FXS needs to put out a new roadmap - direction of the game is unclear

[Menocchio]

Is Oxide doing that? Yes, their 2.0 massively improved the player numbers in the first week after release.
But how many people are registering what happens to Ara? Gamalytic shows less than 50k owners. Similarly, the massive improvement of concurrent players is from a very low base. PlayTracker now estimates that 5k players are playing Ara these days (with a huge error margin).

So, as long as Ara stays super-niche, I don't think they are making anyone play by their rules. The game (also due to very suboptimal marketing) was a mere footnote at release, and this hasn't changed yet.

On top of this, Ara is a very different game play-wise from Civ. I think of it as much as a city-builder as a 4X civilisation builder. There's a great deal of fiddliness that's excellent in its field but is, in my opinion, too far beyond the more board game style of Civ to compare the two directly.

 

[GeneralZift]

Sorry but a personal pet peeve: "Golden age" is a meaningless concept without clear definition and obviously ancient and industrial eras also have countless "golden ages" understood as "a vague time of a good economic growth and vaguely defined cultural flowering" (my least favourite is definitely "islamic golden age" where the concept is stretched to its absurdity by the "good century" apparently being "literally everything across Muslim countries for 500 years is great and then at an arbitrary moment literally everything becomes worse in all Muslim countries for next 700 years") (bonus points for "Mongols ending islamic science" while it only became really stagnant by 1600)

...so I don't see the reason why exploration age must be the "good times for culture era", unlike the famously bad times of cultural stagnation such as ancient Greece, ancient Rome, ancient India, ancient China or 19th century Britain and France

I feel like you are overcomplicating it. I for one enjoy the term Golden Age because it's simple and easy to understand concept that refers to a Civilization generally going well.

Islamic golden age commonly understood to be at a time when they were leaders in Science Culture Economy Law Human Rights etc.

Strictly speaking there doesn't need to be a magical instant end to good times. Times change and stuff just fizzles out.
So I generally like the term. As pop history it's an easy concept to understand.

For your information I agree with you about the Exploration Era and Culture.
But for an entire different reason and I believe we share the same opinion - that no specific era needs to have any specific type of "good times", and these good times should be defined by player action alone.

 

[Siddorm]

I have not yet bought Civ 7. In today's YouTube clip, they said that substantial balance changes are coming. So, I am now thinking that there is no point in buying it whilst it is a work in progress. Perhaps a roadmap may encourage potential customers to wait.

 

[socratic]

Sorry but a personal pet peeve: "Golden age" is a meaningless concept without clear definition and obviously ancient and industrial eras also have countless "golden ages" understood as "a vague time of a good economic growth and vaguely defined cultural flowering" (my least favourite is definitely "islamic golden age" where the concept is stretched to its absurdity by the "good century" apparently being "literally everything across Muslim countries for 500 years is great and then at an arbitrary moment literally everything becomes worse in all Muslim countries for next 700 years") (bonus points for "Mongols ending islamic science" while it only became really stagnant by 1600)

...so I don't see the reason why exploration age must be the "good times for culture era", unlike the famously bad times of cultural stagnation such as ancient Greece, ancient Rome, ancient India, ancient China or 19th century Britain and France

I feel like it’s not too outlandish with what we have now. Every civ being an ocean-crossing expansionist during this time period isn’t historical either.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I feel like you are overcomplicating it. I for one enjoy the term Golden Age because it's simple and easy to understand concept that refers to a Civilization generally going well.

Islamic golden age commonly understood to be at a time when they were leaders in Science Culture Economy Law Human Rights etc.

Strictly speaking there doesn't need to be a magical instant end to good times. Times change and stuff just fizzles out.
So I generally like the term. As pop history it's an easy concept to understand.

For your information I agree with you about the Exploration Era and Culture.
But for an entire different reason and I believe we share the same opinion - that no specific era needs to have any specific type of "good times", and these good times should be defined by player action alone.

The problem they have is limiting the idea of Golden Ages to just the Exploration Age, when there are plenty of other examples of Golden Ages outside of that in history, like Classical Greece and the Pax Britannica etc.

 

[Krikkit1]

I feel like it’s not too outlandish with what we have now. Every civ being an ocean-crossing expansionist during this time period isn’t historical either.

Well I think that’s what the other 2 legacies are for
..Golden Age (massive buildup of Science/ Culture/ Gold / Food / Happiness/ Production in key centers) seems to fit the Science Legacy
and then Religious spread.

 

[vorlon_mi]

Various Civ games have handled a "golden age" in different ways.

