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

[Civinator]

@Lazy sweeper you are working with wrong info. There is no indication that Ed left. He even made a comment on this week’s patch that seems to confirm he is still leading at least the patches that come out. Whether he‘s leading the upcoming expansion is not clear, but the job they advertised isn‘t Ed’s or about designing the expansions or civ 8.

Thank you very much for clearing this.

 

[Crashdummy]

So, we reached the point that the Head designer Ed has left the house, for better or worst.

Age transition seems unfixable.
It should be reworked at this point.
Revert to "Classical mode" and open up all Civs to choose from antiquity.

Transform "Age transition" into random crisis events, which can be weather and map dynamic events, which would effectively change the shape of the map or.
Other random "crisis" that could bring down your empire, and at the same time, spawn one or more civs per new Age, which automatically starts with all previous Age tech researched, and
arguably Age specific advantages. Likewise USA would spawn in the last Age, with "Marines" for example. NO CIV SWITCHING.
And if some civs are AGE specific, then let you have to start in that AGE and not in Antiquity. This is still better than what here is now, and NO-ONE can play the USA from Antiquity ANYWAY as it stands. This could be an option, to restrict certain CIVS to certains AGE. This would actually make sense and "play the Age mode" instead of "Classical" mode, which should be by default.
Just throw this aberration in the bin and recreate it with the new (or rather old) vision, before the ship sinks completely.

This is one solution.

Please be constructive and try to formulate something that is not a huge cope with the oversimplified cake Civ 7 is now.
Civ Switching will never work. Civ switching =Not civ. There is no going around the rock and pretend its not there.
There is no magical new head director that will make it disappear.
No one who is not playing the game will came back unless Classical mode is reinstated.


No roads is a huge problem
No Workers is a huge problem
No Unit perks is a huge problem
No 1 tile cities is a huge problem
No Stack of Doom is a huge problem
No resource requirement is a huge problem
No end minimap and no Palace and throne room is a minor problem, but a problem.
No real Army all in one tile is a huge problem
No fixed Leaders to each Civ is a huge problem. Random Leaders optional would be a welcomed addition, if it was introduced later and as an option.
No Pangea Map is a huge problem
No Worldbuilder is a huge problem
No Navy transporter is a huge problem
No Settling cities on Mountains is a huge problem
No Units walking on mountains is a huge problem
No scenarios is a huge problem
No console specific ports is huge problem

Age transition is a minor problem all in all, and can be fixed quite easily.

PS: Book of Mormons: Greek Jews travelled to the Americas in 400AD after the Christian Copts massacres, and even if the "establishement" aka the US ARMY keeps deleting the evidences, its' undeniable they were there. The whole "Exploration" and "new continent" discover is just a massive load of XXXXX and should be relegated into oblivion without a second thought.
For the same argument a religious crisis that affects the whole world is massively stupid, that why I advocated for "dynamic weather induced crisis" and other random "crisis" but all related to worldwide possible events, and not some religious stuff or localized rebellions...

We need to be able to start with any Civ in Antiquity, thats a requirement otherwise people wont go back to the game

Well, Roman civilization did evolve. It adopted a religion, expanded beyond what the existing means of administration could support, and adopted a new capital. The original territory was invaded, but Roman civilization didn't fall; it moved and evolved. Unfortunately, there's a natural opposition to progress, and revolutions often occur when attempts are made to reform something, even for the better. Players cry about being penalized, but that's human nature. No one is going to give their life for a leader just because; people are selfish.

Evolution comes from research, cultural advancement or conquest. All three of them were aolready present in previous entries. Penalizing players is a terrible decision, this is a game, and in games doing that too much is a bad recipe

 

[Lazy sweeper]

We need to be able to start with any Civ in Antiquity, thats a requirement otherwise people wont go back to the game

There is a way to evolve the gameplay beyond just plateu-ing back into basically Civ 4/3
Civ rule of 1/3rd new content is what drives innovations and interest from gamers into buying the newest edition.
If you have a "recipe" for not throwing thousands of hours of work from the devs into the dustbin I'm all ears.

Maybe you are not accostumed to cracking down the intricate mechanics and provide alternatives, but
this is what I have been trying to do from a long-while.

Imperatives hardly works in a democratic society.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

@Lazy sweeper you are working with wrong info. There is no indication that Ed left. He even made a comment on this week’s patch that seems to confirm he is still leading at least the patches that come out. Whether he‘s leading the upcoming expansion is not clear, but the job they advertised isn‘t Ed’s or about designing the expansions or civ 8.

