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

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

CCCP

SSSR, or USSR.

 

[Pistol90]

1. Simple, You need classic mode (which already there is a mod if I am correct) ...
2. Little more complex, add enough civs so every civ have natural successor so its feels like civ change never happened (Germanic Tribes-Holy Roman Empire-Prussia-Germany for example etc)

 

[Kwami]

2. Little more complex, add enough civs so every civ have natural successor so its feels like civ change never happened (Germanic Tribes-Holy Roman Empire-Prussia-Germany for example etc)

This is impossible for a number of civilizations already in the game and for more that would otherwise be added in future expansions. No, thanks.

 

[Porry]

I had an idea, although I don't know how balanced or feasible it is: instead of putting future technology or civics there should be, at the bottom of the trchnological and civic trees, the search for the passage of era. so the player chooses when and can take advantage of the other players of the greater production of science or culture. once the change of era is searched, the change of civilization is started, only for the player who searched it.

 

[luca 83]

I don't know about more dark age stuff, but I definitely feel like Civ 7 does not handle the issue of large empires well. It has introduced 'hard' rubber banding, specific crude measures to stop players running away from others.

Previous games have instead played with softer measures, happiness, food and loyalty modifiers for empires that get too big too fast. I don't think any of them worked perfectly, in fact Civ 6 just allowed you to kind of ignore it at times. However, that is the direction I feel the game should have gone in. A player should be able to try and expand quickly if they want to, but there has to be a downside. Getting too big should make you unstable, and require a period of stablisation to settle things down before trying again. There needs to be subtle, but real penalties for getting too far ahead in any shape. If you race ahead in science, then that probably should mean you have fallen behind somewhere else.

Yes it's complex to build those systems, so Firaxis instead found the most blunt way of doing things, by taking away players toys and bringing everyone down to the same level. Basically Socialism as a design concept, no wonder it didn't work!

Yes the new patches must improve artificial intelligence, diplomacy , economics, historical percoses , revolutionary mechanics, secessions of cities and peoples,

 

[Lord Lakely]

allowing you to keep all your units would be a start.

 

[Evie]

Not quite about fixing the age transition proper, but back to the problem of civ continuity, I'd fix it in a very different way that's mostly tweaking a few things here and there...

Instead of the current civilization and leader model, have a Civilization and Culture model.

The civilization (what the game used to call Leader): this is who you are playing for the entire game, the *identity* of your factions. A civilization consists of a Civilization name and adjective, a leader (some civilization, sighs, may give you a choice of leaders), a leader ability (which works for the entire game), a city list, a banner, and a jersey color, plus other representative things here and there.

The culture (What the game used to call civilization): this is the set of bonuses that represent what form your civilization take during a given era ; what it looks like for a specific period of time, and what mechanical bonuses it enjoys throughout the game. They consists of a unique unit, infrastructure, unique policies, etc all specific to one game era. They are NOT named after countries (in general), but instead their names reflect specific historical periods (Victorian, Edwardian, Belle Époque, Gilded Age), Socio-Geographic period (Western Frontier, etc), dynasties (Tudor, Han, Maurya, etc), phenomenons, etc. They do not define how your civ is named, what your city list is, and so forth.

 

[Kwami]

Not quite about fixing the age transition proper, but back to the problem of civ continuity, I'd fix it in a very different way that's mostly tweaking a few things here and there...

Instead of the current civilization and leader model, have a Civilization and Culture model.

The civilization (what the game used to call Leader): this is who you are playing for the entire game, the *identity* of your factions. A civilization consists of a Civilization name and adjective, a leader (some civilization, sighs, may give you a choice of leaders), a leader ability (which works for the entire game), a city list, a banner, and a jersey color, plus other representative things here and there.

The culture (What the game used to call civilization): this is the set of bonuses that represent what form your civilization take during a given era ; what it looks like for a specific period of time, and what mechanical bonuses it enjoys throughout the game. They consists of a unique unit, infrastructure, unique policies, etc all specific to one game era. They are NOT named after countries (in general), but instead their names reflect specific historical periods (Victorian, Edwardian, Belle Époque, Gilded Age), Socio-Geographic period (Western Frontier, etc), dynasties (Tudor, Han, Maurya, etc), phenomenons, etc. They do not define how your civ is named, what your city list is, and so forth.

That's basically the model that Millennia used, plus leaders. It didn't work out very well in Millennia, though. It felt very lifeless and, after a few games, very boring.

 

[Evie]

There is nothing more lifeless, almost by definition, that a completely static system where the only choice is made at game start. We're just used to it, to the point of feeling alienated by anything new.

Frankly, at this point, I'm not going back to a "Pick a civ and a set of bonuses, it's everything you are for the entire game" (yes, I'm counting the "each civilization has a separate iteration but you,re required to play those specific iterations without flexibility" in there. Evolving design means you have control and influence over that evolution.)

If that's what Civ VIII is, I won't buy Civ VIII. It won't be worth my time. Neither are ideas advocating for this.

 

[luca 83]

Not quite about fixing the age transition proper, but back to the problem of civ continuity, I'd fix it in a very different way that's mostly tweaking a few things here and there...

Instead of the current civilization and leader model, have a Civilization and Culture model.

The civilization (what the game used to call Leader): this is who you are playing for the entire game, the *identity* of your factions. A civilization consists of a Civilization name and adjective, a leader (some civilization, sighs, may give you a choice of leaders), a leader ability (which works for the entire game), a city list, a banner, and a jersey color, plus other representative things here and there.

