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

[WillK96]

I really don't see how they could make the ages transition more seamless, aside from drastically expanding the pool of civilizations to ensure a more cohesive cultural transition and maybe making some buildings retain their base yields (maybe Academies, Amphitheaters, Villas in the Antiquity age would retain their base yields and adjacencies into exploration. Same for the tier 2 buildings in exploration). I would prefer they significantly develop the depth of each age to really get the best out of the age-dependent systems and gameplay of that age.

 

[Leucarum]

I think they took a big swing - and am glad they tried - but I think ultimately it's been a miss on most of the goals they were trying to achieve (keeping players playing the late game and reducing snowballing are big misses in particular).

I don't know that the game in its current form will have longevity, and suspect if the game's going to survive, Firaxis need to go take some of the lessons learned, but rework the game to be a single continuous experience, without civ switching. They did introduce plenty of novel features which I rate as big wins (mixing/matching leaders, momentos, dramatically reduced micromanagement), but eras and civ switching have just annoyed too much of their audience... Of course they might not get that chance... Or they might try to stay the course... I doubt the game will survive the latter.

 

[WillK96]

I think they took a big swing - and am glad they tried - but I think ultimately it's been a miss on most of the goals they were trying to achieve (keeping players playing the late game and reducing snowballing are big misses in particular).

I don't know that the game in its current form will have longevity, and suspect if the game's going to survive, Firaxis need to go take some of the lessons learned, but rework the game to be a single continuous experience, without civ switching. They did introduce plenty of novel features which I rate as big wins (mixing/matching leaders, momentos, dramatically reduced micromanagement), but eras and civ switching have just annoyed too much of their audience... Of course they might not get that chance... Or they might try to stay the course... I doubt the game will survive the latter.

The amount of work required to undo the civ switching would is prohibitive. I'd guess they stay the course with the current civ switching and age mechanic situation through at least one expansion before either abandoning the game and working on Civ VIII.

 

[Kwami]

I really don't see how they could make the ages transition more seamless, aside from drastically expanding the pool of civilizations to ensure a more cohesive cultural transition and maybe making some buildings retain their base yields (maybe Academies, Amphitheaters, Villas in the Antiquity age would retain their base yields and adjacencies into exploration. Same for the tier 2 buildings in exploration). I would prefer they significantly develop the depth of each age to really get the best out of the age-dependent systems and gameplay of that age.

Yes, exactly this. I'd much rather that they continue to make this game the best it can be than try to reinvent the game from the ground up to appease the group of players that won't even try it.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I don't know that the game in its current form will have longevity, and suspect if the game's going to survive, Firaxis need to go take some of the lessons learned, but rework the game to be a single continuous experience, without civ switching. They did introduce plenty of novel features which I rate as big wins (mixing/matching leaders, momentos, dramatically reduced micromanagement), but eras and civ switching have just annoyed too much of their audience... Of course they might not get that chance... Or they might try to stay the course... I doubt the game will survive the latter.

No.

Civ Switching should remain an Option for those that want or want to try it.
Playing the same Civ from beginning to end (or part of the way) should also be an Option.

But neither should be the Only Option, since they've already invested an immense amount of labor to implement Civ Switching and the continuous Civ is, to put it bluntly, Pure Fantasy and should never have been the default playing experience in the first place.

To make the 'continuous Civ' work at all compared to the already-implemented Age-specific Civs will require some very different mechanics from what people are used to in any case. Having Unique attributes that are so bland they apply to the entire game will, frankly, leave the continuous Civ a sad second-place to other Civs and playable only by gamers not interested in winning. On the other hand, having uniques for each Civ useable in each Age requires each Civ to have up to 3 times the work put into it that previous Civ games required.

What saves the whole idea from being impractical is that none of the Civs require Leader work as well - a change in Civ VII that, paradoxically, makes conversion of some or all of the Civs to Continuous Play a possibility at least.

In addition, there are places where short cuts can be taken:

*On map graphics of general buildings can be strictly Regional or terrain/biome-based and applied to more than one Civ.

*Even better, let the gamer choose the architectural style of the Civ for more Personalization of 'his' Civ - and allow that choice for every Age he plays it.

*Not all Civs require an associated Wonder for every Age - especially since the Wonders have no direct effect on Legacies after the Antiquity Age.

*As in the game already, not every Civ requires any form of special or great people and even those Civs that already have them don't need them in every Age.

