How to repair the Age transition system -not a civ game- opinions and suggestions

[aelf]

With so many people comparing Civ 7 to a board game, Ed Beach should know that disrupting the "flow" of the game specifically to remove things from the leader is really bad design for a board game or a video game. It's like saying "Ok, pause your game of Catan every 12 rounds and reset everyone's cities to settlements and everyone discard your hand to prevent runaway leaders." It is disruptive and just feel bad from a purely gameplay perspective.

Well, this got me thinking. I haven't played it myself, but I know Ra has a very similar mechanic with its epochs, where at the end of each epoch the board is reset for the next epoch. Maybe Ed Beach took some inspiration from that?

 

[King Flevance]

Well, this got me thinking. I haven't played it myself, but I know Ra has a very similar mechanic with its epochs, where at the end of each epoch the board is reset for the next epoch. Maybe Ed Beach took some inspiration from that?

I also have not had a chance to play Ra yet but am aware of it loosely. I watched a video to semi-educate myself before I replied. I know a lot of board games have phases (Usually 3-5 with 3 being the most popular from my experience) and I wouldn't be surprised if Ed Beach did draw some inspiration there. This has been a core design in board games for at least 10 years. (7 Wonders, Blood Rage, Everdell, Wingspan, etc.) Ra is unique to me because most games do not remove things from your "player board", but rather the main board or "community board". Like, usually an auction board or a market board in a board game clears so new things come up for auction or acquiring by all players, not removing things you have accumulated. Ra does seem to remove things from your player board but without personal experience I can't comment too much into its implementation. I know god tiles in this way are "use them or lose them" within an epoch. Also, I know flood tiles have something to do with scoring river tiles or something. But it is all to vague in my current understanding to understand why removing the tiles on the right side of your player board is seen as acceptable in Ra.

What is interesting in the case of Civ's design is that your civilization is kind of the equivalent to your "player board" on a board game and the main map is the "community board". I think having the tech/civic trees reset makes sense, Social policies resetting with new rules makes sense. Basically, everything that your civilization does resets. I don't like that what your civilization is resets. Everything is a town, all units become standard, you get a free boat randomly just because, etc.

When the game first released, I actually could not see the board game similarities that well. It still feels more video game vs board game to me. But the more I see people bringing up this critique, as time passes, the more I can see why that critique is so prevalent. I am not sure I agree with the sentiment of the critique still, but it isn't without merit. Board games are so vast now and have had some really innovative designs for game design. This is actually why I even know of Ra is because it is highly praised. I know a golden rule of running a D&D campaign is that you should avoid taking things away from your players they have worked hard and invested to obtain. Most board games I play reset to give you new, better things to obtain in the new phase but do not take what you have already obtained. Usually, they just build on top of it for bigger gameplay stakes.

 

[McSpank01]

There's a significant part of the game design around overbuilding, so buildings have to lose part of their bonuses.

I would prefer it, that rather than losing bonuses, the new age opens up technology and culture that players didn't have access to before, that would eclipse any of the bonuses you were getting from previous 'overbuildable' buildings. So rather than there being a cut to black and then when I come back my science buildings are basically crap, I would rather that they stayed good, for that time period. However a new science building will become available that would just make the old one look out of date.

To make this work and to encourage more overbuilding, I think space should be more limited in cities. Right now you just end up with a huge urban sprawl, and that is mainly because you can still get all your food and production from sources that are not just rural tiles. Seems like a good idea at first, but if I want to make real decisions about what I place down, rather than 'anything I want', replacing a rural tile with an urban tile should feel like a really tough choice.

But basically, I think your point is "don't change the map". I personally would even prefer the following age beginning with tier 3 units from the previous age and needing to be upgraded through tech into the new age personally. That massive reset doesn't add anything of real value; it just kicks over your "sandcastle" and shrugs saying that it is in the name of balance.