Sometime I use wrong phrasing,
and for "lazyness" I forget to use the conditional to subjects I should really be more cautious.
Tnx for the update, I had no clue really.

 

[Monene]

Penalizing players is a terrible decision, this is a game, and in games doing that too much is a bad recipe

Rather than being penalized for playing well, it's more like increasing the difficulty level during the game.

 

[Crashdummy]

There is a way to evolve the gameplay beyond just plateu-ing back into basically Civ 4/3
Civ rule of 1/3rd new content is what drives innovations and interest from gamers into buying the newest edition.
If you have a "recipe" for not throwing thousands of hours of work from the devs into the dustbin I'm all ears.

Maybe you are not accostumed to cracking down the intricate mechanics and provide alternatives, but
this is what I have been trying to do from a long-while.

Imperatives hardly works in a democratic society.

If your foundation is bad, you wont fix it by changing a window. Civ 7 changed a lot more than 1/3 and they changed the foundation of the franchise, to the worst

The problem us huge, you wont solve it with minor changes, i am sorry

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The problem us huge, you wont solve it with minor changes, i am sorry

Then you will never be happy with Civ VII and should give up on it. You have defined your problem as unsolvable and thrown up your hands and, by your definition, can provide no solution except an entirely new game.

Some of us, though, do not accept your definition or your problem - which is normal in any game, each of us has our own set of game definitions even when playing the same game in the same way.

In my experience with the game and from reading far too many of the same complaints in these Threads:

The game as designed is built around three Ages and nearly complete revamping of the game in each Age, including the playable Civs available in each Age. Changing Civs is a result of that original decision, and so merely allowing you to play the same Civ continuously will not solve the original problem - the reset between Ages, which currently happens almost entirely Out of Sight of the gamer. You finish the Crisis Period, the curtain closes, and when it opens again the set and the actors are all different and the version of Macbeth you thought you were watching turns out to be a version of Bald Soprano - in Sanskrit, done entirely in rhyming couplets by cross-dressing orangutangs.

It might be fascinating, but it's not what you came to see, or expected to play in a Civ game.

Playing the same or different Civs isn't the problem, the hacking of the game into three parts that do not show enough continuity to the player is what messes with too many player's heads. (And yes, it messed with mine and still annoys the %$#^ out of me, but for me, at least, it's playable)

The question is not "I was playing Egypt: why am I now playing Mongols?" it's more "I was playing Egypt, how the H**l did I get to playing Mongols?"

Answer that question to the gamer's satisfaction, and the rest of the game becomes much more acceptable and playable.

 

[Krikkit1]

Then you will never be happy with Civ VII and should give up on it. You have defined your problem as unsolvable and thrown up your hands and, by your definition, can provide no solution except an entirely new game.

Some of us, though, do not accept your definition or your problem - which is normal in any game, each of us has our own set of game definitions even when playing the same game in the same way.

In my experience with the game and from reading far too many of the same complaints in these Threads:

The game as designed is built around three Ages and nearly complete revamping of the game in each Age, including the playable Civs available in each Age. Changing Civs is a result of that original decision, and so merely allowing you to play the same Civ continuously will not solve the original problem - the reset between Ages, which currently happens almost entirely Out of Sight of the gamer. You finish the Crisis Period, the curtain closes, and when it opens again the set and the actors are all different and the version of Macbeth you thought you were watching turns out to be a version of Bald Soprano - in Sanskrit, done entirely in rhyming couplets by cross-dressing orangutangs.

It might be fascinating, but it's not what you came to see, or expected to play in a Civ game.

Playing the same or different Civs isn't the problem, the hacking of the game into three parts that do not show enough continuity to the player is what messes with too many player's heads. (And yes, it messed with mine and still annoys the %$#^ out of me, but for me, at least, it's playable)

The question is not "I was playing Egypt: why am I now playing Mongols?" it's more "I was playing Egypt, how the H**l did I get to playing Mongols?"

Answer that question to the gamer's satisfaction, and the rest of the game becomes much more acceptable and playable.

That’s why I like the idea of age unlock quests

When you unlock a civ, you should get a quest where the reward is culture for that civs unique civics if you choose them in the next age.

The narratives of those quests (as well as narratives presented when you civ switch) could provide a much smoother transition to a new set of bonuses.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

That’s why I like the idea of age unlock quests

When you unlock a civ, you should get a quest where the reward is culture for that civs unique civics if you choose them in the next age.

