If you have 10 million people who purchased a previous product and 1 million people purchase your new product, it a fact that a vast majority of your previous customers chose to not purchase your new product. There is no way you can do the math to make it work out differently.
How to repair the Age transition system -not a civ game- opinions and suggestions
- Thread starter Lazy sweeper
- Start date
It makes more sense than switching an entire Civ into a new one with a 1000+ year Dr Who time shift .
The big issue(s) are splitting a game into 3 different/seperate parts within a very linear ( points/meta ) system .
It seem's to me to be boring and not fun. Having your leader as some minor/unknown/Inconsequential
person who kicked around for less than 50/90 years to inspire your "Civ", say why ? , to get more XP .. Na
( Again why not double down and allow customised leaders ! lol like that would ever be allowed )
You cant IMHO repair the age sysytem whichout a major overhaul.
One "idea" never happen would be to take a sysytem from Age of Wonders were you had the choice to absorb a captured city .
If effect again like other games ( Civ 6 did it to limited effect with mods ) you could then build buildings and or troops unique to that unique "Civ"
Sagax
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,748
This was done multiple times across similar threads. The prevailing rebuke has been “we don’t have the exact sales data for consoles, and with the simultaneous cross-platform launch, maybe a lot of buyers got the game on consoles instead of Steam/PC”. Also, I don’t think there is direct and accurate sales data for any platform right now, only approximations and user activity at best.
Take it as you will, I’m just sitting on the side, gorging on popcorn until the earnings call.
In other words, since we don't have the data, the discussion is pretty pointless, no?
And back to the thread theme - my biggest problem is the mess the transition creates by mindlessly packing units and commanders randomly anywhere. It's a waste of time to have to reorganize everything. Just present your commanders/units and allow placing them where you want at the first turn...
And back to the thread theme - my biggest problem is the mess the transition creates by mindlessly packing units and commanders randomly anywhere. It's a waste of time to have to reorganize everything. Just present your commanders/units and allow placing them where you want at the first turn...
I think the problem is the player often identifies with the civ (if they are separate)... but for identifying their opponents the leader is the better way.
I like the "Leader as zeitgeist" feel.. which opens up Ada Lovelace as well as Hatshepsut in 1000 AD
However its also fun to lead Mayan Knights and have Babylonian radio
Since the players Identified themselves more as the civ they needed to let players keep the civ "identification" name/city lists, etc. for themselves.
MutilationWave
IDDQD
You can somewhat control this by where the commanders end up at the end of age and your army composition. If you delete everything but your cavalry you are going to get mostly cavalry. Keep your naval commanders far away from any no access lakes, and if you have any naval units in a no access lake, delete them.
It still sucks but at least you have a little bit of agency.
Sagax
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2013
- Messages
- 1,748
Depends. Some argue that the currently available data is sufficient for at least a well-educated guess, while others claim it’s inconclusive and not reflective of how the game is actually doing. I’d recommend moving to the player stats thread for further discussion.
Back to the topic here:
It really depends on how game designers frame it. Yes, three leaders across millennia is silly in a vacuum. However, the concept becomes more palatable if you frame them as “great leaders” - those who defined and pivoted the trajectory of their empire/civilization in a significant way and are getting more spotlight than others in history books. Spiritually, this is not that different from how Civ 6 had multiple leader options for the same civ - the civ represents a cultural foundation, and each leader added their own flavor to the gameplay via their own unique abilities. In a sense, you do evolve and shift your civilization by letting these different leaders take the wheel. Of course, this is just a general concept - the rest of the game will need to accommodate it. But it’s neither impossible nor outright ridiculous.
That said: I’m more in the “change leaders, not civs” camp, but acknowledge that switching leaders is actually more limiting that one may think. At the very least, not all civs can provide three prominent leaders with their own abilities, simply because we don’t have enough information on them. Mississippi is a prime example: maaaybe you can come up with three leaders, but what abilities are you going to come up with? And of course, the issue of production costs associated with leader models will always loom on the horizon.
Last edited:
The only way to solve the problem is 1 introduce ideologies and economic and political movements and random events deaths, coups because history is not fixed dynamics the Normans becoming English is not fixed but influenced by events victories, defeats, revolutions epidemics, climate, Napoleon in Russia for example
Even as a general concept, I just don't see how it works. Is the civilization so basic that it's viable in all three eras and then all the good stuff is attached to the leaders? But what would the second and third age leaders even have? There's no Rome in the exploration and modern ages. What are the abilities that make it work in those ages?
