I'm clicking the "retire" button on Civ VII

[aieeegrunt]

Even with a classic mode I don't eras are going anywhere. To some extent they have always been in the game, just not as mechanically important. It looks like Firaxis are going to continue to downplay them and make them less and less important. But unless a major expansion really focusses them down they are here to stay, and I suspect a classic mode would just remove much of their distinctions, and almost totally smooth out transitions. At some point they get downgraded enough that they are functionally irrelevant.

For Civ switching, mods like enduring empires have shown that we can do something about it even with the current modding tools. A system whereby you can choose to keep playing your civ, but get access to some mechanically appropriate civics/traditiions is I suspect a no-brainer. Firaxis' seal of approval on a solution would go a long way here as there'a a lot of ways you could do it. Playing Civs in previous eras feels tougher...

I don't think the crisis mode is going to last. It already being optional at launch suggests Firaxis did not have much confidence in the feature. With a large chunk of the audience not using it, and it being tied to a system that is disliked, I think that's got to be a low priority to fix too...

And given that leaders and civs no longer have a 1-1 correspondence, plus the costs for making new models, I suspect leader/civ mixing and matching is here to stay.

So a classical mode for me would be a set of options to reduce the impact of ages to a very low level, crises turned off, and the ability to continue to play a civ out of era with some benefits to compensate. I doubt it would satisfy everyone, but I'd take that and run with it. I even hope all the options are toggleable as I'd personally continue to play with full-fat eras.

Like I said, this wouldn’t be that difficult to implement

The alternative is to accept the current sales and player counts

 

[MrRadar]

Moving all techs to antiquity doesn‘t really solve anything. Eras are a core concept that is very difficult to take out. If we just take the tech tree as in your example, what happens with all the bonuses from tech masteries that go obsolete at era change? When do buildings and units go obsolete - do you make up a new system for building and units replacing each other? How and when do resources change? Many of the things changing with eras (e.g., connection distances) need to be tied to a tech, mastery, or similar. The tech tree alone comes with quite a long list of things that need to be adapted, and that's not even touching the more difficult related overbuilding mechanic.

Civ III probably has most of the answers to these. Its tech tree is organised into separate tabs according to the ages/eras. When you get through the required techs of the current age, the next tab is unlocked and there's a transition screen heralding a new age. When you get back to the map, the look of your cities is updated. All this could be almost copy-pasted into Civ VII.

 

[Leucarum]

Like I said, this wouldn’t be that difficult to implement

The alternative is to accept the current sales and player counts

I don't think what I suggested is too difficult. Balancing the civs to be played in future eras is likely the biggest workload. But... Would players accept that as being close enough to a classic mode?

 

[Siptah]

Civ III probably has most of the answers to these. Its tech tree is organised into separate tabs according to the ages/eras. When you get through the required techs of the current age, the next tab is unlocked and there's a transition screen heralding a new age. When you get back to the map, the look of your cities is updated. All this could be almost copy-pasted into Civ VII.

But that would not change much? It would still mean: you researched tech x and thus entered a new era, now these resources are gone, these have appeared, these buildings are obsolete, these tile yields are gone, etc. Or you need to find new rules for all of these and tie them to specific techs. But it would be quite a mess if these things weren‘t synchronized across the board.

 

[Lord Lakely]

transitions can be softened - just look at how ARA does it: the current era ends once a set number of players have completed the tech tree for for the current era. If you do complete the tech tree, you get to research techs from the next era.

Civ7 can do something similar in the longterm. It doesn't prevent snowballing, but again, it's up to the opponent to prevent snowballing. designing a mechanic to curtail snowballing (and FAILING at that) is just a strategically bad decision. Players need to have obstacles thrown at them, but the obstacles have to be organic. (ie: not random crises).