The narratives of those quests (as well as narratives presented when you civ switch) could provide a much smoother transition to a new set of bonuses.

My personal preference would be to do away with the artificial and Eurocentric Age system completely.

But that ain't going to happen unless someone takes a digital flamethrower to the game code.

My fall back preference, so to speak, is to make the Age Transitions part of the game play, so that Melvin The Average Gamer knows exactly why he is being given the choice of playing Borussia or Burgundy in 'Exploration Age' and not being allowed to keep on playing his beloved Udmurts from Antiquity. And, of course, part of this is that the potential Choice of playing the Udmurts right through to Space Flight should always be there in addition to a varying number of other choices of playable Civs - unlocked by in-game events and gamer decisions that are transparent in that there should be no doubt in Melvin's mind what led him to playing the Burgundian Netherlands in Exploration Age instead of Spain.

The big hurdle to this lies not in making all Civs playable in all ages - that is a lot of detail work giving each Civ in each Age some playability even when outside of their Primary Age - time-consuming for certain, but not requiring any particular brilliance to achieve. The problem is keeping Melvin from gaming the resulting Crisis mechanics now that they are all visible to him and steamrolling the AI civs from start to finish. We've already seen that despite the efforts to avoid this in the Age reset system, that aspect of the game has failed completely in its stated purpose already and will only get worse if steps are not taken to slap Melvin down somehow.

That means the Playable Crisis Period cannot be a set sequence of ascending crises as now , which always hits the AI harder than the human (just yesterday in an Antiquity-Exploration Crisis I observed several of my AI opponents sitting with 0 total Happiness while I had +60: guess Who was losing settlements to flipping and so entering the next Age appreciably weaker than they ended the Crisis?).

I suggest, in fact, that the Crisis period present as a set of Choices (Narrative Events) which, combined with the in–game situation, lead the AI or human gamer into a state where there are NO completely positive outcomes. That would, after all, be a much better definition of Crisis than merely reacting to a set sequence of events that you know can only get so bad before the Age ends. Instead, the Age does not end until you are backed into a corner: choose to keep playing the Udmurts even as many of them are breaking away (and taking their Settlements with them) because a new religion has reduced their loyalty to -100, or choose to play the Burgundians even though they are not Real Udmurts and so, as an example, cannot build the Sauna UI any more.

The Crisis Choices, then, would lead to the official End of Age which coincides with a Requirement to make a choice of what available next-Age Civ you will play - and that choice always includes your current Civ, even if that choice is not optimal.

Allowing both 'continuous Civ' and 'Civ changing' play is, I firmly believe, the path to making Civ VII a far better game than any previous Civ, none of which offered the same choice of play: if you started in 4000 BCE playing Udmurts in Civs I - VI, you were stuck playing Udmurts even if all their Uniques were related to Tundra (they were a Finnish tribe, for those who have been wondering) and you have been playing on a tropical island map: allowing transitional Civs based on in-game events and choices makes a far, far better game.

Makes you wonder why Civ VII didn't offer such a choice in the first place . . .

 

[misesfan]

Then you will never be happy with Civ VII and should give up on it. You have defined your problem as unsolvable and thrown up your hands and, by your definition, can provide no solution except an entirely new game.

Thats not what was said - what was said was that the problem with the game is huge and cannot be solved by minor changes. This is demonstrably correct, given the metrics of concurrent players and/or player satisfaction ratings. The latest changes have not changed the overall reviews of the game - if anything reviews have gone down with latest sales as more people have played it. Further, the concurrent players have been in the 5K range which ranks the game around 150th in the Steam games played listing on SteamDB.

The entire design DNA, with the streamlining, mobile based, deck-building mechanics and lack of depth of the game is the problem. The fact that they didnt want to create an empire building game and instead build whatever this is, thats the problem.

The question the customer wants answered is - "If I play the Mongols, how can I build an empire to stand the test of time?" Pretty simple, if the devs knew their audience, we wouldnt be here.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Thats not what was said - what was said was that the problem with the game is huge and cannot be solved by minor changes. This is demonstrably correct, given the metrics of concurrent players and/or player satisfaction ratings. The latest changes have not changed the overall reviews of the game - if anything reviews have gone down with latest sales as more people have played it. Further, the concurrent players have been in the 5K range which ranks the game around 150th in the Steam games played listing on SteamDB.

The entire design DNA, with the streamlining, mobile based, deck-building mechanics and lack of depth of the game is the problem. The fact that they didnt want to create an empire building game and instead build whatever this is, thats the problem.