Indeed. The costs of doing art for three leaders is prohibitive enough to make the idea a nonstarter. It gets even worse if you add a fourth age at some point. And that's true for your other point, too, which is that many civilizations don't have three recognizable, interesting leaders to include.
That's what the crises are meant to represent.
sixty4half
I drink and I know things
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 731
Let's be realistic here. The first 1 million copies of Civ 6 sold very fast, however, we still don't have accurate console data (this being the only data point [so far] that would help us understand more if we had console sales)
It took 7 months before Civ 6 hit 2 million copies sold. Civ 7 is half that old and sold half that (at least).
Half of the purported 11 million copies sold came AFTER 2019. This number was probably helped by COVID and the global lockdown. This was after the version that included all major DLCs AND after the version that included all major and minor DLCs. "Complete" versions accounted for a huge chunk of the 11 million. We won't have a "complete" Civ 7 for years to come.
Wiki quote "The game shipped more than one million units in its first two weeks of release, making it the fastest-selling game in the Civilization series to date.
By May 2017, the game had sold more than two million copies, contributing significantly to publisher Take Two's 2017 financial year, in which they reported revenues of $576.1 million. Take Two stated that Civilization VI was on track to surpass Civilization V's lifetime sales of eight million copies.
By 2019, the game had sold 5.5 million units, and by 2023, the total sales of the game were reported at over 11 million, making it the best selling game in the series."
It took 7 months before Civ 6 hit 2 million copies sold. Civ 7 is half that old and sold half that (at least).
Half of the purported 11 million copies sold came AFTER 2019. This number was probably helped by COVID and the global lockdown. This was after the version that included all major DLCs AND after the version that included all major and minor DLCs. "Complete" versions accounted for a huge chunk of the 11 million. We won't have a "complete" Civ 7 for years to come.
Wiki quote "The game shipped more than one million units in its first two weeks of release, making it the fastest-selling game in the Civilization series to date.
By May 2017, the game had sold more than two million copies, contributing significantly to publisher Take Two's 2017 financial year, in which they reported revenues of $576.1 million. Take Two stated that Civilization VI was on track to surpass Civilization V's lifetime sales of eight million copies.
By 2019, the game had sold 5.5 million units, and by 2023, the total sales of the game were reported at over 11 million, making it the best selling game in the series."
Last edited:
sixty4half
I drink and I know things
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2015
- Messages
- 731
1 Isn't about feelings of fairness it's about your data set being incomplete.
2 how is it not a comparison? You're literally saying 6 sold more copies than 7 which is a comparative statement.
3 the majoeity of people have always traditionally waited to buy civ games. It's not like CoD where you'll be left behind in terms of progress if you're not playing day 1.
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
Nah you said strictly, I didn't. Not to the hardcore degree you are attributing all the possible bad implications of it...
My beloved Queen of Sicily married some Mechican men so technically all is possible in the end...
Restrict doesn't mean close all possible paths to fun and victories...
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
I would also add Malcolm X, Al Green, and Rosa Luxembourg. And Aretha Franklin.
The concept that a Leader has to be a politician is an old concept. It just needs to be Wise, or charismatic, like Archimedes, which was also an Engineer and a doctor, and a musician.
Today we have commedians as head of states... it's not very likely that in Republican Rome you could have a non-roman citizen as head of the Senate, but the empire was so vast that
even an Aborigenal Austral-asian could have become one... he just needed to be a respected trader... gold was everything back then... more than today...
I'm having fun with the Leader randomness.
It might be a good thing to provide also some more natural choices... no offence... a local herborist for example... it doesn't need to be a Great political figure for the natural feel to work...
It's a small concession in my view.
both the broader people/nation aspect of the swap and the expanded leaders/commoners are reciprocal in their scope.
Last edited:
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
Venice had the largest Judean population in Europe at the time. Rome had the first big settlement but didn't have tiny islands like Venice.
The term Ghettization come from the local Venetian dialect and it has been associated with a forced concentration because of the topography
of these naturally isolated islands. The term stuck and took a negative connotation with the rising of rich, discontent people, that envied what they
could never have. Religions unfortunately played a major role in all of this.
But way more free enclaves survived in other places, small islands nearer the cost of Africa and Judea I don't remind the names of...
Inside Egypt, Greece. Venice became famous because of these "ghetti" or neighborhood islands, and a lot of that trading power Venice reached
has to do with the Israelites culture of repairing and be very good at mathematic, writing, translating...
I think the age-transition was a missed opportunity, and as others have said, there could be 1-2 other ages I suppose.
Right now it feels very European centric, Fall of Rome | Discovery of the New World | Modern
We're definitely missing a feudal age, but then maybe that's specific to specific civs.