Civ Switching can also be fixed but it needs a larger amount of Civs. Transition choices really shouldn't be fully free form, but organized according to the leader's history. Below, and example of hwo every leader can be organized according to their home Civ: (ft. Lakshmibai and the leaked Polyensian leader):

What I've done here, is effectively organize every leader according to their overarching Civilization, and what three act path they can take that is the most in line with their own history, and that of their Civ. Leaders that belong to multiple lines like Charlemagne appear in every relevant line. Some Civs, like Greece, Buganda and Aksum don't yet have an affiliated leader, and don't appear, but can once a relevant (or semi-relevant) leader is added, such as Alexander, Shaka or Zara Yaqob.

The Civ/leader selection screen should probably evolve to look like the above, allowing the players to pick their overarching Civilization, then their leader, and then play the three factions associated with that Civ + Leader combo, with new bonuses trickling in once the current tech tree has been fully completed. The above is just a mock-up with minimal additional Civs btw - the more Civs you release, the easier it'll be to fine-tune in accordance with player immersion and roleplaying.

if I can do THIS in my bedroom, in a couple of hours, surely the devs can come up with a similar, even better system that addresses these issues? You can absolutely make the above a separate mode from the current free unlocks, mix-and-match mode.

The largest mistake the devs can make imo is sticking to the free-form sandboxy style of choice without rehashing a critical mass of the decision making in Civ7. The gameplay is neither rich nor varied enough to faciliate a sandbox experience. If all games feel the same, well, you play maybe five games tops before you shelve it. Ten if you're a die hard, and fifteen if you're a sadist (me). That's not a money's worth experience, especially at that price.

 

[Leucarum]

Civ Switching can also be fixed but it needs a larger amount of Civs. Transition choices really shouldn't be fully free form, but organized according to the leader's history.

I mean... That kind of fixes the problem if your only issue is historical immersion... That's only one issue out of a multitude. With Firaxis' current model that's not gonna be a cheap solution either.

Personally I won't be happy, or buying DLC in their current format/price unless not switching your civ at all is an option.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I mean... That kind of fixes the problem if your only issue is historical immersion... That's only one issue out of a multitude. With Firaxis' current model that's not gonna be a cheap solution either.

Personally I won't be happy, or buying DLC in their current format/price unless not switching your civ at all is an option.

Oh, i think the prices are ludicrous for what's being offered. 30 euros/dollars for a handful of Civs and wonders and two leaders is simply not a sustainable model. If you're offering something at that price, i would expect at least ten Civs. The only reason i bought R2R is because I got the Deluxe edition as a gift for my birthday. So effectively, only spent €30 out of my own pocket for every leader and Civ in the game other than two of the persona's not included in the deluxe edition or R2R. And I think *that* is a reasonable price. You shouldn't be forced to pay into the hundred for a game in that state, it's simply not ethical.

As such, I think a lot of the extra content post R&R should be FREE, or at least very lowly priced. Devs should be able to afford it if Take Two indeed hit their sales and profit figures target.

There's unfortunately no clean way of stretching your antiquity civ across all three ages. It's just not how the game is organized. You're working your way forwards, towards the present day. The best that you can hope for is to play two direct geographical continuations.

 

[Leucarum]

There's unfortunately no clean way of stretching your antiquity civ across all three ages. It's just not how the game is organized. You're working your way forwards, towards the present day. The best that you can hope for is to play two direct geographical continuations.

Look at enduring empires for an example, it can be done with mods already. Would be better with Firaxis' official support though. I honestly think it's the bare minimum that's needed. More civs won't cut it for me at least...

 

[McSpank01]

transitions can be softened - just look at how ARA does it: the current era ends once a set number of players have completed the tech tree for for the current era. If you do complete the tech tree, you get to research techs from the next era.

Civ7 can do something similar in the longterm. It doesn't prevent snowballing, but again, it's up to the opponent to prevent snowballing. designing a mechanic to curtail snowballing (and FAILING at that) is just a strategically bad decision. Players need to have obstacles thrown at them, but the obstacles have to be organic. (ie: not random crises).