The question the customer wants answered is - "If I play the Mongols, how can I build an empire to stand the test of time?" Pretty simple, if the devs knew their audience, we wouldnt be here.

In a Thread titled "How to repair the Age transition system" he stated that the problem was unsolvable except by replacing the system. Since the Age transition is the basis of the game, that isn't going to happen. From that I assume that he has given up on this game.

Fine, that's his choice and I fully understand how he came to it: I've come very close to uninstalling the game myself several times since release, and I'm keeping that option open for when some games I am certain will be playable are released later this year.

But in the meantime, the Thread is about repair and not replace - because, much as I would like to replace the entire pernicious and pestiferous Age/Era system in 4X games, we are apparently stuck with some form of it for now, so let's see what can be done to salvage some game play within the system.

If people believe firmly that there is no salvaging possible, fine: their choice, their decision. But having stated their choice, they are opting out of a thread devoted to repair of the system.

 

[Leucarum]

I mean the age system does a couple of things. It apportions out game mechanics into distinct eras of the game so that they feel different, tries (and utterly fails) to curtail snowballing, through the crisis system it tries and fails to justify a civ-switch; and it creates a soft reset of diplomacy... There's probably other things I forget/didn't think of. And some of those are good. It even does some well...

I do think it does a pretty good job of mechanical distinctiveness and resetting diplomacy. And I think these are both pretty good concepts to implement. Even if the mechanics which are distinct aren't always themselves very good..

I think Boris is on the money that they aren't using the narrative system enough to set up age transitions. Especially as crises are... What's the word? Hot garbage? I'd also say that the narrative event system should also deal with the consquences of the change! Shawnee have a bunch of modern events which comes after playing them and which do a good job of this, so I'd say they already have their template.

And not having to switch is important for possible narratives... Just why did they release the game without this option?

The thorniest issue is with snowballing i think. I don't think they're going to be able to use the age resets to contain it, unless they make it asymmetric between player and AI, which would bring its own revolts... And unless they improve the snowballing issue then modern "civlets" may as well not be in the game. It's an existential issue for Civ-Switching if players don't want to finish games. Settlement Limit is their best antisnowballing tool so far, and they have made games (Civ V) where expansion is not the be all and end all. I do think continuous systems like settlement limit, corruption, etc... Are better than age-resets being harder.

And yes better AI could fix era transitions. I don't propose it because I don't see Firaxis pulling it off.

 

[Crashdummy]

Then you will never be happy with Civ VII and should give up on it. You have defined your problem as unsolvable and thrown up your hands and, by your definition, can provide no solution except an entirely new game.

Some of us, though, do not accept your definition or your problem - which is normal in any game, each of us has our own set of game definitions even when playing the same game in the same way.

In my experience with the game and from reading far too many of the same complaints in these Threads:

The game as designed is built around three Ages and nearly complete revamping of the game in each Age, including the playable Civs available in each Age. Changing Civs is a result of that original decision, and so merely allowing you to play the same Civ continuously will not solve the original problem - the reset between Ages, which currently happens almost entirely Out of Sight of the gamer. You finish the Crisis Period, the curtain closes, and when it opens again the set and the actors are all different and the version of Macbeth you thought you were watching turns out to be a version of Bald Soprano - in Sanskrit, done entirely in rhyming couplets by cross-dressing orangutangs.

It might be fascinating, but it's not what you came to see, or expected to play in a Civ game.

Playing the same or different Civs isn't the problem, the hacking of the game into three parts that do not show enough continuity to the player is what messes with too many player's heads. (And yes, it messed with mine and still annoys the %$#^ out of me, but for me, at least, it's playable)

The question is not "I was playing Egypt: why am I now playing Mongols?" it's more "I was playing Egypt, how the H**l did I get to playing Mongols?"

Answer that question to the gamer's satisfaction, and the rest of the game becomes much more acceptable and playable.