For me the ideal situation is:
- You pick the initial civ, and based on the crisis and your own choice of government could determine what/how a dark age develops.
Examples:
• A Collapse similar to the Bronze Age collapse or the Mayan collapse where cities become ruins, your people transition to settlers, cities become ruin tiles which provide cultural benefits, but can also become quarries. You settle new cities, but they are smaller in size but your population spreads.
• A Major Invasion, you select the civ and you get an army and get to conquer your old civ and some of the AI's old civs. But don't forget the Huns are right behind you!
* Maybe its just a decline into decadence like the Ottomans or Mongols had.
But these crisis IMHO should be an age unto itself, where the age ends when you birth your nation-state. And it should feel natural and based on what you've done/played.
------------------------
Then you have the exploration / renaissance period, I think one crisis could be either repelling the colonists or colonial independence where you then emerge as a new nation state in that sense.
The nation state should be the final civ you play and that should be custom, you get all your old city lists, and pick culture values based on your prior civs and leader.
My 2 cents
Granted, some of that would be a bit involved.
Right now it feels very European centric, Fall of Rome | Discovery of the New World | Modern
We're definitely missing a feudal age, but then maybe that's specific to specific civs.
For me the ideal situation is:
- You pick the initial civ, and based on the crisis and your own choice of government could determine what/how a dark age develops.
Examples:
• A Collapse similar to the Bronze Age collapse or the Mayan collapse where cities become ruins, your people transition to settlers, cities become ruin tiles which provide cultural benefits, but can also become quarries. You settle new cities, but they are smaller in size but your population spreads.
• A Major Invasion, you select the civ and you get an army and get to conquer your old civ and some of the AI's old civs. But don't forget the Huns are right behind you!
* Maybe its just a decline into decadence like the Ottomans or Mongols had.
But these crisis IMHO should be an age unto itself, where the age ends when you birth your nation-state. And it should feel natural and based on what you've done/played.
------------------------
Then you have the exploration / renaissance period, I think one crisis could be either repelling the colonists or colonial independence where you then emerge as a new nation state in that sense.
The nation state should be the final civ you play and that should be custom, you get all your old city lists, and pick culture values based on your prior civs and leader.
My 2 cents
Granted, some of that would be a bit involved.some civilizations are destroyed by other civilizations or eliminated by events as for fixed leaders the civilization cannot be unique for eternity but changes according to events. of the economy of the ideology as I have been saying for years Soviet Russia is Russia but not Tsarist Russia another ideology, if the Roman Empire collapses the game is over? it's very complicatedI think the age-transition was a missed opportunity, and as others have said, there could be 1-2 other ages I suppose.
Right now it feels very European centric, Fall of Rome | Discovery of the New World | Modern
We're definitely missing a feudal age, but then maybe that's specific to specific civs.
For me the ideal situation is:
- You pick the initial civ, and based on the crisis and your own choice of government could determine what/how a dark age develops.
Examples:
• A Collapse similar to the Bronze Age collapse or the Mayan collapse where cities become ruins, your people transition to settlers, cities become ruin tiles which provide cultural benefits, but can also become quarries. You settle new cities, but they are smaller in size but your population spreads.
• A Major Invasion, you select the civ and you get an army and get to conquer your old civ and some of the AI's old civs. But don't forget the Huns are right behind you!
* Maybe its just a decline into decadence like the Ottomans or Mongols had.
But these crisis IMHO should be an age unto itself, where the age ends when you birth your nation-state. And it should feel natural and based on what you've done/played.
------------------------
Then you have the exploration / renaissance period, I think one crisis could be either repelling the colonists or colonial independence where you then emerge as a new nation state in that sense.
The nation state should be the final civ you play and that should be custom, you get all your old city lists, and pick culture values based on your prior civs and leader.
My 2 cents
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
Ok, I read again the whole thread and I myself have contributed quite a bit in adding complexity for the sake of getting down to the juice.
Let me try unroll some of the elements initially expressed with a taint of self-critique.
1) Modern age civs all switched to the "new" norm, of adopting a constitution, and the concept of "Nation" at around the same time if we are talking about European civs, and to this day there is still independence movements in various spots. North and South Sudan has been accepted as independent nations
just very recently. This is a game and it never promoted any kind of political bias, but has been literally a Great Library of knowledge, and spread positive
notions, to millions of kids and teens. Adults will understand that France could not exist in 4000BC. A kid or teen no, unless proper context is added to Civilopedia, or Great Library (of civ), teached more about history than any school ever did. It's an interactive history book essentially.
