around that, the Civ titles would be innovating greatly by accepting that some people would be lower in the tech tree than others and creating interesting dynamics between players under this basis.

2. Contrast in player dynamics, realism/believability.

The dichotomy between the Spaniards and the Aztecs for example is something that would be very interesting to play with, but we can't if the developers force everyone to tech up together, or force them to be in a new era together, and so on.

I understand that this was done for balance reasons, so this is why I'm suggesting that the developers instead look at ways to add interesting and unique catch-up mechanics and unique developments for each player as to avoid curbstomping.

For example, Aztecs happen to develop around Jungle, so they would happen to have faster movement in the Jungle, even though that would be totally unrelated to their unique Civ ability -- instead it's related to the map.
Maybe being in Jungle lets them have Poison arrows.
When the Spaniards invade in this hypothetical scenario, they have the technological upper hand, because perhaps they were in a region with flat fertile land, plenty of resources, etc., BUT they don't have the regional upper hand.

Then we essentially develop an interesting gameplay dynamic without compromising on balance or believability.

3. More alternative balance arrangements

I would also very heavily recommend, as a base mechanic, that defeated soldiers of a higher tech provide bonus science towards that tech for the player.
Trade routes should provide science for Techs that each player is missing from the other, but, at an exponential rate. So one trade route would be 90% coin, 10% science. But once you have 10 trade routes with one player, you'd be recieving 50% coin, 50% science (relatively speaking).
So you'd need sheer numbers of trade routes to absorb techs from other players.

Mechanics like these serve absolutely no harm to Singleplayer games -- players who are losing hard to the AI, have an out to their aggressive and technologically superior units. Whereas players who are winning hard, at least giving the AI some sort of boost when they lose units. I think it's a total win scenario.
In PvP it acts as a realistic, non-obtrusive, comeback mechanic for players.

---

Anyway, that concludes my little essay. I really don't see the benefit of this universal age system they have, except to streamline gameplay, which I really don't like, because it bites the replayability in my opinion.

As I have already explained many times and it is reductive. Leader - nation - leader - people history and evolution is very complex for political and ethnic reasons, Yugoslavia for example peoples, ethnic groups, different religions, policies like Northern Ireland or Korea, or Transnistria divided for political and ethnic reasons today the civilization and the construction of the game does not even simulate 1% of these dynamics

 

[MutilationWave]

I understand this reasoning. In some ways, its like chess, the Civ7 Combat is interesting because all the players are on the same playing field in terms of power level in units.

However my suggestion is to have the players be different but still on a fair playing field. In other words, more like a fighting game. The high tech player has an inherent advantage, but the low tech player has other advantages, like regional advantages. Plus, the comeback systems I mentioned would reduce the gap, the longer the high tech player is in losing combat.

If they want to make the combat more interesting WITHOUT streamlining it - they should add more unique, niche, combat systems. Let jungle dweller Civs hide in the stealth while the invaders try to burn through it. Let the tundra dwellers take advantage of their resistance of the cold. The more Camels you have, the more your Civ understands how to use them effectively in combat and production. The combat doesn't always need to come down to who has the higher tech. Civ 7 got that bit right at least, but when everyone is the same era, it loses the sheer potential it has in storytelling and gameplay opportunities.

I would like to see what you suggest done with scenarios. I'm dying for some scenarios to play. The most fun game I played was the conquest of the new world scenario on Civ 5. I played Iroquois and wow talk about hard mode. I was able to use Iroquois bonuses to beat the much stronger invaders, then conquer Europe.

 

[Leucarum]

I understand this reasoning. In some ways, its like chess, the Civ7 Combat is interesting because all the players are on the same playing field in terms of power level in units.

However my suggestion is to have the players be different but still on a fair playing field. In other words, more like a fighting game. The high tech player has an inherent advantage, but the low tech player has other advantages, like regional advantages. Plus, the comeback systems I mentioned would reduce the gap, the longer the high tech player is in losing combat.

If they want to make the combat more interesting WITHOUT streamlining it - they should add more unique, niche, combat systems. Let jungle dweller Civs hide in the stealth while the invaders try to burn through it. Let the tundra dwellers take advantage of their resistance of the cold. The more Camels you have, the more your Civ understands how to use them effectively in combat and production. The combat doesn't always need to come down to who has the higher tech. Civ 7 got that bit right at least, but when everyone is the same era, it loses the sheer potential it has in storytelling and gameplay opportunities.

