Moderator Action: Deleted four posts as spam. Back to topic please.
How to repair the Age transition system -not a civ game- opinions and suggestions
- Thread starter Lazy sweeper
- Start date
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
About the freezing of time, between age changes, that stem from Thunderbirds thread, I think it would be cool to introduce some infinite worldwide rainstorm, with sea level rising, migrants on boats, fires and other cool god unforgiving stuff to signal an era change... Sorry, your entire army just drowned. You had to build more boats.
For example an empire can break up and create kingdoms at war with each other like after. The death of Alexander the Great, or after th end of zhou Dynasty to simulate it? And much more complex than how it is managed today in civ 7
Attachments
Last edited:
Yzman
Deity
I learned that in school. That is pretty basic stuff... I learned that in 5 grade or so.
Yzman
Deity
Same. Greenland, Iceland etc.
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
that would be too logical, or straightforward (and painful) . It would require renaming (at the very least) same civilization class cities and units to revolt, form an independent civilization, get a "leader"!!! or allow anarchy in the game (never!). Yes, it could work together with a plan B. Plan B like "nah, it's fine".
Lazy sweeper
Mooooo Cra Chirp Fssss Miaouw is a game of words
HK introduced a "pirate" nation civ, sort of the like of some pirate civ V mods.
Everybody could take it and it was just boring, just another meaningless civ switch down the road...
If some revolting cities in distant land could assume a new "pirate" identity and spawn pirate fleet, first they would need a new leader...
then it should be a unique civ that only AI can get, and that would require a new mod in the civ selection screen...
third... if you ain't a pirate you can make an act of piracy but that normally is considered an act of war...
and as far as I know, trespassing has been forbidden since civ IV...
So introduce an option to consider an act of war just a stray dog incident, or an act of piracy as the looting of a treasure ship just a coincidence, it's
a lot of work. Easier could be to spawn pirate indipendent cities that produce pirate ships... and vassalize them could give you the ability to do the same...
together with a true fog of war DLC, I can see some interest...
pirate islands in perpetual fog of war...
that'd be nice...
Last edited:
aelf
Ashen One
The topic of keeping your civ in the next age has been popping up on Reddit. FWIW, there's some evidence that some players might expect an advantage in doing so:
I think those bonuses are out of whack and would make it often better not to switch civs, which is completely against the game's design philosophy.
And the only way to pass from one civilization to another, Tsarist Russia is not the Soviet Union, today's Spain is not that of Charles of Bourbon, all nations change, lose territories, change sovereign governments, and then it is much more interesting to fight a civil war or a revolution with one faction or another.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
Just my two cents....
I think the Ages in civ7 have 2 fundamental problems:
1) The Age transition feels like too big of a hard reset.
2) The gaps between Ages is too wide
These two issues cause civ7 to feel like you are playing 3 connected scenarios rather than a full game of civ. The gap betwen Ages is especially disconcerting because you basically jump hundreds of years that the player doesn't get to see or do anything about. The game basically just implies "A lot of time has passed and here is the new world that you find yourself in". Imagine a movie where you watch the first 20 mn, skip over 30 mn, watch 30mn in the middle, then skip over 20 mn and then watch the last 30 mn. That is basically what civ7 is. In a game that is about taking a civ from ~3000BC to ~2000AD, you should not skip over hundreds of years of history.
Here is how I would try to fix these two issues.
1) Make the Age transition softer. Units would not disappear. Independent peoples would not disappear. Cities would not revert back to towns. This would make the transition more continous and not feel so abrupt. You would still get to pick legacy bonuses to give you perks in the next Age and the option to move your capital. You would still start a new tech tree for that Age. You would have the option of "upgrading" your civ to a historically accurate civ in the next Age (for ex: Gauls become Franks). But you have the option of keeping your existing civ and getting Age appropriate bonuses added to your civ. So no more forced civ switching to a new civ that is not related historically to your previous civ.
2) Add an Age in between Antiquity and Exploration. Add an Age between Exploration and Modern. And add an Age after Modern. This would reduce the gaps and help the game feel more continuous.