Its not unsolvable, it has a solution, a Classic Mode, with no Age transitions and no Civ switching. I did not give up on the game, i am giving the solution, one that you dont like and thats why you try to label as impossible, because you cant argue against it. 6 successful entries show that this is the way to make a Civilization game

And no, its not impossible, it can be done if they want to. The problem is that they are wasting time listening to feedback that tells them minor changes can solve the issues, they implement those minor changes and the issue remains, numbers dont grow, reviews stay low, etc

They can waste all the time they want making minor changes, that will please no one, instead of using that time to really fix the issue

I go back to the house and foundations problem. If your house has a foundation issue, you can spend millons fixing the walls, windows, etc even when all those minor fixes are chear and fast, the problem will remain. You would get better results and in the end it would be cheaper and faster to focus on the foundation issue and solving it

And no, its not just the split into 3 that do not show enough continuity that is the issue, its the civ switching that doesnt work. It makes no sense, doesnt matter how you put it, to change without being conquered, without doing any research of developing new cultuires/civics, it just doesnt happen. Humankind did the switch without losing continuity, didnt work either

You, one that already accepts age transitions and civ switching, think that with your solution the problem will be fixed, while those of us that do have a problem with civ switching are telling you that it wont. You think you know better than us what problem WE have with the game. You dont.

Moderator Action: Please keep the discussion civil. leif

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Its not unsolvable, it has a solution, a Classic Mode, with no Age transitions and no Civ switching. I did not give up on the game, i am giving the solution, one that you dont like and thats why you try to label as impossible, because you cant argue against it. 6 successful entries show that this is the way to make a Civilization game

And no, its not impossible, it can be done if they want to. The problem is that they are wasting time listening to feedback that tells them minor changes can solve the issues, they implement those minor changes and the issue remains, numbers dont grow, reviews stay low, etc

They can waste all the time they want making minor changes, that will please no one, instead of using that time to really fix the issue

I go back to the house and foundations problem. If your house has a foundation issue, you can spend millons fixing the walls, windows, etc even when all those minor fixes are chear and fast, the problem will remain. You would get better results and in the end it would be cheaper and faster to focus on the foundation issue and solving it

And no, its not just the split into 3 that do not show enough continuity that is the issue, its the civ switching that doesnt work. It makes no sense, doesnt matter how you put it, to change without being conquered, without doing any research of developing new cultuires/civics, it just doesnt happen. Humankind did the switch without losing continuity, didnt work either

You, one that already accepts age transitions and civ switching, think that with your solution the problem will be fixed, while those of us that do have a problem with civ switching are telling you that it wont. You think you know better than us what problem WE have with the game. You dont.

Moderator Action: Please keep the discussion civil. leif

I see your 'solution' is to change the basic structure of the game and re-issue the game.

That will be very nearly an entirely new game - a digital flamethrower to the code as I remarked - and while I'm no expert on computer game history and computer game company economics, I doubt that anyone has ever done anything that radical before or that it is financially probable now.

So, I repeat, you are writing off this game and begging for another. Embrace it.

And, no, I do not 'accept' age transitions, because I think the entire age/era mechanic is a ridiculous artificial construct that should have been buried at a crossroads at least two renditions of Civ ago. But I also think we are stuck with it for now so have to find ways, within the boundaries of this Thread's topic, to make it work for at least some of us.

And to be blunt, a game in which every Civ automatically lasts from 4000 BCE to 2000 CE is an equally ridiculous fantasy that should get a stake through its miserable heart before it joins the age mechanic under the crossroads. I put up with the silly concept from Civ 2 to Civ 6 because it was that or go back to playing boardgames, but refuse to do so any longer.

 

[AD1730]

I see your 'solution' is to change the basic structure of the game and re-issue the game.

That will be very nearly an entirely new game - a digital flamethrower to the code as I remarked - and while I'm no expert on computer game history and computer game company economics, I doubt that anyone has ever done anything that radical before or that it is financially probable now.

So, I repeat, you are writing off this game and begging for another. Embrace it.

I mean, Paradox did it with Stellaris. That game is unrecognizable from its original launch. If you want to argue that changing a game to that degree after people have purchased it is unethical, I won't disagree. But what's being suggested isn't without precedent.

And to be blunt, a game in which every Civ automatically lasts from 4000 BCE to 2000 CE is an equally ridiculous fantasy that should get a stake through its miserable heart before it joins the age mechanic under the crossroads. I put up with the silly concept from Civ 2 to Civ 6 because it was that or go back to playing boardgames, but refuse to do so any longer.

You disagree with a fundamental tenet of the franchise. Thus, I think it's fair to question your bona fides on this issue. You're demanding that the franchise go in a direction that about half of the fan base has rejected.

 

[Lazy sweeper]

It would be fun if there was an update instead that makes certain Civs unaffected by the timeline all other civs are affectd by-
This Civ would start before anyone else, but can only found one city, and no military units. It comes with flight technology instead and terraforming....

