If They Were to Add a 4th and Final Age How Would you Like the Civ Transition to be Handled?

[sTAPler27]

I get that a 4th Age is a Controversial Topic, with even those that agree its inevitable not agreeing on where it would go but in the event that said age is the new capstone of a playthrough how should it interact with the Civ Switching Mechanic.

 

[Krikkit1]

I’d go for modern nations (with the exception of the EU to simplify Europe)

 

[Professor Phobo]

My guess is the Antiquity/Exploration/Modern ages will all be fleshed out over time via expansion, and what they'll add, if they add anything, is a Future Era. So I want Future versions of the Civs. Exiled States of America, Saharan Solar AI Gestalt, just go nuts with it.

 

[Maniac]

I want to play as the European Union.

 

[sTAPler27]

I’d go for modern nations (with the exception of the EU to simplify Europe)

The only issue with that is how do you deal with multiple European Civs in one game? Who gets to be the EU? You could throw in the UK or USSR I suppose

 

[sTAPler27]

My guess is the Antiquity/Exploration/Modern ages will all be fleshed out over time via expansion, and what they'll add, if they add anything, is a Future Era. So I want Future versions of the Civs. Exiled States of America, Saharan Solar AI Gestalt, just go nuts with it.

Would be fun if they made a proper future age and went all out on speculating techs, units and wonders instead of just throwing us Seasteads and GDR's and calling it a day

 

[Professor Phobo]

Would be fun if they made a proper future age and went all out on speculating techs, units and wonders instead of just throwing us Seasteads and GDR's and calling it a day

Yes. I want the whole sci-fi kit & kaboodle.

 

[Krikkit1]

The only issue with that is how do you deal with multiple European Civs in one game? Who gets to be the EU? You could throw in the UK or USSR I suppose

Many Civs would unlock the EU (including previous age ones like Rome and Spain), but Modern Civs would have multiple ways to get to the next civ [gameplay unlocks, Leader unlocks, and Modern Era European Civs should all have multiple geographic unlocks]

going with the Revealed Modern European civs and probable inital 4th Age civs...
in addition to gameplay unlocks they would unlock

Britain...EU and Australia and South Africa (and eventually Canada)
Prussia..EU and Soviet
France...EU and Soviet (and eventually Canada)
Russia...EU and Soviet (and eventually Yugoslavia)

And all of those would have good gameplay unlocks as well...
have 5 Oil on Desert tiles unlock Saudi Arabia.
have every settlement including IPs on a Large Landmass (100+? hexes) unlock Australia
Recapture 3 cities you lost unlock China
etc.

After all Egypt and Aksum both go to Songhai... but that's OK because they have other options as well.

Europe would have 2 starting 4th age civs (like it had 2 starting 1st and 2nd age civs... the 4 civs of the third age are unusually high for initial.. due to their dominance of the period)

 

[TheSpaceCowboy]

I'd prefer a whole new list of civs:

1. Argentina
2. Brazil
3. European Union
4. Israel
5. Japan
6. Republic of China
7. South Korea
8. Soviet Union
9. United Kingdom
10. United States

My one caveat would be that the "People's Republic" of China must not be in the game.
Its inclusion would be worse than simply not having a Fourth Age at all
I'd also be opposed to the inclusion of the Iran, North Korea, and Russian Federation - basically the new Axis powers

 

[Maniac]

I think for the final age there should be a choice to switch to a new supernational state, or as an alternative maintain a boosted version of your industrial/"modern" era civ.

Another alternative would be some generic dynamically generated supernational civ names based on your old civ. For instance the "XX Commonwealth". The historical example would be the British Commonwealth, but you could have that as an option generated for all civs, eg the French Commonwealth.

 

[Krikkit1]

I'd prefer a whole new list of civs:

1. Argentina
2. Brazil
3. European Union
4. Israel
5. Japan
6. Republic of China
7. South Korea
8. Soviet Union
9. United Kingdom
10. United States

My one caveat would be that the "People's Republic" of China must not be in the game.
Its inclusion would be worse than simply not having a Fourth Age at all
I'd also be opposed to the inclusion of the Iran, North Korea, and Russian Federation - basically the new Axis powers

Well I'd say Russia and Soviet Union would overlap too much.. so just go with the Soviets
for
China and Korea
just say China and Korea (since the China and Korea in the game could have any of the Ideologies or Governments available)

now Most (but not all) of China's uniques would probably be based on the mainland experience
Almost all of Korea's should probably be based on the South Korean experience

[I'd probably leave off Israel, Argentina, and the UK for Saudi Arabia, Australia, Indonesia, South Africa, India, and Nigeria) for a better geographic spread... and having UK with both US and EU would be slightly duplicative... although probably good later]


Also, it would be key to any 4th Age Civs that they implement thhe ability to
1. Keep your Civ Name, City List, and Graphic style
2. Customize your civ name if you want

 

[untitledjuan]

Well I'd say Russia and Soviet Union would overlap too much.. so just go with the Soviets
for
China and Korea

As if "Modern Era" America and a hypothetical "Contemporary Era" United States wouldn't overlap. They are literally the same nation. Great Britain and United Kingdom are also the same nation. That's why it makes no sense to have a whole "new" set of civilizations that are basically the same civilizations of the "Modern Era". If a "Contemporary Era" is ever introduced, which it shouldn't, there's absolutely no need for a whole new list of almost repeated civilizations, specially when we are lacking Eras and Civilizations from the Late Antiquity, Classical and Medieval periods.