Agree, it is simply psychologically too damaging to the player for the game to be taking away their stuff. Ages are a good idea I think, but the philosophy should be more that a transition gives players an opportunity to make choices that can accelerate their progress if they get it right, rather than the one right now which is 'take away everyone's stuff so it feels more equal'.

Related to my first point, each age should bring about the potential for a civ that was doing badly in the previous age, to really excel in this one, but taking on a strategy that gets them further ahead. In the real world, you had tiny nations like Portugal or the Netherlands that would have struggled to be noticed, but suddenly, due to circumstances were able to take advantage of the exploration age by colonising far off lands. It made them massively accelerate their own wealth and power above what they would have been able to before the advent of certain navigation techs.
Or Britain taking advantage of the industrial revolution. Or I dunno, The Mongols taking advantage of their horse based culture.

That is the sort of thing you want from an age transition, the opportunity to catch up by taking advantage of your own inherent attributes and how they relate to changing circumstances. That doesn't really happen in the way the game wants it to happen right now, even if I think that might be the ambition.

 

[Gorbles]

Agree, it is simply psychologically too damaging to the player for the game to be taking away their stuff. Ages are a good idea I think, but the philosophy should be more that a transition gives players an opportunity to make choices that can accelerate their progress if they get it right, rather than the one right now which is 'take away everyone's stuff so it feels more equal'.

I feel like Legacy Points already do this, to the extent you can stack a ridiculous amount of them and roll into the next Age with a bunch of bonuses (some of which have a critical impact on your start, e.g. the Wildcard for moving your capital while retaining the existing city).

I have to say - and this is a completely personal / opinionated thing - I'm surprised at how attached people are to "losing" anything. Towns are not weak. Cities going back to towns isn't even necessarily a hard nerf to progress (it allows you to re-specialise, for starters). Units are a solved problem assuming people actually build Commanders (thankfully, as the game now tells you - even if I think it could remind players better, instead of a one-and-done notification).

Maybe players don't want snowballing to be solved. But in that case, players shouldn't also whine about lategame tedium. They're inherently interconnected, and if different demographics are responsible for these conflicting positions, then it's up to the developers to pick one group over the other (eventually, when progressing the franchise). Regardless of how well folks want to argue VII has achieved it - this kind of conflict is the core problem that the designers then need to engage with.

 

[McSpank01]

I have to say - and this is a completely personal / opinionated thing - I'm surprised at how attached people are to "losing" anything. Towns are not weak. Cities going back to towns isn't even necessarily a hard nerf to progress (it allows you to re-specialise, for starters). Units are a solved problem assuming people actually build Commanders (thankfully, as the game now tells you - even if I think it could remind players better, instead of a one-and-done notification).

Mainly the thing I object to is the feeling that the Civ I was building has suddenly been hobbled, and the buildings I put effort into building, no longer really do much, in fact are a hinderance. That is the big one for me. It also being a feeling that I might not even bother building stuff that will lose it's value at the end of the age.

The other stuff is less of an issue for me, I don't mind upgrading towns, I don't mind moving units (don't love it and I don't want to lose any either) and all the rest is kind of minor.

 

[user746383]

I'm definitely shift-entering on Deity 3 times per game instead of once per game, as in previous games (if for some reason I wanted to see the end screen). It's not totally inconsistent IMHO to not like this particular fix for late game tedium even if they don't like late game tedium. Though I personally don't find late game tedium to be a huge problem.

 

[uppi]

To make this work and to encourage more overbuilding, I think space should be more limited in cities. Right now you just end up with a huge urban sprawl, and that is mainly because you can still get all your food and production from sources that are not just rural tiles. Seems like a good idea at first, but if I want to make real decisions about what I place down, rather than 'anything I want', replacing a rural tile with an urban tile should feel like a really tough choice.

The choice may be tough, but why would it change? If you decided at some point that it is worth to replace a 4 food tile with a 3 science library, why would you make a different decision in the next age? You could do massive yield inflation, so the farm would now be worth 12 food, but then you would be as hobbled as you are now, but with different numbers.