*By making more structures 'carry over' their effects into later Ages in some way (including entirely different ways from when they started), the total number of Unique graphic structures can be reduced compared to he total number of Civs.

There is still a lot of work required. Just converting the existing Civs in the game already to potentially continuous play will require modifying or implementing the equivalent of 20+ new Civs in Abilities, Attributes, and potential Unique Civics trees, Units, and Infrastructure.

 

[Leucarum]

The amount of work required to undo the civ switching would is prohibitive. I'd guess they stay the course with the current civ switching and age mechanic situation through at least one expansion before either abandoning the game and working on Civ VIII.

I don't think that's true... See my post a page or so back for an example of how you could rejig civ switching into a continuous mode.

No.

Civ Switching should remain an Option for those that want or want to try it.
Playing the same Civ from beginning to end (or part of the way) should also be an Option.

I'd love it to be optional. No issues there.

But neither should be the Only Option, since they've already invested an immense amount of labor to implement Civ Switching and the continuous Civ is, to put it bluntly, Pure Fantasy and should never have been the default playing experience in the first place.

To make the 'continuous Civ' work at all compared to the already-implemented Age-specific Civs will require some very different mechanics from what people are used to in any case. Having Unique attributes that are so bland they apply to the entire game will, frankly, leave the continuous Civ a sad second-place to other Civs and playable only by gamers not interested in winning. On the other hand, having uniques for each Civ useable in each Age requires each Civ to have up to 3 times the work put into it that previous Civ games required.

I don't think 7 would be a second-place game... Honestly, its most amazing feature is reduced micromanagement. Army commanders, no builders, fewer build queues. Those are the features which stop me going back to Civ6. And take a look through the civs and count how many of their features would actually only work in one era. Ironically 7 really has demonstrated that Firaxis can design civs to be interesting outside of their chosen era. Despite being the advertised novel features, eras and civ switching are not what keeps me playing, honestly I feel like I enjoy Civ7 in spite of them

I also don't think every Civ needs uniques in each age. UUs in particular seem fine to be age specific. In 7 they are rarely game defining. What I think does require thought and probably some sort of per-age structure if you are gonna make civs work as either mono-civs or switchables are Traditions... Too many leaders/civs/mechanics depend on slotting accumulated traditions.

What saves the whole idea from being impractical is that none of the Civs require Leader work as well - a change in Civ VII that, paradoxically, makes conversion of some or all of the Civs to Continuous Play a possibility at least.

In addition, there are places where short cuts can be taken:

*On map graphics of general buildings can be strictly Regional or terrain/biome-based and applied to more than one Civ.

*Even better, let the gamer choose the architectural style of the Civ for more Personalization of 'his' Civ - and allow that choice for every Age he plays it.

*Not all Civs require an associated Wonder for every Age - especially since the Wonders have no direct effect on Legacies after the Antiquity Age.

It's definitely not nothing, but I actually don't think the workload is as crazy to adjust the civs to work in all eras. Like you say, the lack of graphics makes it work plausible.

*As in the game already, not every Civ requires any form of special or great people and even those Civs that already have them don't need them in every Age.

*By making more structures 'carry over' their effects into later Ages in some way (including entirely different ways from when they started), the total number of Unique graphic structures can be reduced compared to he total number of Civs.

There is still a lot of work required. Just converting the existing Civs in the game already to potentially continuous play will require modifying or implementing the equivalent of 20+ new Civs in Abilities, Attributes, and potential Unique Civics trees, Units, and Infrastructure.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Civ switching s only part of it. Having your empire essentially fall and be replaced offscreen is probably driving aways as many if not more people

 

[Leucarum]

Civ switching s only part of it. Having your empire essentially fall and be replaced offscreen is probably driving aways as many if not more people

I think that is easier to fix with game options. If at the end of an era you didn't lose units, adjacency bonuses, nothing moved, etc... Would it then still feel like your empire had died? Since each age is essentially a mod, one would hope you could make eras into a sliding scale relatively painlessly.

Still stuff to consider, like how to keep overbuilding worthwhile and should traditions/policies reset... But I think a sliding scale of era switch severity is a practical call...

 

[Krikkit1]

A way I could see it working.

If you are playing in "Single civ gameplay mode"
Your civs UA, UI, UU and Unique civics Tree are locked to its native age.