Civ Switching can also be fixed but it needs a larger amount of Civs. Transition choices really shouldn't be fully free form, but organized according to the leader's history. Below, and example of hwo every leader can be organized according to their home Civ: (ft. Lakshmibai and the leaked Polyensian leader):
View attachment 740894

What I've done here, is effectively organize every leader according to their overarching Civilization, and what three act path they can take that is the most in line with their own history, and that of their Civ. Leaders that belong to multiple lines like Charlemagne appear in every relevant line. Some Civs, like Greece, Buganda and Aksum don't yet have an affiliated leader, and don't appear, but can once a relevant (or semi-relevant) leader is added, such as Alexander, Shaka or Zara Yaqob.

The Civ/leader selection screen should probably evolve to look like the above, allowing the players to pick their overarching Civilization, then their leader, and then play the three factions associated with that Civ + Leader combo, with new bonuses trickling in once the current tech tree has been fully completed. The above is just a mock-up with minimal additional Civs btw - the more Civs you release, the easier it'll be to fine-tune in accordance with player immersion and roleplaying.

if I can do THIS in my bedroom, in a couple of hours, surely the devs can come up with a similar, even better system that addresses these issues? You can absolutely make the above a separate mode from the current free unlocks, mix-and-match mode.

The largest mistake the devs can make imo is sticking to the free-form sandboxy style of choice without rehashing a critical mass of the decision making in Civ7. The gameplay is neither rich nor varied enough to faciliate a sandbox experience. If all games feel the same, well, you play maybe five games tops before you shelve it. Ten if you're a die hard, and fifteen if you're a sadist (me). That's not a money's worth experience, especially at that price.

To be fair, I suspect that in terms of civ switching, this is basically where the game is headed anyway. I imagine at some point of release there will be enough civs and leaders to create a historically coherent throughline for everyone.

The only difference is that Firaxis will probably add options for the player to select how historically rigid the games are. I do think having choices based on player actions is also a good thing and would always be there.

I still think there are a small number of players for whom this will simply never be enough though, and will refuse to come back because it’s not classic enough

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Civ Switching can also be fixed but it needs a larger amount of Civs. Transition choices really shouldn't be fully free form, but organized according to the leader's history. Below, and example of hwo every leader can be organized according to their home Civ: (ft. Lakshmibai and the leaked Polyensian leader):

What I've done here, is effectively organize every leader according to their overarching Civilization, and what three act path they can take that is the most in line with their own history, and that of their Civ. Leaders that belong to multiple lines like Charlemagne appear in every relevant line. Some Civs, like Greece, Buganda and Aksum don't yet have an affiliated leader, and don't appear, but can once a relevant (or semi-relevant) leader is added, such as Alexander, Shaka or Zara Yaqob.

Surely Ada should start with Greece.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Surely Ada should start with Greece.

If you're the quintessential British leader, would it not make sense to start with a Civ that actually had a presence on the British Isles? It should be Rome or Celts, no?

Ben starting with Greece makes more sense due to the Democracy parallels between the US and ancient Athens.

To be fair, I suspect that in terms of civ switching, this is basically where the game is headed anyway. I imagine at some point of release there will be enough civs and leaders to create a historically coherent throughline for everyone.

The only difference is that Firaxis will probably add options for the player to select how historically rigid the games are. I do think having choices based on player actions is also a good thing and would always be there.

I still think there are a small number of players for whom this will simply never be enough though, and will refuse to come back because it’s not classic enough

Allowing difficulty to be customisable is good because it broadens the player base that would want to play the game. I personally think the transition choices should be restrictive or predetermined because I believe that is more interesting to play and plan for. But I also don't think it should be forced upon every player per se. Optionality is important

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If you're the quintessential British leader, would it not make sense to start with a Civ that actually had a presence on the British Isles? It should be Rome or Celts, no?

It was more of a joke considering her father fought in the Greek war for Independence.

I would add that I wouldn't mind the idea of getting another leader, preferably a royal that could be the quintessential one, like Elizabeth or Victoria, that could even go through Celts, Ireland, Great Britain too.