 

[McSpank01]

The choice may be tough, but why would it change? If you decided at some point that it is worth to replace a 4 food tile with a 3 science library, why would you make a different decision in the next age? You could do massive yield inflation, so the farm would now be worth 12 food, but then you would be as hobbled as you are now, but with different numbers.

Yeah I'm not quite sure the best way to make it work, possibly some sort of scaling effect if you make a certain percentage more urban than rural tiles that leads to disorder to increases cost of food yield or something. You could make relying on towns and urban tiles for food more risky, create disruption for the transport of food to cities.

Either way, I think the game should feel a bit more complex with a series of parallel tech systems working together. Maybe I can rush into improving agriculture and up the yield of my rural tiles, which would then make it easier to support my urban tiles, and the cost of an urban tile can scale but the incentive would be to build the latest science building because it gives you much better yields.

It might all end up the same in the end as what we have now, but at least you don't feel like there has been a hard reset and all your yields disappeared, and it wasn't your fault.

 

[Leucarum]

I feel like Legacy Points already do this, to the extent you can stack a ridiculous amount of them and roll into the next Age with a bunch of bonuses (some of which have a critical impact on your start, e.g. the Wildcard for moving your capital while retaining the existing city).

I have to say - and this is a completely personal / opinionated thing - I'm surprised at how attached people are to "losing" anything. Towns are not weak. Cities going back to towns isn't even necessarily a hard nerf to progress (it allows you to re-specialise, for starters). Units are a solved problem assuming people actually build Commanders (thankfully, as the game now tells you - even if I think it could remind players better, instead of a one-and-done notification).

Maybe players don't want snowballing to be solved. But in that case, players shouldn't also whine about lategame tedium. They're inherently interconnected, and if different demographics are responsible for these conflicting positions, then it's up to the developers to pick one group over the other (eventually, when progressing the franchise). Regardless of how well folks want to argue VII has achieved it - this kind of conflict is the core problem that the designers then need to engage with.

I don't object to losing stuff, I kind of enjoy the soft-reset personally... My issue is that age transitions haven't remotely come close to solving snowballing.

Once you know what to prioritize and start thinking about building your civ for the next age, you still snowball! If anything it feels like age transitions give an exact point when a snowball starts, and that really contributes to me ending games earlier than I have before. Probably over half my games end with Antiquity... If I know I have won, why play on? And 7 now gives me an obvious point to stop at...

 

[UWHabs]

Yeah I'm not quite sure the best way to make it work, possibly some sort of scaling effect if you make a certain percentage more urban than rural tiles that leads to disorder to increases cost of food yield or something. You could make relying on towns and urban tiles for food more risky, create disruption for the transport of food to cities.

Either way, I think the game should feel a bit more complex with a series of parallel tech systems working together. Maybe I can rush into improving agriculture and up the yield of my rural tiles, which would then make it easier to support my urban tiles, and the cost of an urban tile can scale but the incentive would be to build the latest science building because it gives you much better yields.

It might all end up the same in the end as what we have now, but at least you don't feel like there has been a hard reset and all your yields disappeared, and it wasn't your fault.

I do think the fact that food is now always counting up does lose a little of the strategy too. You never have to worry about like a famine or your city shrinking, all that replacing all the farms means is that you just won't grow more. If there was a risk of starvation in your cities because you over-built your rural lands, and don't have enough farming towns, I could see that add another level of strategy. Even just forcing me to actually chase a farming town to supply my city would add another decision point.

I am curious how the game would play if, say, ONLY farming towns send their food to connected cities, and other town specializations didn't send food, but just grew more slowly from their own food, for example. Maybe those towns could spawn a migrant when they grew, so you could choose to send them to another city to work. Some combination around that might give you a few more choices in how town specialization worked. Something to slightly force you to get some towns that you actually had to put as farming towns, but another potential balance consideration for the other specializations.