However, its Attributes are always active... so in Antiquity, America/Mughal/Inca (since they are out of their Native Age) will all be able to
have 2 "branches" in their Antiquity Unique Civics tree
the "Antiquity Economics" Branch
and
the "Antiquity Expansionist" Branch
Mongols would also have the same "Antiquity Exploration" civics available but they would have the "Antiquity Militaristic" civics instead of the "Antiquity Economic" ones.

That way there is some uniqueness, but the devs just need to come up with
2 civics per branch
6 branches
3 ages

36 civics and associated traditions

and civs would still get the appropriate Attribute points.

That way
1. Tradition Abilities aren't unbalanced
2. America and Russia play differently in Antiquity
3. Not a lot of extra work
4. And it can be a game mode so it isn't imbalanced (ie the AI has to do it to)

You could add on that any leader can only choose a civ from ones they unlock (or an Antiquity one they are associated with if they don't unlock any because they are an Antiquity leader)
[with a Duplicates allowed/Avoid Duplicates rule option]... it might be fun to see Ben's America v. Harriet's America first come into contact in Exploration

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

A way I could see it working.

If you are playing in "Single civ gameplay mode"
Your civs UA, UI, UU and Unique civics Tree are locked to its native age.

However, its Attributes are always active... so in Antiquity, America/Mughal/Inca (since they are out of their Native Age) will all be able to
have 2 "branches" in their Antiquity Unique Civics tree
the "Antiquity Economics" Branch
and
the "Antiquity Expansionist" Branch
Mongols would also have the same "Antiquity Exploration" civics available but they would have the "Antiquity Militaristic" civics instead of the "Antiquity Economic" ones.

That way there is some uniqueness, but the devs just need to come up with
2 civics per branch
6 branches
3 ages

36 civics and associated traditions

and civs would still get the appropriate Attribute points.

That way
1. Tradition Abilities aren't unbalanced
2. America and Russia play differently in Antiquity
3. Not a lot of extra work
4. And it can be a game mode so it isn't imbalanced (ie the AI has to do it to)

You could add on that any leader can only choose a civ from ones they unlock (or an Antiquity one they are associated with if they don't unlock any because they are an Antiquity leader)
[with a Duplicates allowed/Avoid Duplicates rule option]... it might be fun to see Ben's America v. Harriet's America first come into contact in Exploration

Funny you should mention America and Antiquity in the same line . . .

I started a 'thought experiment' on Antiquity/Exploration America simply because America (British-derived Atlantic coastal settlement North America, to be exact) is the most quintessentially Modern Age Civ in the game, since it had no separate cultural, ethnic, or technical background before the Modern Age - geographically the area was occupied by people of different aspects in all of those areas and their own background was Distant Lands.

I think the way to extend such One Age Civs into other Ages is by de-coupling their Uniques (which, after all, in America's case would be virtually all Modern Age) from the Age.

That is, an American Unique might be a civilian Pioneer unit, representing the colonists that pushed onto the backwoods of eastern America in search of new land almost as soon as they landed. But, this unit and its attributes do not have to be Modern - they could just as easily push into New Lands in 3000 BCE as in 1750 CE so the unit could just as easily be an Antiquity Unique as a Modern one.

America in Civ VII right now is Economic Expansionist. This is the iconic basis for the Civ, and it should keep these attributes, but express them differently, in All Ages. After all, if there is a defining characteristic of the Americans, it is that we were land hungry and spread out as fast as possible for as long as there was anyplace to spread to, and that for most of our history we worked our collective tails off building things and trying to get rich.

So, Antiquity Age America: Economic Expansionist.
Unique (Civilian) Unit:
The Pioneer, a Colonist that can move like a Scout, disregarding most terrain, and has a defensive (cannot initiate combat) factor equal to a Warrior.
Unique (Military) Unit:
Colonial Militia, a Warrior automatically generated in every Settlement as soon as it is founded.

Exploration Age America: Economic Expansionist.
Unique (Civilian) Unit:
The Yankee Trader, a Merchant that produces more Gold from trade routes
OR
Pioneer becomes a Homesteader, a Colonist that starts a settlement with extra population.
Unique (Military) Unit:
Rangers, a melee infantry unit that moves like a Scout.

Modern Age America: Economic Expansionist.
Unique (Civilian) Unit:
Prospector - as now
Unique (Military) Unit:
Marine - as now
OR
the Ranger becomes a Modern Age unit, as Rifle Infantry with Scout movement.