In an ideal world I would agree, but look at how even in the relatively streamlined system we have the balance between cavalry and infantry is out of whack. I don't think getting such a complex system right is remotely likely for firaxis. Not saying that to besmirch their ability, their budget and time is probably better spent elsewhere I assume.

I get that this system is displeasing to narrative players in particular, and I think Firaxis are going to have make eras optional if civ7 is to survive... Which would require firaxis to approach or ignore this problem in some way... I suspect we'll end up with something in Civ 6's wheelhouse if they do, and I'm ok with that. 7 has bigger problems!

 

[MutilationWave]

In an ideal world I would agree, but look at how even in the relatively streamlined system we have the balance between cavalry and infantry is out of whack. I don't think getting such a complex system right is remotely likely for firaxis. Not saying that to besmirch their ability, their budget and time is probably better spent elsewhere I assume.

I get that this system is displeasing to narrative players in particular, and I think Firaxis are going to have make eras optional if civ7 is to survive... Which would require firaxis to approach or ignore this problem in some way... I suspect we'll end up with something in Civ 6's wheelhouse if they do, and I'm ok with that. 7 has bigger problems!

What bonus do you think infantry needs to make them playable (outside of some awesome unique units like Shawnee). I think if they got a +3 CS vs cavalry and making cavalry unable to fortify could do it.

 

[Leucarum]

What bonus do you think infantry needs to make them playable (outside of some awesome unique units like Shawnee). I think if they got a +3 CS vs cavalry and making cavalry unable to fortify could do it.

I don't know that there's one right answer, but making cavalry more "glass cannon" - worse defence in some form makes sense. Or maybe you make their CS conditional - e.g. less CS but a big flanking bonus when next infantry so you want mixed arms, or less CS but you get a boost for every tile you move so the first round's stike is hard but later ones get weaker unless you break zone of control?

I don't think fortify is a big difference. Mobility is a huge advantage so ideally you want your cavalry to always be moving... I rarely end up fortifying them.

 

[luca 83]

You have to decide what is meant by era! The age is not decided by the era but by events. The Enlightenment was born with the Italian and then French philosophers who influenced the elite and the people and then after a series of events, the French Revolution until after 1750, torture, the death penalty and corvee were normal for the peasants, the nobles managed the law and the courts and the nobles owned the peasants. Eras are decided by events, the dilemma is as a player, even if powerful, how much do you influence the environment and history? For example, Tiberius Caesar, Emperor of Rome, crucified Christ and contributed to the history and de


finition of an era. Of a series of events, but these evolved until 313 AD, the Edict of Constantine and Christianity as a free cult. For peoples, there are politics and peoples. Peoples are united or separated for many reasons: economic, political, religious, even in this case by events, they cannot exist. Automatically Byzantine - Turkish, they are different peoples of the same family as the Goths or the Mongols, that a series of events: migrations, conversion to Islam, wars have brought these peoples to the Middle East and then to Turkey to found the Sultanate of Rum and then inherit the role of Byzantium,: if there had not been the Turks there would probably be today a Greek - Latin Mediterranean Christian - Orthodox state heir of Byzantium or evolution another example is Italy: who is the heir of the Roman Empire in Italy? The Vatican state? Culturally yes there have been many states over the centuries. Which could unite Italy: the Normans, Florence, Venice, the Borgias with Valentino, the Neapolitans of the Bourbon dynasty, the Medici of Florence in the end the most rude were the Savoy with intrigues and political waltzes

this I always said a problem that needs to be solved ne discussed

 

[sTAPler27]

I 100% agree but with the game already developed and dlc on the way I think it's too late for 7 to take this approach. Maybe we'll see this in 8

 

[GeneralZift]

If people would like to see, I could come up with a mockup of this idea

I 100% agree but with the game already developed and dlc on the way I think it's too late for 7 to take this approach. Maybe we'll see this in 8

 

[Leucarum]

I 100% agree but with the game already developed and dlc on the way I think it's too late for 7 to take this approach. Maybe we'll see this in 8

I don't know. At the very least it's plausible to minimize the effects of era changes... I think the bigger issue is that Firaxis would generate two competing audiences for the game if they make an era-less mode.

 

[Porry]

I also think that individual era change instead of global could be an interesting mechanic. However, I can't imagine a balance regarding multiplayer games.

 

[GeneralZift]

I also think that individual era change instead of global could be an interesting mechanic. However, I can't imagine a balance regarding multiplayer games.