I don't object to losing stuff, I kind of enjoy the soft-reset personally... My issue is that age transitions haven't remotely come close to solving snowballing.

Once you know what to prioritize and start thinking aboit building your civ for the next age, you still snowball! If anything it feels like age transitioms give an exact point when a snowball starts, and that really contributes to me ending games earlier than I have before. Probably over half my games end with Antiquity... If I know I have won, why play on?

I might "know" I am going to win, but at least to me, the exploration age is still somewhat fun in that there's still some unknown out there in the world to discover. And I know that sometimes the reset can come pretty hard to the next age, while I might end the antiquity making 2x or 3x science more than the second place, I'll often start the next age pretty much on-par again, maybe only up because of the bonuses from attribute points.

 

[user746383]

In my opinion the age resets are way better at making sure the AI doesn't snowball than it prevents me from doing so.

 

[Gorbles]

I don't object to losing stuff, I kind of enjoy the soft-reset personally... My issue is that age transitions haven't remotely come close to solving snowballing.

Once you know what to prioritize and start thinking about building your civ for the next age, you still snowball! If anything it feels like age transitions give an exact point when a snowball starts, and that really contributes to me ending games earlier than I have before. Probably over half my games end with Antiquity... If I know I have won, why play on? And 7 now gives me an obvious point to stop at...

I think it's impossible to stop snowballing if you describe it as "an advantage". But I think it can still be mitigated, and hopefully in such a way that means the excessive, runaway advantage is toned down to something more along the lines of "being in a strong position because you earned it".

Knowing you've won is an interesting point though. I don't think that's really snowballing, it means you've hit the victory conditions.

If your position is so strong that the Age transition has no impact on your ability to run away with the next Age, is that a problem with the transition itself? Is it a problem that you're retaining too much / getting too much from Legacy Points? Is it that the AI isn't putting up a competitive fight? Is it that the next Age's victory mechanics don't require any real redevelopment or challenge?

The issue could be more than one of these things.

I think transitions a) help with snowballing (but don't eliminate it, if that's even possible), and b) let you customise your playthrough based on your performance in the last Age. The benefits of the latter may be redundant for a lot of people, but I think each Age feels distinct enough. This distinct-ness works against the feel of a contiguous game.

It's why I always come down on the side of a) more options for those who want them (I'm very interested to see how 1.2.2 is received, once it lands), but more importantly b) improving the "feel" of the Age.

A lot of complaints centre around immersion. This is something that can be tackled with polish, better UX, more flavour, and so on. A gameplay alteration to Ages is likely to be more heavy-handed (like them or not, the Age structure is pretty core to the gameplay). Instead, the UI could be a lot more immersive, going into the end of an Age and then heading into the transition. Heck, it could even have voice work added! More things to make you feel like you're experiencing something, instead of being teleported through time and space.

 

[luca 83]

I think it's impossible to stop snowballing if you describe it as "an advantage". But I think it can still be mitigated, and hopefully in such a way that means the excessive, runaway advantage is toned down to something more along the lines of "being in a strong position because you earned it".

Knowing you've won is an interesting point though. I don't think that's really snowballing, it means you've hit the victory conditions.

If your position is so strong that the Age transition has no impact on your ability to run away with the next Age, is that a problem with the transition itself? Is it a problem that you're retaining too much / getting too much from Legacy Points? Is it that the AI isn't putting up a competitive fight? Is it that the next Age's victory mechanics don't require any real redevelopment or challenge?

The issue could be more than one of these things.

I think transitions a) help with snowballing (but don't eliminate it, if that's even possible), and b) let you customise your playthrough based on your performance in the last Age. The benefits of the latter may be redundant for a lot of people, but I think each Age feels distinct enough. This distinct-ness works against the feel of a contiguous game.

It's why I always come down on the side of a) more options for those who want them (I'm very interested to see how 1.2.2 is received, once it lands), but more importantly b) improving the "feel" of the Age.