Ages would be:
Antiquity Age
Middle Ages Age
Exploration Age
Rennaisance Age
Modern Age
Atomic Age
I think the Ages in civ7 have 2 fundamental problems:
1) The Age transition feels like too big of a hard reset.
2) The gaps between Ages is too wide
These two issues cause civ7 to feel like you are playing 3 connected scenarios rather than a full game of civ. The gap betwen Ages is especially disconcerting because you basically jump hundreds of years that the player doesn't get to see or do anything about. The game basically just implies "A lot of time has passed and here is the new world that you find yourself in". Imagine a movie where you watch the first 20 mn, skip over 30 mn, watch 30mn in the middle, then skip over 20 mn and then watch the last 30 mn. That is basically what civ7 is. In a game that is about taking a civ from ~3000BC to ~2000AD, you should not skip over hundreds of years of history.
Here is how I would try to fix these two issues.
1) Make the Age transition softer. Units would not disappear. Independent peoples would not disappear. Cities would not revert back to towns. This would make the transition more continous and not feel so abrupt. You would still get to pick legacy bonuses to give you perks in the next Age and the option to move your capital. You would still start a new tech tree for that Age. You would have the option of "upgrading" your civ to a historically accurate civ in the next Age (for ex: Gauls become Franks). But you have the option of keeping your existing civ and getting Age appropriate bonuses added to your civ. So no more forced civ switching to a new civ that is not related historically to your previous civ.
2) Add an Age in between Antiquity and Exploration. Add an Age between Exploration and Modern. And add an Age after Modern. This would reduce the gaps and help the game feel more continuous.
Ages would be:
Antiquity Age
Middle Ages Age
Exploration Age
Rennaisance Age
Modern Age
Atomic Age
introduce politics as I support revolution and revolutions cannot be caused by a player but part of the game mechanics, and then I would abolish leaders and create a tree of ideologies
- Joined
- May 5, 2005
- Messages
- 9,956
This is one of the experiences of the Civ 3 mod CCM 3:
If the civs are set properly, ages in Civ 7 are not needed at all for civ- and leader switching. You can see this yourself when playing this mod, that, together with its predecessors, has many years of experience with these items on its account.
If you want to set "cuts" in the game with Ages, these "cuts" must have an additional purpose (as for civ- and leader switching they are not needed). One reason for such a "cut" in Civ 7 is to make the game more challenging for the human player. Unfortunately Firaxis here seems to have forgotten the wisdom shown in the Civ 4 manual, when analyzing Civ 3: Taking away achievements from the human player is a very "unfun" element in the game and it is no wonder, that several human players reported problems in their motivation when playing the game especially in the last stages of such an age.
Wouldn´t it be much better to make the AI civs, which are competing with the human player, much stronger after such a cut in a positive way than to weaken the human player by taking away achievments from him ? The human player would be much better motivated in the last stages of an age if he can keep what he has built up in those later stages of that age. This would be how I would introduce such a concept into a civ game, but at present this is not possible with Civ 3 and Civ 7 in my eyes makes this very wrong by going the "unfun" way.
I think a key idea in the ages system is setting up a “cashing out” stage. When you found a settlement or research a tech, that helps you found more settlements and research more techs, which helps you ….etc
This is the exponential snowball.
and near the end of the game it stops and you divert all that to victory.
The idea seems to be that ages put in some of that victory diversion 2 extra times in the game … Which seems like a good idea if done well. I think they carry over a bit too much (to easy to go through most crises with sll your settlements, etc)
But it means they do really need to pay attention to the end of the age (ie make late buildings worth building…maybe obsolete Monument is 1 culture but obsolete Kiln is 4, etc.)
The combo of not only losing most of your civ’s unique game mechanics but also their identity, added to the random troop teleportation is definitely something that could have been smoothed over a lot, while still preserving the cashing out effect.
Last edited:
198 / 5.000
If you introduce economic choices and political models you create a chain of choices that make the game dynamic with excellent AI of course, causes and effects a simulation of simulated events.
star_border
