Fourth Age musings....

[Aristotle Kzin]

As I watch the Modern Age slowly being revealed, I'm sensing that the focus of the civilizations seems to be Industrial/Early Modern (America is definitely early industrial, Mexico War of 1812 era and Qing pre- to early-20th Century). This makes me think they're already leaning into the Fourth Age being Postmodern/Atomic Age, when we'll see the contemporary civs (Soviets, 20th Century China, Modern Japan, Revolutionary/Arab Spring Middle East, European Union) as the focus of the Fourth Age DLC. What do others think?

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I personally MUCH prefer the aesthetics of the time periods represented in Age 3 currently. I think limiting the Age number was a really good decision, so to add a fourth age that not only ups the amount of Civs that need to be made and relegates those slots to essentially repeats (Britain and UK, Colonial America and United States, etc.) but will force me to overbuild those beautiful cities with icky skyscrapers? No thank you. The only thing I would look forward to would be a jazzy soundtrack for America, which wouldn't even be guaranteed. I expect a Gathering Storm-style addition of techs, civics, a unit tier or two, and maybe a few Modern-unique Endeavors related to nuclear weapons, and I hope for no civ, leader, unit, or tech that existed after the Cold War to ever touch the game. I'm probably not in the majority, but I feel strongly about this.

 

[Aristotle Kzin]

I see your point, but I'm just going by what's been released. Unless you're going steampunk, early modern civs building moon/mars rockets is silly.

 

[Patine]

I see your point, but I'm just going by what's been released. Unless you're going steampunk, early modern civs building moon/mars rockets is silly.

I remember back in Civ2, being beaten to Alpha Centauri several times by Boadicea of the Celts and Montezuma of the Aztecs. What you call, "silly," has frankly always been meat and drink of what's possible in the Civ series.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

I think it's because they want contemporary nations with all the baggage and controversies that come with it

 

[Aristotle Kzin]

I wasn't meaning the basic premise of Civ is silly - I've been playing Civ since the MS-DOS days and I seriously love it. I meant that having the most recent civs that are represented be late 19th/early 20th Century civs, when the new Ages mechanic means the covs are more recent, indicated to me that they were reserving more recent stuff for a fourth age. I have no problem with Qin China taking the first steps on the path to space, but if the tech tree finishes post -WW2, as they have indicated, space travel beyond orbit doesn't fit....

 

[GeneralZift]

I think it's because they want contemporary nations with all the baggage and controversies that come with it

Oh boy I can't wait

 

[Ryansinbela]

When more futuristic stuff was mentioned in one of the streams I assume it will mainly be dlc techs and not full civs

 

[Aristotle Kzin]

Both, maybe? Especially if they DON'T go with a Fourth age...

 

[sTAPler27]

I think its very likely. It feels a bit odd for a civ game to end around 1950 even if the games have kind of struggled to implement more modern times in the past outside of the switch to green power and the dangers of climate change. And better yet there's still room to modernize the victory types. An ecnomic victory focused on brand recognition and corporate globalization, a culture victory focused on pop culture with film and music, a military victory based on becoming a global policeman with bases everywhere and a science victory that could simply be an extension of the space race with staking your claim on foreign planets. Along with this they're likely to add a diplo victory with emphasis on getting to the point where you can actually control the world congress thanks to your influence.

Since each age feels more unique i'm hoping in a 4th age we see more modern concepts fleshed out because in 6 as the ages went on it felt like we saw less buildings, improvements and wonders. I want late game techs and civics to feel just as substantial to the late game as they do in the early game, not just a win more button to aid the snowball effect. And I get while this would be the age the game ends in i'd like to see a more fleshed out implementation of the future. I mean this should be the area where science and culture move at rapid paces so the trees should be jam packed. There should be new terraforming methods, rapid automization, new mediums of culture and entertainment. Civ is more than a historical game its a game about civilization itself which spans across time.

 

[Aristotle Kzin]

Given Firaxis' propensity for non-leader Leaders, cultural/economic leader John Lennon? Would he unlock the Brits, the Americans or the Australians (massive hit here in Oz)? Special ability something to do with massive stadium concerts? I'd suggest Michael Jackson, but that would be too controversial.