A lot of complaints centre around immersion. This is something that can be tackled with polish, better UX, more flavour, and so on. A gameplay alteration to Ages is likely to be more heavy-handed (like them or not, the Age structure is pretty core to the gameplay). Instead, the UI could be a lot more immersive, going into the end of an Age and then heading into the transition. Heck, it could even have voice work added! More things to make you feel like you're experiencing something, instead of being teleported through time and space.

The developers of civilization do not know history! The change of era does not erase previous civilizations but integrates them with new peoples, new religions, new politics, and ideologies, layering them over each other. We know this very well, especially for the Sicilian names, and for this, the return of ethnicity is necessary, as in the past with ethnic minorities in cities, where ideologies and politics change over time.

 

[Leucarum]

I might "know" I am going to win, but at least to me, the exploration age is still somewhat fun in that there's still some unknown out there in the world to discover. And I know that sometimes the reset can come pretty hard to the next age, while I might end the antiquity making 2x or 3x science more than the second place, I'll often start the next age pretty much on-par again, maybe only up because of the bonuses from attribute points.

Knowing you've won is an interesting point though. I don't think that's really snowballing, it means you've hit the victory conditions.

It's a question of "what do I have left to play for" I think? If you've set yourself up so victory is all but inevitable, the question becomes whether what comes next is going to be interesting?

That's going to be different for everyone, but here Civ7 for me also runs into the problem that I don't get excited by as many civs in exploration (or especially modern) as I do by the civs of Antiquity. If I'm set up for a fun game with Songhai or Hawai'i I'm far more likely to play exploration. If my best plan is to shift to Mongolia or Normans I'll definitely stop. In modern, I have almost no excitement for any of the civs. Nepal can be fun, but it's so rare/requires you to skew your gameplay up to the modern, that I just don't often carry on.

That's a personal example, but if victory is assured, what motivates you to continue? I guess that's the core of the question?

If your position is so strong that the Age transition has no impact on your ability to run away with the next Age, is that a problem with the transition itself? Is it a problem that you're retaining too much / getting too much from Legacy Points? Is it that the AI isn't putting up a competitive fight? Is it that the next Age's victory mechanics don't require any real redevelopment or challenge?

AI could be an issue for sure. I'm very curious what the game will look like without legacy paths too. Exploration age in particular the AI just can barely play the legacy paths. I think the problem might be that if you create a "stopping point" a lot of players will stop unless they have an active reason not to. I think they assumed civ switching would be that, but I think it's a reason to stop playing for me...

It's why I always come down on the side of a) more options for those who want them (I'm very interested to see how 1.2.2 is received, once it lands), but more importantly b) improving the "feel" of the Age.

I'm 100% on board with this statement. Firaxis have a very fragmented audience so everything they change needs to be made optional/be a game mode if they want to maximize audience satisfaction. That's going to be a logistical nightmare eventually, but keeping civ afloat for now should be the priority.

 

[Gorbles]

The developers of civilization do not know history! The change of era does not erase previous civilizations but integrates them with new peoples, new religions, new politics, and ideologies, layering them over each other. We know this very well, especially for the Sicilian names, and for this, the return of ethnicity is necessary, as in the past with ethnic minorities in cities, where ideologies and politics change over time.

Yes, and the game attempts to model this (given that any game that needs to gamify systems, your opinion on how well they succeed at this will be different to mine). It's why you can have buildings from previous Ages in your current Age. Previously, we only had Wonders (in VI).

Like sure, criticise this, but previous games did this worse, so.

t's a question of "what do I have left to play for" I think? If you've set yourself up so victory is all but inevitable, the question becomes whether what comes next is going to be interesting?

That's going to be different for everyone, but here Civ7 for me also runs into the problem that I don't get excited by as many civs in exploration (or especially modern) as I do by the civs of Antiquity. If I'm set up for a fun game with Songhai or Hawai'i I'm far more likely to play exploration. If my best plan is to shift to Mongolia or Normans I'll definitely stop. In modern, I have almost no excitement for any of the civs. Nepal can be fun, but it's so rare/requires you to skew your gameplay up to the modern, that I just don't often carry on.