Now... because the three Ages systems are detached from one another, this doesn't mean that a parallel timeline cannot superimpose itself on this
three "Ages"...

Now imagine this Civ had the power to dim the SUN and cause an Ice Age, just by "Terraforming"... this is what happened in 500AD in the Northern Emisphere.
Today we have ZERO idea what Antarctic looked like 2000 BC... maybe it was green... like Greenland??

No distinction in N Vs S emisphere. No Currents circulation patterns, not for heat, not for winds. An Ice Age would cover 3/4th of the globe in snow and that's it.
Is Snow in the game dynamic? No. Nor is vegetable life. Civ 6 "rising seas" was the test-bed for the revolution that didn't happen...

What we wanted for Civ 7 was something else, it always has been about dynamic weather, terrains, and higher degrees of simulation computational efforts.

They can keep the crappy little game they made, and start building the true king whilst playing with small changes.
This "Atlantians" mod would be the basis for Civ 8 at the same time.

And btw, who gets to decide when an Age ends? It should be completely random. It means there should be also the possibility of a continuous playthrough from 4000 BC
up to 2050 AD without a single "crisis".

Kemet and not Egypt. Why call the capital Waset if then the civ is called Egypt? By the time the Greeks called Kemet Aegyptus, Waset was being renamed to Thebes already...

Parrots in Ny State in 500BC Near St. Lorenzo river, also looks very similar to the Vikings flag...
Archeologists insists it's a mormon artifact - Hopewell culture... I'm not so sure about it...
That is, in either ways... the climate was warmer than today...

SO.... what about "inter-age" periods????

 

[Lazy sweeper]

An "inter-age" period would glue together two main age shifts---

As Nikolai would put it-- basically a new scenario--- yeah buddy that is what the Age systems are--- you got me... again...

now the scenarios would be 5 or 6 in total... the "dark Age" wildcards now have their own scenarios basically...

The cards are there... no settlers... etc etc....

 

[McSpank01]

So if we are having a game which has ages in it I think there are a number of things I want to happen:

1. I think Ages have to feel distinct. The idea of mini games in concept is not so terrible. Each age should be focusing on a few specific aspects, or goals. This is essentially what the game is sort of attempting to do now, but I think it is failing. I am perfectly fine with an exploration age that actively encourages exploration. I am also fine with a game that encourages religious expansion or some other aspect that seems fitting for that time period. It should not feel like Antiquity+ , which is sort of does at times. So I would rather the game massively leant into that aspect rather than pull back from it and make each age feel samey.

I think to do that, the whole emphasis on 'overbuilding' needs to just go away. I spend my of my time in the beginning of each age, basically resetting what I had before. Oh I need to build more food buildings, more science buildings, more money building.. just because. Nope. What I should be doing is having an empire that was already set up for that in the past, and now I can move onto concentrating on how I want to mould my civ now. If I want to become an exploration focused civ then it should be clear I have to pump out explorers and go naval. There should be much more advantages for doing that, I mean fix distant lands for a start.

2. Ages have to stop being used as a way to stop snowballing. It's just an annoying concept to rubber band the player and cripple them again. If you want to reduce snowballing then I would lean more into my point 1. One of the reasons snowballing is so effective is because there is very little disadvantage to just having a bunch more yields, it helps you no matter what kind of game you play. The game should instead give advantages to players who want to focus more as a way of competing against those who just got a good start and expanded everywhere. Being able to actually use a specific win condition to compete against a player who is broadly getting a big score should be a better option.

To that end, I think if you can fix point one, then there should be less need to reduce everyone's yields, no need to make buildings obsolete and create such a hard reset.

On top of that, they have to start making the map actually matter. Right now the difference between a tundra start and a grassland start is pretty minimal. If the devs were less worried about players having unfair advantages, they could make a more fun game.

 

[Crashdummy]

And to be blunt, a game in which every Civ automatically lasts from 4000 BCE to 2000 CE is an equally ridiculous fantasy that should get a stake through its miserable heart before it joins the age mechanic under the crossroads. I put up with the silly concept from Civ 2 to Civ 6 because it was that or go back to playing boardgames, but refuse to do so any longer.

Its less ridiculous than a Leader lasting that time and you seem to put up with that just fine

The franchise got this huge without age transitions and civ switching, the first iteration that introduces, its a complete failure. These new foundations are bad one, even if you like civ switching, they are not good for the franchise and will never work within it. Maybe in another franchise, but not on this one, because the soul, the core of it has already been established