Well, all they need to do is make sure that being higher tech isn't the end-all-be-all of every combat situation. I get that better equipment makes you stronger, but equipment is only part of it. There should be tactic considerations, awareness of the map, cultural considerations (i.e. we have fought in Jungles for hundreds of years I think we have a slight upper hand over people fighting in Jungles for the first time), among many other considerations.

Mostly I think they need a realistic, acceptable, defender's advantage. Like being able to steal enemy equipment, leverage the environment, setup traps and defences for enemy units, stuff like that.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well, all they need to do is make sure that being higher tech isn't the end-all-be-all of every combat situation. I get that better equipment makes you stronger, but equipment is only part of it. There should be tactic considerations, awareness of the map, cultural considerations (i.e. we have fought in Jungles for hundreds of years I think we have a slight upper hand over people fighting in Jungles for the first time), among many other considerations.

Mostly I think they need a realistic, acceptable, defender's advantage. Like being able to steal enemy equipment, leverage the environment, setup traps and defences for enemy units, stuff like that.

A couple of things.

1. When Dupuy's Institute was gathering data to debelop their mathematical mehod for predicting the outcome of operational and tactical combat, they developed a data base of over 100 battles from history - engagements that they could get enough information about to get valid comparisons in weapons, casualties, outcomes. These battles ranged from Antiquity to the 1973 war in the Middle East. The most interesting thing about this data base, though, was that almost 2/3 of the battles were won by the smaller of the two armies engaged.

Or, as Marshal Maurice de Saxe put it succinctly:

"It is not the big armies that win battles, it is the good ones."

2. The components of Combat Power are:
Weapons - what they have to fight with
Doctrine - How they expect to use those weapons
Training - How well they can use those weapons
Morale - How much they feel like using those weapons

Note that 3 out of 4 components are 'soft' factors - not subject to statistics of range, firepower, ability to inflict damage. In fact, they are the factors that made so many historical battles won by the smaller army - which had better morale, training or doctrine compared to their larger opponent.

Now note that Civ games have NEVER modeled morale, training or doctrine adequately - only weapons types.

IF any Civ game is ever going to get a more adequate combat system, it simply must model the soft factors in some way. Giving out 'flanking' or 'attack' or (field) 'fortification' bonuses only scratches the blank surface, until provision is also made for the fact that some units can flank or fortify or charge far more effectively than others, and those units win battles.

 

[GeneralZift]

A couple of things.

1. When Dupuy's Institute was gathering data to debelop their mathematical mehod for predicting the outcome of operational and tactical combat, they developed a data base of over 100 battles from history - engagements that they could get enough information about to get valid comparisons in weapons, casualties, outcomes. These battles ranged from Antiquity to the 1973 war in the Middle East. The most interesting thing about this data base, though, was that almost 2/3 of the battles were won by the smaller of the two armies engaged.

Or, as Marshal Maurice de Saxe put it succinctly:

"It is not the big armies that win battles, it is the good ones."

2. The components of Combat Power are:
Weapons - what they have to fight with
Doctrine - How they expect to use those weapons
Training - How well they can use those weapons
Morale - How much they feel like using those weapons

Note that 3 out of 4 components are 'soft' factors - not subject to statistics of range, firepower, ability to inflict damage. In fact, they are the factors that made so many historical battles won by the smaller army - which had better morale, training or doctrine compared to their larger opponent.

Now note that Civ games have NEVER modeled morale, training or doctrine adequately - only weapons types.

IF any Civ game is ever going to get a more adequate combat system, it simply must model the soft factors in some way. Giving out 'flanking' or 'attack' or (field) 'fortification' bonuses only scratches the blank surface, until provision is also made for the fact that some units can flank or fortify or charge far more effectively than others, and those units win battles.

I mean that's not strictly true - the morale is modelled via Happiness combat modifier, training is modelled via Barracks and other structures giving free veterancy, and doctrine is modelled via Government policies.
Flanking, fortification and command (near a General) bonuses are in, but as you say, I suppose it could be modelled better.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I mean that's not strictly true - the morale is modelled via Happiness combat modifier, training is modelled via Barracks and other structures giving free veterancy, and doctrine is modelled via Government policies.
Flanking, fortification and command (near a General) bonuses are in, but as you say, I suppose it could be modelled better.

Note that I said the games have never modeled the 'soft' factors of Morale, Training and Doctrine adequately, not that they never attempted to model them at all.

Virtually all of the Unique Unit bonuses are attempts to model special factors like training and doctrine not shared by other units, and there are factors scattered amongst the Leader (command) bonuses, Civic/Social Factors, policies, bonuses from Resources and other mechanics that also stab at it.