That's a personal example, but if victory is assured, what motivates you to continue? I guess that's the core of the question?

Yeah, that's fair. For me, I like getting through to a victory. However, I am not a skilled player (never have been), so I tend to check out when my victory seems impossible. Which, as it happens, is an embarrassing amount of the time

I also dislike the tedium that seems to come with lategame systems and micromanagement. I'm hoping Exploration and Modern can get to the point where they feel as tight / well-designed as Antiquity. I have a blast in Antiquity.

 

[Leucarum]

The developers of civilization do not know history!

Not only do they categorically know history, they take great care to represent it well. This is an unfair statement to levy on firaxis. The game you seem to want is very different from Civ, and a lot more like what Paradox makes. You should try their games if you haven't already.

 

[Leucarum]

I also dislike the tedium that seems to come with lategame systems and micromanagement. I'm hoping Exploration and Modern can get to the point where they feel as tight / well-designed as Antiquity. I have a blast in Antiquity

I think they've done this pretty well! Civ7's best feature by a long margin is reduced micromanagement. I've tried playing 6 since 7... I come back to 7 for the removal of builders, town/city split, resource managament, army commanders... That isn't the new and shiny stuff the devs hoped would win us over, but it's the core of Civ7 and it's really, really, really good. The devs marketed ages as Civ7's flagship feature, but really it's this IMO.

Most of the tedium comes from culture paths I think... Some sort of redesign here would go a long way.

 

[luca 83]

Yes, and the game attempts to model this (given that any game that needs to gamify systems, your opinion on how well they succeed at this will be different to mine). It's why you can have buildings from previous Ages in your current Age. Previously, we only had Wonders (in VI).

Like sure, criticise this, but previous games did this worse, so.


Yeah, that's fair. For me, I like getting through to a victory. However, I am not a skilled player (never have been), so I tend to check out when my victory seems impossible. Which, as it happens, is an embarrassing amount of the time

I also dislike the tedium that seems to come with lategame systems and micromanagement. I'm hoping Exploration and Modern can get to the point where they feel as tight / well-designed as Antiquity. I have a blast in Antiquity.

Maintaining the buildings and changing the population gradually. We maintain a coherent and historically valid timeline, as a simulation. I repeat, Firaxis needs to experiment more and get better informed about historical processes.

 

[luca 83]

Yes, and the game attempts to model this (given that any game that needs to gamify systems, your opinion on how well they succeed at this will be different to mine). It's why you can have buildings from previous Ages in your current Age. Previously, we only had Wonders (in VI).

Like sure, criticise this, but previous games did this worse, so.


Yeah, that's fair. For me, I like getting through to a victory. However, I am not a skilled player (never have been), so I tend to check out when my victory seems impossible. Which, as it happens, is an embarrassing amount of the time

I also dislike the tedium that seems to come with lategame systems and micromanagement. I'm hoping Exploration and Modern can get to the point where they feel as tight / well-designed as Antiquity. I have a blast in Antiquity.

transition between ancient and Middle Ages is not just a change of technology or government but a series of migrations of peoples , barbarians, collapse of the western Roman empire religious struggles , dynastic, how can you simulate all this except with narrative events?

 

[Gorbles]

transition between ancient and Middle Ages is not just a change of technology or government but a series of migrations of peoples , barbarians, collapse of the western Roman empire religious struggles , dynastic, how can you simulate all this except with narrative events?

An increased sense of narrative immersion is literally one of the things I already suggested. The only drawback is you need a fair amount of content written for it to trigger in a decent / immersive way for a variety of player situations. But I think it'd be worth it, if we see long-term updates for this game.

Heck, maybe it's even possible to mod in, once we have the tools. Then we'll know if it helps or not / is popular or not even sooner.