I used the term nation but this is not mandatory. Italy and Turkey are nations. Rome is a Republic. Sumer a kingdom. The Mongols a nomadic tribal ...nation? Empire? Horde? or just Barbarians? Which kind of googles are we using? Those of a latin scribe from 150AC? A Chinese Astronomer-philosopher from 3000BC? An historian Oxford teacher from Victorian age? Context. Context. Context.
2) Some of the comments in this thread implies, taking simple concepts out of context;
that changing the possible paths for all "modern" civs or "nations" so they can "exist" in the game from
"Antiquity" would push dangerous messages. In the past games we played with Ottomans and Byzantium at the same time, and no Turkey.
We played as Rome and no Italy. And it was perfect. You could add Italy or Turkey alongside Rome, Byzantium and Ottomans, and kids would read
the description for this or that, and know perfectly all what it is about of importance. This was true then and it is still valid now.
The concept of natural path could be flimsy but adding proper context with the Civilopedia will in the end educate and spread only one possible message.
The devs are ultimately in charge of shaping the narrative and whereas a "natural" path or "cultural shift" appear at age swap, how the history is told,
that is their power to decide. They have ALWAYS took the best choices. This is talk. Action and power is not being questioned here.
3) I acknowledge the minefield that is having to take decisions that contradicts mainstream concepts of various arguments.
Like adding the Giant Buddha statue of Afghanistan as a natural wonder. Or the Great Pyramid of Giza. Or Gobekli Tepe.
All of these are inherited wonders, or just religious sites, origins of which has been lost to history and we rely on "accepted history" for their
identification. Is it more dangerous a Black Cleopatra or a Black Mary or a Black St.Peter or tell the truth about the real antiquity of all the
Megalithic sites around the globe like the temple of Baal near Tyre... which is oddly aligned as a "Roman temple of Jupiter and Apollo".
This is material for other threads and I don't understand some of the decisions the devs took but this is not making me want to quit the game.
4) Frustration and Immersion chaos. Old players with high history understanding or concerned mothers that sees her child Nuking the USA with the Celts, or Occitany, or Ireland, or Andorra (!) is different from a kid that just want to make a conquest victory and doesn't even read the civilopedia and knows zero Andorra or Ireland whole history and that doesn't align with that of the Celts or the Gauls. This thread wants to address some of these concerns.
Is the three minigames the only possible civilization 7?
5) Adding a Germanic tribe, or a Mongol tribe, in antiquity, then an Exploration age random kingdom that still bear some connection -aka- the Gallic Warrior, or any other unique unit, or building, beliefs, before switching finally to the final age... or adding a proto-USA tribes, that turn into a North and South US states, and finally USA, is the same as taking Rome, turn into one generic exploration age Roman civ, that can be the Norman, Longobards, but also Piedmont-Sardinia, Tuscany, Venice, The two Sicily, and then Italy, is absolutely the same concept. We either stop the game before the modern age and quit at the turn of the invention of the Steam engine, or we accept a compromise, and allow modern USA to get General Lee conquer Tenochtitlan, Mexico city, or both, with a blue cap rifleman. Thats' the way I see it. Losing ALL unique units in unacceptable, and there should be introduced back a perk system for units too.
6) It has been asked a "CLASSIC" mode, by others.
Which is basically a single civ for the whole of the game. So all modern nations will start in Antiquity and no age swap is anymore permitted.
There could be just the crisis and the tech "reset" but then the game would continue with renewed graphics.
An "Eagle warrior" badge of honor for the Aztec or "Centurion" for a roman soldier should save this unit from doom, and allow it to continue the journey.
Most of the armies would still disappear when the crisis strike and age swap happen, but the expert players with enough elite units will be able to keep on with their conquering efforts and save immersion for the most part, unless a draconian "cultural" choice has been taken, which is completely incompatible with
the old beliefs and for example your civ has produced "Shaolin Monks Pikemans" because it was a Buddhist civ, or has built a unique wonder that only produced units with a particular cultural beliefs and now that is no more possible -because you have a choice -you would adopt the new and lose the old and can't have both. Then also those "Elite" units should cease to exist.
Let me try unroll some of the elements initially expressed with a taint of self-critique.
1) Modern age civs all switched to the "new" norm, of adopting a constitution, and the concept of "Nation" at around the same time if we are talking about European civs, and to this day there is still independence movements in various spots. North and South Sudan has been accepted as independent nations
just very recently. This is a game and it never promoted any kind of political bias, but has been literally a Great Library of knowledge, and spread positive
notions, to millions of kids and teens. Adults will understand that France could not exist in 4000BC. A kid or teen no, unless proper context is added to Civilopedia, or Great Library (of civ), teached more about history than any school ever did. It's an interactive history book essentially.