The two things that I think that could be used to provide continuity between Ages for the Continuous Civ are the use of the same Attributes, and the potential to have Units that 'traverse' the Age Change into the New Age with new factors but similar attributes, like the Rangers or the Pioneer/Homesteader.

After all, if the continuous Civ doesn't have some automatic continuity among the Ages, why bother with it in the first place? Changing most of the aspects of your Civ between Ages, after all, is what the game does now - no need to do anything if we are just going to continue the same system under new names.

 

[Krikkit1]

Funny you should mention America and Antiquity in the same line . . .

I started a 'thought experiment' on Antiquity/Exploration America simply because America (British-derived Atlantic coastal settlement North America, to be exact) is the most quintessentially Modern Age Civ in the game, since it had no separate cultural, ethnic, or technical background before the Modern Age - geographically the area was occupied by people of different aspects in all of those areas and their own background was Distant Lands.

I think the way to extend such One Age Civs into other Ages is by de-coupling their Uniques (which, after all, in America's case would be virtually all Modern Age) from the Age.

That is, an American Unique might be a civilian Pioneer unit, representing the colonists that pushed onto the backwoods of eastern America in search of new land almost as soon as they landed. But, this unit and its attributes do not have to be Modern - they could just as easily push into New Lands in 3000 BCE as in 1750 CE so the unit could just as easily be an Antiquity Unique as a Modern one.

America in Civ VII right now is Economic Expansionist. This is the iconic basis for the Civ, and it should keep these attributes, but express them differently, in All Ages. After all, if there is a defining characteristic of the Americans, it is that we were land hungry and spread out as fast as possible for as long as there was anyplace to spread to, and that for most of our history we worked our collective tails off building things and trying to get rich.

So, Antiquity Age America: Economic Expansionist.
Unique (Civilian) Unit:
The Pioneer, a Colonist that can move like a Scout, disregarding most terrain, and has a defensive (cannot initiate combat) factor equal to a Warrior.
Unique (Military) Unit:
Colonial Militia, a Warrior automatically generated in every Settlement as soon as it is founded.

Exploration Age America: Economic Expansionist.
Unique (Civilian) Unit:
The Yankee Trader, a Merchant that produces more Gold from trade routes
OR
Pioneer becomes a Homesteader, a Colonist that starts a settlement with extra population.
Unique (Military) Unit:
Rangers, a melee infantry unit that moves like a Scout.

Modern Age America: Economic Expansionist.
Unique (Civilian) Unit:
Prospector - as now
Unique (Military) Unit:
Marine - as now
OR
the Ranger becomes a Modern Age unit, as Rifle Infantry with Scout movement.

The two things that I think that could be used to provide continuity between Ages for the Continuous Civ are the use of the same Attributes, and the potential to have Units that 'traverse' the Age Change into the New Age with new factors but similar attributes, like the Rangers or the Pioneer/Homesteader.

After all, if the continuous Civ doesn't have some automatic continuity among the Ages, why bother with it in the first place? Changing most of the aspects of your Civ between Ages, after all, is what the game does now - no need to do anything if we are just going to continue the same system under new names.

The way my system would do that

Antiquity Expansionist unique civics (available to America, Mughal, Mongols, etc.)
Settlements start with free Infantry (or Settlers move like scouts and defend)

Antiquity Economic unique civics (available to America, Mughal, Chola, etc.)
?Markets get extra gold for resources slotted?

Exploration Expansionist unique civics (available to America, Mughal, Khmer, etc.)
Settlements start with 1 extra pop (2 extra if in Distant Lands)
also unlocks Ranger unit

Exploration Economic unique civics (available to America, Mughal, Aksum, etc.)
Traders get extra gold from trade routes

Now those bonuses do need to be decided if they are the effect of the civic or a tradition it unlocks (bonus easy now or more lasting)…but that makes it a lot easier…because
1. you design
18 stripped down civs (3 for each trait)
instead of 60 (2 for each existing civ)

You also don’t have to worry about how Modern Han is different from Modern Ming or the Qing or how Modern Inca is different from Nepal, you just look at each Attribute and design around that for the age…and each civ gets it’s 2 Attribute civic trees. (outside of its native age)

 

[UWHabs]

The way my system would do that

Antiquity Expansionist unique civics (available to America, Mughal, Mongols, etc.)
Settlements start with free Infantry (or Settlers move like scouts and defend)

Antiquity Economic unique civics (available to America, Mughal, Chola, etc.)
?Markets get extra gold for resources slotted?

