How would you like civ7 divided into eras?

not our history but a simulation for example of the colonies as in in civ colonization the barbarian invasions must not be historical but simulate their dynamics!
I agree these things could be incorporated into the game in a way that's fun and interesting. Firaxis seems unfortunately timid about introducing setbacks--it seems like the devs themselves are interested but someone (2K? Testers? Fans?) keeps giving them feedback that any mechanic that checks snowballing is "unfun." :(
 
I would say the civs, their abilities, and their leaders are on the whole better researched. The policy cards and governments are more detailed and nuanced than previous games' government systems (the problem of certain cards simply being better than others in all circumstances being a separate problem of game design, but the idea at any rate is good). Unique Great People has given the opportunity to showcase individuals who did not lead a civ and who are not just names on a generic Great Person (so it actually makes a difference whether your Great Scientist is Hildegard von Bingen or Isaac Newton, for example, beyond just an arbitrary name). Immaculate research was done for the musical themes for each civ, with most civs having themes based on folk songs and using civ-appropriate instruments (including a reproduction of a Mesopotamian golden lyre for Babylon's theme and a carnyx for Gaul's). City lists are still a mess, though, but hey, at least that's an easy fix for mods. Just a few things that come to mind off the top of my head. As for the art style, I think it's just a matter of taste. I think Civ6 looks great (mostly) and Civ5 may be the most hideous game I've ever played, but many people feel the opposite and that's fine, too. :)

The Realism Invictus mod for Civ 4 actually does that already quite nicely (along the lines of the city names, there's actually a very cool feature where the names are dynamic and will change based upon who controls them if it had any heritage of various ownership by whatever respective cultures are in question), and that's the version that I'll likely be playing as long as I'm playing Civ, anyway, but thanks for the precis of what Civ 6 did.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I do have to remark that it seems strange that you preferred 6's art style to 5's (especially in the context of historical realism)! The individual thing that made me not even want to try 6 was the ridiculously cartoony leaders, particularly Theodore Roosevelt. However, Civ 4 looks quite cartoony as well (though not in my preferred mod ;) ), so in fairness that should be mentioned. The district system seemed pretty cool though, actually, but from what I've heard it's the AI's incompetence with it that made that feature disappointing, not the mechanic itself.
 
More than civilizations divided into eras, we need an ancient age simulation. Medieval , modern , contemporary . Featuring Hellenistic kingdoms, rise fall of Rome, barbarian kingdoms, medieval wars, great discoveries, modern wars, world wars, fall of empires, decolonialism
Some of those things like World Wars, pandemics etc. could be triggered by emergencies. I'd rather them not scripted to appear at certain points in the game, however.

It's also hard to simulate some of those things like the rise and fall of Rome, if Rome isn't in the game. And if Rome is going to always fall why pick them? :shifty:
 
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I do have to remark that it seems strange that you preferred 6's art style to 5's (especially in the context of historical realism)!
For me, the camera rendered realism the most boring art style in general as it suggests a sore lack of imagination, but Civ5 isn't even realistic--just dark and muddy. Real life is actually very colorful. ;)
 
Impressionist Civ VII for the win. Everything is just splodge of colors with no clear distinction but somehow it all make sense anyway!
 
Impressionist Civ VII for the win. Everything is just splodge of colors with no clear distinction but somehow it all make sense anyway!
That is precisely what I'm hoping for Civ7--either that or a Pre-Raphaelite oil painting vibe.
 
The thing about having so many eras, is that they all feel kinda samey. Like they merge together, if not for the game announcing you have entered a new era would you even notice it ?

I'm more concerned about
1) Making each era FEEL different. Like a different stage of the game.
2) Giving each era TIME to breathe.

In my 6 era example
Ancient - I'd like to see a nomadic start to the game, so this phase is mostly about transitioning into a settled society.
Medieval - Development of the heavy plough greatly increases farm yields, in turn creating much larger cities.
Early Modern - Large ocean going vessels opens up the game world.
Industrial - Resource usage (compared to the earlier portion of the game) massively ramps up.
Atomic - Nuclear weapons, massive dissemination of cultural propaganda,
Information - End game

It should be a big deal to transition to a new game era.
 
Some of those things like World Wars, pandemics etc. could be triggered by emergencies. I'd rather them not scripted to appear at certain points in the game, however.

It's also hard to simulate some of those things like the rise and fall of Rome, if Rome isn't in the game. And if Rome is going to always fall why pick them? :shifty:
The evolution of the barbarians from nomads to sedentary can be simulated by being able to make treaties with them, as regards the major internal dynamic civilizations, revolts, revolutions, changes of government, more developed economy: it can be prosperous, or poor with delivery on the population
 
The evolution of the barbarians from nomads to sedentary can be simulated by being able to make treaties with them, as regards the major internal dynamic civilizations, revolts, revolutions, changes of government, more developed economy: it can be prosperous, or poor with delivery on the population
Barbarian Clans does this pretty well
 
Top Bottom