I used the term nation but this is not mandatory. Italy and Turkey are nations. Rome is a Republic. Sumer a kingdom. The Mongols a nomadic tribal ...nation? Empire? Horde? or just Barbarians? Which kind of googles are we using? Those of a latin scribe from 150AC? A Chinese Astronomer-philosopher from 3000BC? An historian Oxford teacher from Victorian age? Context. Context. Context.
2) Some of the comments in this thread implies, taking simple concepts out of context;
that changing the possible paths for all "modern" civs or "nations" so they can "exist" in the game from
"Antiquity" would push dangerous messages. In the past games we played with Ottomans and Byzantium at the same time, and no Turkey.
We played as Rome and no Italy. And it was perfect. You could add Italy or Turkey alongside Rome, Byzantium and Ottomans, and kids would read
the description for this or that, and know perfectly all what it is about of importance. This was true then and it is still valid now.
The concept of natural path could be flimsy but adding proper context with the Civilopedia will in the end educate and spread only one possible message.
The devs are ultimately in charge of shaping the narrative and whereas a "natural" path or "cultural shift" appear at age swap, how the history is told,
that is their power to decide. They have ALWAYS took the best choices. This is talk. Action and power is not being questioned here.
3) I acknowledge the minefield that is having to take decisions that contradicts mainstream concepts of various arguments.
Like adding the Giant Buddha statue of Afghanistan as a natural wonder. Or the Great Pyramid of Giza. Or Gobekli Tepe.
All of these are inherited wonders, or just religious sites, origins of which has been lost to history and we rely on "accepted history" for their
identification. Is it more dangerous a Black Cleopatra or a Black Mary or a Black St.Peter or tell the truth about the real antiquity of all the
Megalithic sites around the globe like the temple of Baal near Tyre... which is oddly aligned as a "Roman temple of Jupiter and Apollo".
This is material for other threads and I don't understand some of the decisions the devs took but this is not making me want to quit the game.
4) Frustration and Immersion chaos. Old players with high history understanding or concerned mothers that sees her child Nuking the USA with the Celts, or Occitany, or Ireland, or Andorra (!) is different from a kid that just want to make a conquest victory and doesn't even read the civilopedia and knows zero Andorra or Ireland whole history and that doesn't align with that of the Celts or the Gauls. This thread wants to address some of these concerns.
Is the three minigames the only possible civilization 7?
5) Adding a Germanic tribe, or a Mongol tribe, in antiquity, then an Exploration age random kingdom that still bear some connection -aka- the Gallic Warrior, or any other unique unit, or building, beliefs, before switching finally to the final age... or adding a proto-USA tribes, that turn into a North and South US states, and finally USA, is the same as taking Rome, turn into one generic exploration age Roman civ, that can be the Norman, Longobards, but also Piedmont-Sardinia, Tuscany, Venice, The two Sicily, and then Italy, is absolutely the same concept. We either stop the game before the modern age and quit at the turn of the invention of the Steam engine, or we accept a compromise, and allow modern USA to get General Lee conquer Tenochtitlan, Mexico city, or both, with a blue cap rifleman. Thats' the way I see it. Losing ALL unique units in unacceptable, and there should be introduced back a perk system for units too.
6) It has been asked a "CLASSIC" mode, by others.
Which is basically a single civ for the whole of the game. So all modern nations will start in Antiquity and no age swap is anymore permitted.
There could be just the crisis and the tech "reset" but then the game would continue with renewed graphics.
An "Eagle warrior" badge of honor for the Aztec or "Centurion" for a roman soldier should save this unit from doom, and allow it to continue the journey.
Most of the armies would still disappear when the crisis strike and age swap happen, but the expert players with enough elite units will be able to keep on with their conquering efforts and save immersion for the most part, unless a draconian "cultural" choice has been taken, which is completely incompatible with
the old beliefs and for example your civ has produced "Shaolin Monks Pikemans" because it was a Buddhist civ, or has built a unique wonder that only produced units with a particular cultural beliefs and now that is no more possible -because you have a choice -you would adopt the new and lose the old and can't have both. Then also those "Elite" units should cease to exist.
Last edited:
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
Old world does that, you find a site of an old city, and can settle over there. If it was your city that just turned to rubble you would just resettle over your old ruins... if the geography has changed with the switch -aka- a natural catastrophe put your old site underwater... then it makes sense... good idea.
A custom nation is a new concept, interesting talk. Could you elaborate more this point?