Exploration Expansionist unique civics (available to America, Mughal, Khmer, etc.)
Settlements start with 1 extra pop (2 extra if in Distant Lands)
also unlocks Ranger unit

Exploration Economic unique civics (available to America, Mughal, Aksum, etc.)
Traders get extra gold from trade routes

Now those bonuses do need to be decided if they are the effect of the civic or a tradition it unlocks (bonus easy now or more lasting)…but that makes it a lot easier…because
1. you design
18 stripped down civs (3 for each trait)
instead of 60 (2 for each existing civ)

You also don’t have to worry about how Modern Han is different from Modern Ming or the Qing or how Modern Inca is different from Nepal, you just look at each Attribute and design around that for the age…and each civ gets it’s 2 Attribute civic trees. (outside of its native age)

Yeah, you could give each "civ outside their era" a relatively generic set of traditions based on the civ's traits, algorithmically build a basic tree for them, and then you're at least not starting from nothing. Sure, "Antiquity America" would be a worse civ than someone with a actual UU/UB and other traits, but it would at least get you part of the way there.

And then for the rest, you could probably have some options for how much is retained between eras as a setting as well. And combined with maybe a little bit of an improved transition/overbuiling (PLEASE let me retain the adjacency yields on my buildings rather than the base yield, and let my obsolete bank still count as a gold building for other adjacency rules, and let me pick which building to over-build). That would get you most of the way there for most people, I think.

 

[j51]

Yeah, you could give each "civ outside their era" a relatively generic set of traditions based on the civ's traits, algorithmically build a basic tree for them, and then you're at least not starting from nothing. Sure, "Antiquity America" would be a worse civ than someone with a actual UU/UB and other traits, but it would at least get you part of the way there.

And then for the rest, you could probably have some options for how much is retained between eras as a setting as well. And combined with maybe a little bit of an improved transition/overbuiling (PLEASE let me retain the adjacency yields on my buildings rather than the base yield, and let my obsolete bank still count as a gold building for other adjacency rules, and let me pick which building to over-build). That would get you most of the way there for most people, I think.

Retaining building aspects and picking which buildings to overbuild is huge. Same level imo as not eliminating and shuffling units around, but mentioned way less often.

Btw: couldn’t they just keep the base and adjacency yields for buildings the same, but inflate the costs of what those yields buy at era transition? Like find an optimal inflation rate that encourages people to overbuild and let the building being built over keep generating its yield until the new building is built. Also maybe old buildings do eventually lose their yields, but only once their replacement is built. This would discourage sprawl from players trying to keep both their old buildings and adding new ones on a different tile to superbuff yields.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Funny you should mention America and Antiquity in the same line . . .

I started a 'thought experiment' on Antiquity/Exploration America simply because America (British-derived Atlantic coastal settlement North America, to be exact) is the most quintessentially Modern Age Civ in the game, since it had no separate cultural, ethnic, or technical background before the Modern Age - geographically the area was occupied by people of different aspects in all of those areas and their own background was Distant Lands.

I think the way to extend such One Age Civs into other Ages is by de-coupling their Uniques (which, after all, in America's case would be virtually all Modern Age) from the Age.

That is, an American Unique might be a civilian Pioneer unit, representing the colonists that pushed onto the backwoods of eastern America in search of new land almost as soon as they landed. But, this unit and its attributes do not have to be Modern - they could just as easily push into New Lands in 3000 BCE as in 1750 CE so the unit could just as easily be an Antiquity Unique as a Modern one.

America in Civ VII right now is Economic Expansionist. This is the iconic basis for the Civ, and it should keep these attributes, but express them differently, in All Ages. After all, if there is a defining characteristic of the Americans, it is that we were land hungry and spread out as fast as possible for as long as there was anyplace to spread to, and that for most of our history we worked our collective tails off building things and trying to get rich.

So, Antiquity Age America: Economic Expansionist.
Unique (Civilian) Unit:
The Pioneer, a Colonist that can move like a Scout, disregarding most terrain, and has a defensive (cannot initiate combat) factor equal to a Warrior.
Unique (Military) Unit:
Colonial Militia, a Warrior automatically generated in every Settlement as soon as it is founded.