 

[Krikkit1]

As if "Modern Era" America and a hypothetical "Contemporary Era" United States wouldn't overlap. They are literally the same nation. Great Britain and United Kingdom are also the same nation. That's why it makes no sense to have a whole "new" set of civilizations that are basically the same civilizations of the "Modern Era". If a "Contemporary Era" is ever introduced, which it shouldn't, there's absolutely no need for a whole new list of almost repeated civilizations, specially when we are lacking Eras and Civilizations from the Late Antiquity, Classical and Medieval periods.

I'm talking about in the same era. Bad idea to have a Russian Federation and a Soviet Union in the same Era.
Having the "same civ" in different eras is less of a problem (Han->Ming->Qing->China)
(Perfectly fine with a Modern Russian Empire and a Contemporary Russian Federation/Soviet Union)... but of the last 2 a Soviet Union is more interesting, and 2 of those would be a bad idea (especially since the Soviet gives a nice name change)

Overlap in the same era is different from overlap in different eras

Also while some "civs" haven't undergone violent regime changes or total government changes in the early 20th Century (really only the Americas and the UK.. and Sweden)
most have... between 1900 and 1970 most of the nations that now exist became independent.

You want a new set of civs with uniques that reflect the new post colonial nations... as well as the new order in Europe (where almost every country was conquered at least once... Britain lost its empire). The Americas are sort of unique in that they all (except Canada) became independent toward the beginning or middle of civ7s Modern Age.

We probably don't want a 4th Age until we are at ~15 or so civs, say in a year and a 1/2?

Contemporary/Global/Information/Atomic Age should probably have very few Leaders (since you can have leaders from every era and someone who was still significant post 1970 is likely to be fairly highly controversial.. ie some of their stances will be currently debated questions... and they may be involved with a scandal with living victims.)

But you need new civs both to
1. reflect the current state of the world
and
2. utilize the new age's mechanics

 

[Kankan]

A 4th Age would need to be extremely careful in terms of Civ choices as entering contemporary times it’s extremely easy to pick an outright controversial civ that could result in boycotts or the game getting banned in certain countries. It’s also worth taking into account that many countries across the world have faced some form of turmoil or have had dictatorships from the Cold War onwards

To provide a realistic selection as to what the 4th age choices could be here’s a list including some

Americas: US, Canada, Brazil
Europe: UK, Germany, USSR
Middle East: Turkey
Asia: Japan, Malaysia, India, Pakistan
Africa: Nigeria, Kenya, Botswana
Oceania: Australia, NZ

However even introducing new civs in some cases is still not a perfect solution as some haven’t exactly changed drastically meanwhile many countries gained their independence between 1900-2011, and the execution of multiple of these would have to be done right without being incredibly offensive (especially Nigeria, India, Pakistan, US and the USSR).

 

[Taefin]

Anything with new civ names, and it starts to feel like naming 4th age civs after nations in our world forces the story of the game world to suddenly realign with our world. Switching again before modern is long enough ago that it doesn’t trigger this dissonance so badly for me.

I want to pick any from any civ i have played that game, using either a simplified l name (eg france) or let me put a fun modifier into the name (United States of) I want zero unique units etc (contemporary uniques have felt so cheesy in every 4x). And I only want a 4th era if they have a really good set of ideas for making it fun and distinct.

 

[sTAPler27]

As if "Modern Era" America and a hypothetical "Contemporary Era" United States wouldn't overlap. They are literally the same nation. Great Britain and United Kingdom are also the same nation.

If China and India get broken up why can't American history be broken up? Sure its history isn't as long but the ammount of time that passes between turns changes over time. Breaking America up between its guilded age and its modern equivalent makes sense from a gameplay perspective. I don't think America won the Space Race thanks to its Prospectors

 

[playshogi]

I think the 4th age should START with a crisis that leads to global nuclear devastation and nuclear winter. Then there would be a civ switch to fictional civs with some kind of rebuilding game in a dystopian future.
Alternate crises could be pandemics or alien invasion or asteroid impacts or rise of the undead or runaway giant death robots.

 

[sTAPler27]

I'd prefer a whole new list of civs:

I'm not trying to get political but I don't think the game should have to dance around the PRC if some of the options listed were on the table for potential civs. All these countries have skeletons in their closet from recent history so getting the game banned in China over their exclusion really isn't the strongest play given the Chinese playbase is huge.

That aside I think the game needs more civs beyond just Europe, their former settler colonies and East Asia.

 

[sTAPler27]

I think the 4th age should START with a crisis that leads to global nuclear devastation and nuclear winter. Then there would be a civ switch to fictional civs with some kind of rebuilding game in a dystopian future.
Alternate crises could be pandemics or alien invasion or asteroid impacts or rise of the undead or runaway giant death robots.

That would be fun as an alternative game mode but it would be a very bleak turn for the franchise to end on such a downer note. Even 6 which deals with climate change focuses on prevention of catastrophe. Also a 5th age might drag the game on too much.

 

[Kankan]

I'm not trying to get political but I don't think the game should have to dance around the PRC if some of the options listed were on the table for potential civs. All these countries have skeletons in their closet from recent history so getting the game banned in China over their exclusion really isn't the strongest play given the Chinese playbase is huge.

That aside I think the game needs more civs beyond just Europe, their former settler colonies and East Asia.

Civ 4 had to be outright re-released in China to replace Mao with Taizong of Tang!