The culture (What the game used to call civilization): this is the set of bonuses that represent what form your civilization take during a given era ; what it looks like for a specific period of time, and what mechanical bonuses it enjoys throughout the game. They consists of a unique unit, infrastructure, unique policies, etc all specific to one game era. They are NOT named after countries (in general), but instead their names reflect specific historical periods (Victorian, Edwardian, Belle Époque, Gilded Age), Socio-Geographic period (Western Frontier, etc), dynasties (Tudor, Han, Maurya, etc), phenomenons, etc. They do not define how your civ is named, what your city list is, and so forth.

AND WHAT I HAVE BEEN MAINTAINING FOR MONTHS IS THE INUTILITY OF LEADERS, WHILE INSTEAD, POLITICS, ECONOMIC CHOICES, AND EVENTS DEFINE A CIVILIZATION AND A HISTORICAL ERA THAT DEFINES A CIVILIZATION.

 

[j51]

AND WHAT I HAVE BEEN MAINTAINING FOR MONTHS IS THE INUTILITY OF LEADERS, WHILE INSTEAD, POLITICS, ECONOMIC CHOICES, AND EVENTS DEFINE A CIVILIZATION AND A HISTORICAL ERA THAT DEFINES A CIVILIZATION.

You gots to chill my guy. Everyone here has heard you; you’ve only said it roughly 1000 times. And everyone has explained how the limitations of a turn based 4x game that can run on personal computers is not the place for that.

 

[Leucarum]

You gots to chill my guy. Everyone here has heard you; you’ve only said it roughly 1000 times. And everyone has explained how the limitations of a turn based 4x game that can run on personal computers is not the place for that.

AND WHAT I HAVE BEEN MAINTAINING FOR MONTHS IS THE INUTILITY OF LEADERS, WHILE INSTEAD, POLITICS, ECONOMIC CHOICES, AND EVENTS DEFINE A CIVILIZATION AND A HISTORICAL ERA THAT DEFINES A CIVILIZATION.

I've got to second what j51 said. I think everyone here hopes you get a game you enjoy somewhere, but what you're looking for sounds more like a complex simulation than a game, certainly not a Civ game.

 

[luca 83]

I've got to second what j51 said. I think everyone here hopes you get a game you enjoy somewhere, but what you're looking for sounds more like a complex simulation than a game, certainly not a Civ game.

Really? We're in 2025, not 1991 or 2003. Games evolve, but the problem in Civilization hasn't changed, neither in artificial intelligence nor in mechanics.
Tradotto con https://laratranslate.com/translate?lng=it

 

[Leucarum]

Really? We're in 2025, not 1991 or 2003. Games evolve, but the problem in Civilization hasn't changed, neither in artificial intelligence nor in mechanics.
Tradotto con https://laratranslate.com/translate?lng=it

The thing people seem to be annoyed about with 7 is that Civ has evolved...

And when I said you want a simulation I mean that the features you request sound like they'd strip away player agency, and have all civs evolve in ways entirely dependant on their situation they find themselves in. Maybe it's the translation, but it doesn't sound like what you want is actually a game...

 

[Evie]

I'd say at this point, Luca's dedication to his historical model, against tides, fortunes and (especially) the almost universal opposition of everyone else on these forums over, what, four years is really admirable.

Still not my cup of teas as far as games go, and it never will be, and I don't think Civ should do it, but there's more original thinking, willingness to change, and creativity in a single post advocating for this model than in all the "Civ should go back to the static civilizations we're familiar with" posts of this forum combined.

 

[j51]

True. I’d love if the stuff Luca wants was possible within Civ and Civ 7 is at least a stumble toward that direction and it has not gone over well.

 

[luca 83]

I'd say at this point, Luca's dedication to his historical model, against tides, fortunes and (especially) the almost universal opposition of everyone else on these forums over, what, four years is really admirable.

Still not my cup of teas as far as games go, and it never will be, and I don't think Civ should do it, but there's more original thinking, willingness to change, and creativity in a single post advocating for this model than in all the "Civ should go back to the static civilizations we're familiar with" posts of this forum combined.

There should be a game that has a dynamic simulation that also takes into account random events, similar to Civ 4 but much more complex.

 

[Haig]

Evie:
I understand what you dont like about having the same civilization and leader from start to end, but I personally think that it's still the path you make that changes every game.

You could play as a warmongering crusading Byzantium or a tall Byzantium that turtles and goes for culture.
You can mould your empire with goverments, ideologies and you need to use your strenghts and weaknesses.

I guess its a matter of taste but I think choosing new set of uniques each age is a bit too much.
With future expansions adding new mechanics and possible new era I feel the game might get too bloated.

 

[Kwami]

There is nothing more lifeless, almost by definition, that a completely static system where the only choice is made at game start. We're just used to it, to the point of feeling alienated by anything new.

No, I didn't feel alienated by Millennia. Please don't tell me how I feel.

I stand by my initial claim that Millennia feels lifeless because of the system in which you choose a civilization (a flag, a city list, a default ability and color that can be changed) and then fill in the cultural details as you progress through the eras. It sounds like a good system, but it's actually boring because America = China = Russia = Brazil. There's really no difference. You might as well call them "Blue" and "Orange" and "Yellow" and "Red".

 

[Evie]

I don't want the devs to go back to Civ II (although Civ II Reforged I wouldn't be against) but it remains one of the high points of the series, and by very far the one I spent the most hours on, and boring and lifeless sure isn't what it was. Even if your civ was just a color, a name and a city list, and we filled the rest in ourselves rather than having everything special about our civs predetermined.

@Haig Yes, my choice during the game should be what define my civilization - and what they do, what abilities they have, what make them special. Not a single choice at game start that determines me everything special about my civ down one road.