Exploration Age America: Economic Expansionist.
Unique (Civilian) Unit:
The Yankee Trader, a Merchant that produces more Gold from trade routes
OR
Pioneer becomes a Homesteader, a Colonist that starts a settlement with extra population.
Unique (Military) Unit:
Rangers, a melee infantry unit that moves like a Scout.

Modern Age America: Economic Expansionist.
Unique (Civilian) Unit:
Prospector - as now
Unique (Military) Unit:
Marine - as now
OR
the Ranger becomes a Modern Age unit, as Rifle Infantry with Scout movement.

The two things that I think that could be used to provide continuity between Ages for the Continuous Civ are the use of the same Attributes, and the potential to have Units that 'traverse' the Age Change into the New Age with new factors but similar attributes, like the Rangers or the Pioneer/Homesteader.

After all, if the continuous Civ doesn't have some automatic continuity among the Ages, why bother with it in the first place? Changing most of the aspects of your Civ between Ages, after all, is what the game does now - no need to do anything if we are just going to continue the same system under new names.

I like this idea. For America I'd go more with a divide for Antiquity based off of Colonial and move the Prospector to Exploration so it could fit a Westward Expansion theme. This idea also can be applied to a Cultural Modern Age Egypt by prioritizing collecting artifacts from your civ.
It would take some work, but I believe something like this could be doable with other potential civs like the Mesopotamian ones who never went passed the Antiquity.

 

[UWHabs]

Retaining building aspects and picking which buildings to overbuild is huge. Same level imo as not eliminating and shuffling units around, but mentioned way less often.

Btw: couldn’t they just keep the base and adjacency yields for buildings the same, but inflate the costs of what those yields buy at era transition? Like find an optimal inflation rate that encourages people to overbuild and let the building being built over keep generating its yield until the new building is built. Also maybe old buildings do eventually lose their yields, but only once their replacement is built. This would discourage sprawl from players trying to keep both their old buildings and adding new ones on a different tile to superbuff yields.

Yeah, that could be another option, although you do get some slightly out of control yields if you do that. If antiquity is like 3-4 base yield, then you'd need 8-10 base in exploration, and maybe 12-15 in modern era. Plus you'd maybe want to scale specialist yields too - so even if you keep the adjacency the same, I'd probably have specialists give you 0.5 per adjacency in antiquity, 1 per adjacency in exploration, and 1.5-2 per adjacency in modern. But then you're going to routinely have tiles with over 100 yields in the modern era, at some level I don't know if that somehow just gets too hard to comprehend.

 

[Leucarum]

Yeah, that could be another option, although you do get some slightly out of control yields if you do that. If antiquity is like 3-4 base yield, then you'd need 8-10 base in exploration, and maybe 12-15 in modern era. Plus you'd maybe want to scale specialist yields too - so even if you keep the adjacency the same, I'd probably have specialists give you 0.5 per adjacency in antiquity, 1 per adjacency in exploration, and 1.5-2 per adjacency in modern. But then you're going to routinely have tiles with over 100 yields in the modern era, at some level I don't know if that somehow just gets too hard to comprehend.

Or have a trigger for buildings becoming obsolete. E.g. when any player researches Tech X, all of building Y lose adjacencies as they are now obsolete. Or something else. Plenty of options.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I like this idea. For America I'd go more with a divide for Antiquity based off of Colonial and move the Prospector to Exploration so it could fit a Westward Expansion theme. This idea also can be applied to a Cultural Modern Age Egypt by prioritizing collecting artifacts from your civ.
It would take some work, but I believe something like this could be doable with other potential civs like the Mesopotamian ones who never went passed the Antiquity.

Exactly.
Technically, after all, "Antiquity America" is Pre-Revolution: the 17th and 18th centuries;
"Exploration America" is the end of the 18th century through to 1890 CE - the "End of the frontier". Modern Age America, then, just has to be limited largely to elements of the late 19th and 20th centuries to 'fit'.

Likewise, ALL of the original Egyptian civilization falls in the game's Antiquity Age.
So Exploration Age Egypt is really an extension of the expansive New Kingdom Egypt, the last time they had a chance to 'extend' their influence.
Modern Age Egypt could be a combination of semi-fantasy extended ancient Egypt and the modern Egyptian 'post-colonial' State: massive external influence in religion, political ideology, and aspects of culture but a stubborn hanging on to the Uniqueness of Egypt based on its (real or not) Ancient History.

And I firmly believe, with admittedly varying degrees of difficulty, something similar can be done for all the One Age Civs in history or the game.