But frankly (and this is, of course, only my own experience with the game so far and the previous games in the series), except for OP Unique Units none of the various 'bits' have managed to replicate the massive difference in power and effectiveness between a veteran unit with a good doctrine and intensive training versus a group of new conscripts with little training, mediocre doctrine and no experience at all.

The real problem, of course, is that the differences will appear to be OP to the gamer, when a single veteran unit can beat several 'amateur' units with ease, yet that is exactly what happened time and again, according to the Dupuy group's collected data.

I suppose, to modify my original post, we need a better Balance between sheer numbers of units and the effectiveness of the units in terms of their training levels ('professionalism') and Doctrine. That won't be easy to find, but note that the difference between an army (or fleet) of extremely effective Veteran Units and a draft/militia army is also a major difference in the Civs that produce them: the difference, in effect, between Frederich II's Prussia that bent everything in its economy and society to producing the most effective army in Europe and a Colonial America that produced only militia to fend off, in game terms, Hostile IPs

 

[Head_North]

1. Embrace non-linear tech progression

In reality, a lot of nations in the world had vastly different tech at any one period of time. During the Industrial Revolution, it's not like every country on earth had industrial technology.
And aiming to make everyone develop linearly is going to lead to a boring, linear experience.

Instead of accepting linearity and presuming everyone to reach the same era at the same time and designing around that, the Civ titles would be innovating greatly by accepting that some people would be lower in the tech tree than others and creating interesting dynamics between players under this basis.

Nice idea. I also think that the era´s system should be changed so that it is not "abrupt". History is more of a continuum. Civilizations didn´t change into new civilizations from one moment to the other. It was done incrmentally, if at all. I know that severlean hundred years pass during each era change. But I thinkt we should be able to play those severeal hundred years and during that time make choices thja slowly transform your cilivization into another. They choice of civlizations should be based (more or less loosely) on historical and geographical accuracy. I.e. no egypt changing into China.

2. Contrast in player dynamics, realism/believability.

The dichotomy between the Spaniards and the Aztecs for example is something that would be very interesting to play with, but we can't if the developers force everyone to tech up together, or force them to be in a new era together, and so on.

I understand that this was done for balance reasons, so this is why I'm suggesting that the developers instead look at ways to add interesting and unique catch-up mechanics and unique developments for each player as to avoid curbstomping.

For example, Aztecs happen to develop around Jungle, so they would happen to have faster movement in the Jungle, even though that would be totally unrelated to their unique Civ ability -- instead it's related to the map.
Maybe being in Jungle lets them have Poison arrows.
When the Spaniards invade in this hypothetical scenario, they have the technological upper hand, because perhaps they were in a region with flat fertile land, plenty of resources, etc., BUT they don't have the regional upper hand.

Then we essentially develop an interesting gameplay dynamic without compromising on balance or believability.

I agree, that is a problem to solve the cath-up. Maybe there could be a mehcanic that you get a techboost when you come into contact with a more advanced civilization?

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Nice idea. I also think that the era´s system should be changed so that it is not "abrupt". History is more of a continuum. Civilizations didn´t change into new civilizations from one moment to the other. It was done incrmentally, if at all. I know that severlean hundred years pass during each era change. But I thinkt we should be able to play those severeal hundred years and during that time make choices thja slowly transform your cilivization into another. They choice of civlizations should be based (more or less loosely) on historical and geographical accuracy. I.e. no egypt changing into China.

As I posted in another Thread, the problem is that the transitions are supposed to 're-set' the game and avoid any human player snowballing the AI Civs. Give that human player any way to influence the transition, and they will inevitably find a way to game that and defeat the whole purpose.

Furthermore, a transition from an bureaucratic Egypt with a God-Pharaoh to a Chinese Dynasty whose Emperor is Divinely Inspired (the "Mandate of Heaven") and supported by a massive bureaucracy is not that much of a stretch. I suspect the jarring note is changing from Egyptian to Chinese architecture and nomenclature, which visually reminds the gamer that he is now playing the same Civ somehow transported half a continent away in real life.

IF, say, you transitioned to an Exploration Form of uniques and bonuses based on how you ended the previous Age (as now) BUT even though those aspects were really Chinese (or Persian, or Abbasid, both of which actually had direct influence on Egypt in the 'real' history) you maintain Egyptian nomenclature, titles, architecture, and Unit Graphics from your previous Civ.