 

[Aristotle Kzin]

Just had another thought/evidence for intention of a Fourth Age.....of all the leaders presented so far, Harriet Tubman is the most recent (died 1913) which basically means they're saving any 20th Century leaders for the future....Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, plus any controversial ones they're willing to take a chance on....

 

[sTAPler27]

Just had another thought/evidence for intention of a Fourth Age.....of all the leaders presented so far, Harriet Tubman is the most recent (died 1913) which basically means they're saving any 20th Century leaders for the future....Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, plus any controversial ones they're willing to take a chance on....

I 100% believe they will add a fourth age but if you look at the history of the civ roster its very rare they go too deep past the 20th century. Off the top of my head I can think of Haile Sellasie in Civ 5 and John Curtain, Teddy Roosevelt and Menelik in 6 along with Gandhi in both. I think their biggest fear is that the closer you get to modern times the more you gotta worry about the actions of a leader more directly impacting people in potentially negative ways. Even in Civ 1, a game with the likes of Mao and Stalin they eventually cut Hitler out at the last minute to get past German censorship.

Me personally i'd love to see more modern leaders to show off the full range of history but at the same time I can see their restraint.

 

[Patine]

I 100% believe they will add a fourth age but if you look at the history of the civ roster its very rare they go too deep past the 20th century. Off the top of my head I can think of Haile Sellasie in Civ 5 and John Curtain, Teddy Roosevelt and Menelik in 6 along with Gandhi in both. I think their biggest fear is that the closer you get to modern times the more you gotta worry about the actions of a leader more directly impacting people in potentially negative ways. Even in Civ 1, a game with the likes of Mao and Stalin they eventually cut Hitler out at the last minute to get past German censorship.

Me personally i'd love to see more modern leaders to show off the full range of history but at the same time I can see their restraint.

Indira Gandhi, the Civ2 female Indian leader is the most recent to die in any Civ iteration at 1982.

 

[sTAPler27]

Indira Gandhi, the Civ2 female Indian leader is the most recent to die in any Civ iteration at 1982.

I am by no means well versed on Indian history but given Civ 2 needed a female leader for each civilization she was probably the most notable female leader of India to the devs given 2 civs completely lack a female leader and the one for the Aztecs is a made up person in refference to a civilization not even on the same continent. That all said if there was a more notable female leader of India from an earlier time they likely would've picked her.

 

[Patine]

I am by no means well versed on Indian history but given Civ 2 needed a female leader for each civilization she was probably the most notable female leader of India to the devs given 2 civs completely lack a female leader and the one for the Aztecs is a made up person in refference to a civilization not even on the same continent. That all said if there was a more notable female leader of India from an earlier time they likely would've picked her.

Razia Sultan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[sTAPler27]

Razia Sultan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The devs could always choose her as an option. I just don't know how the Indian fans of Civ would react to Indira that's why I brought it up as i'm not aware of how she is viewed there.

 

[sTAPler27]

I have a theory for a potential other route the devs coul go. If they added a 4th age that means the dlc it comes in would have to add a substantial ammount of 4th age civs, at least 10. What if instead they went the route where you kept your civ but did something similar to what they did with City States in which you pick the bonuses of your final civ. This could would if the abilities you choose are still based on your prior civ choices. However given how rigid he choices are prior it could feel very messy by comparison.

Now for the most part i'd prefer they just make more modern versions of the civs and so far that works for most of the civs in game, Russia becomes the USSR, Qing become the PRC, Prussia becomes Germany. However the later you do this in the game the greater chances you have of dissapointing certain fans who might lose the country they live in as a playable choice, I mean that's already what happens with the limited path of certain civs like Spain or Hawai'i. Modern civs like France could drop the Empire title and become the more tourism focused modern France. The US might not have the same distinction in names but there definitely is substantial differences between 19th century and 20th-21st century America that leaves room for a power. I'm worried how civs like Mexico might fair, I have a feeling the dev's instead of building a more modern mexico civ might choose to implement another country as their "historical" choice.

 

[hoplite_fan]

I don't think there should be a fourth age, we are still in the third age after all

 

[sTAPler27]

I don't think there should be a fourth age, we are still in the third age after all

The game ends around 1960. The Qing and French Empire no longer exist. The abilities of the civs from this age don't really represent their contemporary versions, I mean the US isn't exactly still dominated by prospectors trying to strike it rich in the gold mines out west.