• In Civ3, each civ got exactly 1 golden age. It was triggered by building a wonder related to your civ's traits, or when your UU won a battle. For the Aztecs, that could be incredibly early. For the Germans, it could be much later.
• In Civ4, a civ/leader could have multiple golden ages during the game. They were triggered by correctly utilizing Great People; the rules were complex.
• In Civ6, each civ/leader/persona could trigger a golden age by accumulating era score in the previous age. It is possible to play well and string together consecutive golden ages.

In each of these cases, a "golden age" resulted in additional yields, reduced unhappiness, and/or other special bonuses. More of a game concept than a strict historical parallel. The Civ7 implementation -- provide a bonus in the next age, based on achievements in the current age -- is clearly related to the Civ6 ideas.

 

[j51]

I remember liking civ V’s golden ages but I’ve forgot all details of how they worked.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I remember liking civ V’s golden ages but I’ve forgot all details of how they worked.

Mostly similar to Civ7 ones - accumulating global happiness.

 

[Gen.Washington]

I remember liking civ V’s golden ages but I’ve forgot all details of how they worked.

In Civ 5 a golden age gave you a 20% increase to production and gave a bunch of gold per turn I think.

 

[Ornen]

Or a secret alternative, where they full-arse both and get them both right

I don’t think they’ve ever delivered fully functional religion with victory conditions in base game. maybe they did with 6? it’s not essential in any case

I think the whole game is woefully incomplete. the timeline basically skips 1600-1850, which is a massive period in world history

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I don’t think they’ve ever delivered fully functional religion with victory conditions in base game. maybe they did with 6?

Religious victory exists in Civ 6. You need your religion you founded to be the majority religion in at least half of all the civilizations.
Whether you find it fully functional is up to your interpretation, because most found it to be the tedious, and the lackluster winning condition compared to the rest.

 

[vorlon_mi]

The only game with a Religious Victory Condition is Civ6, as @Alexander's Hetaroi wrote. Religion was implemented as a customizable part of one's empire, with its own yield as in Civ5. The faith yield was better integrated with other mechanics, allowing purchase of civilian units, military units, and buildings with faith when the proper requirements are met. All of those aspects interacted with the player's ability to pursue the other VCs.

Religion in Civ5 was implemented as a customizable part of one's empire, with its own yield (Faith). Religion could influence Tourism (BNW), which is important for the Cultural VC.

Religion in Civ4 had a huge influence on diplomatic relations. A fixed number of religions were defined in the game, unlocked with different techs. Adopting a state religion -- or not, depending on your civics choice -- influenced your economy. If a religion was dominant in a city, one could build buildings for that religion, earning culture, as well as train religious units. The cultural VC in Civ4 (BTS) was heavily dependent on having religious/cultural buildings in certain cities. I could make a case that the late game corporations in Civ4 BTS had a similar/parallel function to religion: building branches in a city, spreading the corp by training executives, yields in the city influenced by the corp branch in that city.

Religion didn't exist in Civ3. Certain buildings (Temple, Cathedral) or wonders with religious-sounding names provided culture and happiness.... essentially, culture buildings.

 

[King Flevance]

Economically, I would really like to see some legacy mechanic in exploration that encourages monopolies by requiring you acquire multiple copies of a single resource. The quantity would need adjusted by map size but, for instance, on a large map gaining 5 copies of the same resource grants 1 economic point. 10 would grant 2 points and 15 would grant 3 points.

Then in modern it would be cool if some kind of factories would take resources and make new, more powerful resources. Like if 3 furs, in a factory made "luxury clothing" turning 3 resources into 1 super resource but it would grant something like +10 happiness and +5 gold.

• In Civ4, a civ/leader could have multiple golden ages during the game. They were triggered by correctly utilizing Great People; the rules were complex.

The rules were actually simple. Your first Golden Age costs 1 Great Person of any type. Your second Golden Age costs 2 Great Persons of any type. Your third Golden Age costs 3 Great Persons of any type. And so on.

Each Golden Age had diminishing returns as Great People offered so much more that burning 3 GP for a Golden Age was arguably wasteful and 4 GAs in one game seems unnecessary and wasteful. Most games you will probably only want to burn 1 GP for a GA or 3 GP for 2 GAs. But that is 3 specialists you are declining.

 

[Ornen]

The only game with a Religious Victory Condition is Civ6, as @Alexander's Hetaroi wrote. Religion was implemented as a customizable part of one's empire, with its own yield as in Civ5. The faith yield was better integrated with other mechanics, allowing purchase of civilian units, military units, and buildings with faith when the proper requirements are met. All of those aspects interacted with the player's ability to pursue the other VCs.