Call it "If you do Chinese things you wind up playing a Chinese Civ, even if it looks like Egyptian, talks like Egyptian, and builds like Egyptian."

Of course, providing multiple Ages worth of architectural styles, unit graphics and nomenclature for every Civ in the game would be an enormous undertaking (made only slightly easier by re-using some of the previous Age's elements), but it would also almost automatically massively increase the choices at each Age transition.

 

[Iceberg1er]

In both Civ6 and Civ7, one of my lesser liked changes was taking the personal era that each Civ was in and making it a global era that all Civs followed.
I will make the case that is the wrong way to go for the Civ series for several reasons.

1. Embrace non-linear tech progression

In reality, a lot of nations in the world had vastly different tech at any one period of time. During the Industrial Revolution, it's not like every country on earth had industrial technology.
And aiming to make everyone develop linearly is going to lead to a boring, linear experience.

Instead of accepting linearity and presuming everyone to reach the same era at the same time and designing around that, the Civ titles would be innovating greatly by accepting that some people would be lower in the tech tree than others and creating interesting dynamics between players under this basis.

2. Contrast in player dynamics, realism/believability.

The dichotomy between the Spaniards and the Aztecs for example is something that would be very interesting to play with, but we can't if the developers force everyone to tech up together, or force them to be in a new era together, and so on.

I understand that this was done for balance reasons, so this is why I'm suggesting that the developers instead look at ways to add interesting and unique catch-up mechanics and unique developments for each player as to avoid curbstomping.

For example, Aztecs happen to develop around Jungle, so they would happen to have faster movement in the Jungle, even though that would be totally unrelated to their unique Civ ability -- instead it's related to the map.
Maybe being in Jungle lets them have Poison arrows.
When the Spaniards invade in this hypothetical scenario, they have the technological upper hand, because perhaps they were in a region with flat fertile land, plenty of resources, etc., BUT they don't have the regional upper hand.

Then we essentially develop an interesting gameplay dynamic without compromising on balance or believability.

3. More alternative balance arrangements

I would also very heavily recommend, as a base mechanic, that defeated soldiers of a higher tech provide bonus science towards that tech for the player.
Trade routes should provide science for Techs that each player is missing from the other, but, at an exponential rate. So one trade route would be 90% coin, 10% science. But once you have 10 trade routes with one player, you'd be recieving 50% coin, 50% science (relatively speaking).
So you'd need sheer numbers of trade routes to absorb techs from other players.

Mechanics like these serve absolutely no harm to Singleplayer games -- players who are losing hard to the AI, have an out to their aggressive and technologically superior units. Whereas players who are winning hard, at least giving the AI some sort of boost when they lose units. I think it's a total win scenario.
In PvP it acts as a realistic, non-obtrusive, comeback mechanic for players.


Anyway, that concludes my little essay. I really don't see the benefit of this universal age system they have, except to streamline gameplay, which I really don't like, because it bites the replayability in my opinion.

YOU ARE 99% RIGHT. Thats a great way to do it and keep balance. But balance is what sucks. The tiniest niche of people can play 8 hours online with multiple people straight.... Seriously. Out of billions of people there has to be a 1000 people who do that. It's stupid. Scratch multiplayer, scratch out balance entirely. Bring in simulation. Simulation is reality. REALITY is every single culture in history got stomped into the ground. Not a single one exists that was here since the beginning but those that existed in a vacuum. And those ones have done the exact same thing with out change. So not exactly what I want, but maybe somebody does want to be an aboriginee tribe in Australia lighting there 999,991st brush fire and stabbing a kangaroo. More power to them, let them play that way. And if somebody else comes by with a nuke and jet bombers, let them jet bomb, or observe as they feel.

This game needs what you said, + controls over staying in the ages you want to play longer, interesting dynamical interaction with real consequences, and MAPS. GIVE US REAL WORLD MAPS. Give us TRUE START EARTH. AND TRUE START MEDITERANNEAN... AAAAND TRUE START GREEK ISLANDS, EASYERN MEDITERANEAN, JUST THE UK, LIKE ZOOOOM IN ON REAL AND SUPER ORECISE REAL MAPS. Change them for their time period. I want to play a wet Sahara/ North Africa. How about dynamic maps? The thing is, they didn't do any work here besides graphics. They shuffled and nerfed civ6 with better graphics and that's it. The most labor REDUCED project possible is what they made. Profits over projects ALL THE WAY. All they did was stuff their workers and charge us full price. So to hell with sid Meier. Scammed us.