Much as I'd like to streamline the process with 'generic' Attribute/Age-based Uniques, as @Krikkit1 has posted (ideas that I really like as concepts, by the way) I think that would reduce Civs so treated too much compared to the 'native' in-game Civs in each Age. I think to make any multi-Age Civ system work, all Civs have to have both truly Unique elements and be competitive to play.

Which doesn't mean a basic framework of generic Attribute/Age-based Uniques cannot be formulated as a starting point for each individual Civ's set of Uniques. That would, after all, act as a basis for the Continuity aspect of the Civs, which I think is also important to make the playing of the 'same' Civ through 2 or more Ages something different from choosing an 'alternate' Civ in each Age.

 

[Krikkit1]

Much as I'd like to streamline the process with 'generic' Attribute/Age-based Uniques, as @Krikkit1 has posted (ideas that I really like as concepts, by the way) I think that would reduce Civs so treated too much compared to the 'native' in-game Civs in each Age. I think to make any multi-Age Civ system work, all Civs have to have both truly Unique elements and be competitive to play.

I think that is simply solved by having multi-Age civs be a game setting. If you only get uniques for one Age so do all the Other civs... AI Ben Franklin will choose America, and have slightly less bonuses in the first 2 Ages... but if you chose Han, you have to deal with the fact that he might explode past you in modern (since he can build more of his Industrial Parks and you cave up building Great Walls a thousand years ago.... of course you still get some nice Science and Diplomatic bonus).

If we are going to have Multi-Age Civs, then having a "Age they do well in" works... and having some of your Uniques expire (ie losing your UA, Unique Civics, UU, and not able to build more of your UI) that helps make sure that Rome isn't automatically better than Buganda

The other (default) game mode should let you keep OR change the Name/Graphics/City List "American" through the whole game, but each Age you would choose a set of Uniques from a civ of that Age.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If we are going to have Multi-Age Civs, then having a "Age they do well in" works... and having some of your Uniques expire (ie losing your UA, Unique Civics, UU, and not able to build more of your UI) that helps make sure that Rome isn't automatically better than Buganda

I think having a Best Age for most or all Civs is almost a requirement. The alternative is a mass of new Unique Units and Infrastructure (For each Civ in each additional Age, a massive outpouring of graphic resources alone) and Civics of equal value and depth of design. That comes perilously close to tripling the work that has already gone into the existing Civs in the game, not to mention putting a serious Resource Brake on adding any new Civs.

Gamers could think of it as the price you pay for Continuous Civ Play. If you want a Civ whose 'Golden Age' of economic, political, or military power falls in a given Age, you will have to unlock the proper Civ for that specific Age instead of playing a version of the same Civ from start to finish.

 

[Krikkit1]

I think having a Best Age for most or all Civs is almost a requirement. The alternative is a mass of new Unique Units and Infrastructure (For each Civ in each additional Age, a massive outpouring of graphic resources alone) and Civics of equal value and depth of design. That comes perilously close to tripling the work that has already gone into the existing Civs in the game, not to mention putting a serious Resource Brake on adding any new Civs.

Gamers could think of it as the price you pay for Continuous Civ Play. If you want a Civ whose 'Golden Age' of economic, political, or military power falls in a given Age, you will have to unlock the proper Civ for that specific Age instead of playing a version of the same Civ from start to finish.

Exactly... Ideally I see the game working out with a couple options the player has

1. Player always gets to choose their civs Name&Graphics&City list package each age. (this is part of a Narrative Event that helps explain how this new "way of doing things" this new civilization rose up in your empire)
If they keep it the same from last age they get X bonus
If they have it match their uniques from this Age they get Y bonus
If they choose a totally new custom package for this Age they get Z bonus
[They also get to choose at the beginning so if you want to do a playthrough of "America" with Roman-Mongol-American uniques you can be called America in each Age)

There is a setting to force the AIs to choose the Civ Name that matches their Leaders 'first choice' civ from all ages. (with allow/disallow duplicates...if duplicates are disallowed, AIs will choose their second, third, etc. choices)
[otherwise default for AIs would be to choose the uniques]


2. Players (at the beginning of the game) may choose to have a "Single Layer" civ where outside of their civ's "Native Age" they get the "Attribute Civics+Traditions" bonuses and that's it.
There is a setting to force the AIs to choose this... so they choose their First/second/third choice as a Single Layer civ.