Religion in Civ5 was implemented as a customizable part of one's empire, with its own yield (Faith). Religion could influence Tourism (BNW), which is important for the Cultural VC.

Religion in Civ4 had a huge influence on diplomatic relations. A fixed number of religions were defined in the game, unlocked with different techs. Adopting a state religion -- or not, depending on your civics choice -- influenced your economy. If a religion was dominant in a city, one could build buildings for that religion, earning culture, as well as train religious units. The cultural VC in Civ4 (BTS) was heavily dependent on having religious/cultural buildings in certain cities. I could make a case that the late game corporations in Civ4 BTS had a similar/parallel function to religion: building branches in a city, spreading the corp by training executives, yields in the city influenced by the corp branch in that city.

Religion didn't exist in Civ3. Certain buildings (Temple, Cathedral) or wonders with religious-sounding names provided culture and happiness.... essentially, culture buildings.

I'm talking about base game. IIRC

• religion was in base Civ 4 as a fairly light system compared to what it is now (honestly, I miss the days of light but effective systems, C4 was pretty deep without turning every system into its own micromanagement minigame)
• religion was not in base Civ 5
• religion was in base Civ 6, but was considered incomplete & tedious on release

culture evolved in the expansions, but still felt pretty complete in Civ 6 (I find the total emphasis on missionaries and archaeologists to be both boring and uninspiring)

my overall point is still that I would rather have a complete culture game than what we got. but I'd also love to see early modern era (1600-1850) which is a crucial period of world history and something that I simply expect to see at a very basic fundamental level in a civ game. baffling that this period was left out

 

[m_mus]

After some leave from the forums I am honestly and thankfully suprised how much you all have engaged with my OP's topic. I have worked myself now trough the whole thread and I feel quite enriched by your insightful perspectives. So thank you all!
With that being said ...
Roadmap, when?
I can only reiterate the point: I am much more likely to start playing again, once I feel that my time invested now in learning the game's intricacies & lvling leaders for unlocking mementos will be rewarded later by supporting a game that will develop into a certain direction. In doing so I don't want to declare myself the center the of the universe, but I just think that others might feel the same. Game's not perfect right now, that's ok. Just give me and others plausible reason that it will evolve to the better, and I will invest into it willingly at this moment already.

 

[stealth_nsk]

17 pages in the thread and I'm still strongly oppose the idea of having roadmap for patches Civ7. Too few "must have" features left to bother and the rest can't be fully planned.

Content roadmap would be surely welcome, and I expect it to come closer to the release of the next DLC pack. Which, based on Ottomans leak, is not that far.

 

[Krikkit1]

17 pages in the thread and I'm still strongly oppose the idea of having roadmap for patches Civ7. Too few "must have" features left to bother and the rest can't be fully planned.

Content roadmap would be surely welcome, and I expect it to come closer to the release of the next DLC pack. Which, based on Ottomans leak, is not that far.

There are plenty of "must have" features and Improvements that they are working on and letting us know what is
likely to be done soon v.
likely to be done later v.
not something they are considering doing

is particularly useful especially if they want to tie it in with content. I could see having it with announcing a 1.3.0 patch in October (to help build up hype for Holiday sales and whatever DLC will be available for Holidays/2026)

Even if it was in categories
This patch
Maybe November/December/January
2026

along with stuff they don't mention.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There are plenty of "must have" features and Improvements that they are working on and letting us know what is

The problem here is that any mentioned feature is usually considered a promise by the community, so developers just can't put things there unless they are sure they are going to do them. And by the nature of game design it's very hard to be sure in most of the features.

Sure, they could make roadmap with vague items like "further UI improvements" or "civilization and leader rebalance", but what good will this roadmap bring.

And by "must have" I mean in product prioritization terms, something about which people say "this should be available on release". In strict terms, Hotseat is the only such feature remaining.

 

[Krikkit1]

The problem here is that any mentioned feature is usually considered a promise by the community, so developers just can't put things there unless they are sure they are going to do them. And by the nature of game design it's very hard to be sure in most of the features.

Sure, they could make roadmap with vague items like "further UI improvements" or "civilization and leader rebalance", but what good will this roadmap bring.

And by "must have" I mean in product prioritization terms, something about which people say "this should be available on release". In strict terms, Hotseat is the only such feature remaining.

In the context of Civ 7 I'd say Choosing your Ending/Victory Age is one of those.
as well as a map maker/ Earth Maps

Not to mention they can talk about particular areas of the game they are working on in the short+Long term (Religion has been mentioned, as has "identity": is this looking like November -December 2025 or Summer 2026) that would be helpful.