I'm Fairly Certain One of Civ 7's Gathering Storm sized DLC that Shakes up the Game Will be Focused on Adding a Final Age

Adding an entire age for the 75 years of 1950-2025 seems a bit strange when previous ages cover several centuries, or even millennia.
While I would like it getting more sci-fi, if a 4th age would be 1950-2050, it would be the usual for civ where the more modern it gets, the less time each turn represent. From what we got already:
Antiquity: 4000 BCE to 500CE -> 4500 years
Exploration 500 -> 1750 -> 1250 years
Modern: 1750 -> 1950 -> 200 years

So it already goes down as a trend. And it is what happened in other civs, like for example in 6:
1734693161186.png

In 6 already the last 100 years are a total of 130 turns, 130 of the 500 total for the whole game at standard speed.
 
Obviously, you have to work the apocalypse in there at the end if you are going to be historically accurate.
 
Can we just NOT manifest this nonsense into existence? You are aware the devs lurk here, right?!
 
Can we just NOT manifest this nonsense into existence? You are aware the devs lurk here, right?!
I'm sure they already have plans for the future.
 
Can we just NOT manifest this nonsense into existence? You are aware the devs lurk here, right?!
I totally agree. It makes a lot more sense, in a game about or inspired by history, to add another Era between Ancient and Exploration, rather than on especulating about the future or delving into very controversial current events that might potentially get the game banned in huge markets such as China.

A bit of "futuristic" especulation has always been on every Civ game, and that's fine, but basing a whole 25% of the game on "futuristic" especulation and current events makes no sense. Some units and technologies are enough, not a whole new Era spaning 25% of the game.

Doing that would certainly make the end-game longer and go against Firaxis' objective of making players actually reach the end and play the whole game.

The 1950-2050 period fits perfectly well in the in-game "Modern Era". Meanwhile, we have and in-game "Exploration Era" that goes from around 600 to 1700. The difference between the world in 600 and 1700 is much, much different that the difference between the world in 1700 and 1950.
 
Or we could just not have an extra age and have more civs in each age, allowing for more geographic and cultural diversity in each age instead of having even more demand to waste even more civ on creating multi-age paths for specific civilizations.

Down with extra eras proposal.
 
I totally agree. It makes a lot more sense, in a game about or inspired by history, to add another Era between Ancient and Exploration, rather than on especulating about the future or delving into very controversial current events that might potentially get the game banned in huge markets such as China.

A bit of "futuristic" especulation has always been on every Civ game, and that's fine, but basing a whole 25% of the game on "futuristic" especulation and current events makes no sense. Some units and technologies are enough, not a whole new Era spaning 25% of the game.

Doing that would certainly make the end-game longer and go against Firaxis' objective of making players actually reach the end and play the whole game.

The 1950-2050 period fits perfectly well in the in-game "Modern Era". Meanwhile, we have and in-game "Exploration Era" that goes from around 600 to 1700. The difference between the world in 600 and 1700 is much, much different that the difference between the world in 1700 and 1950.
I don’t believe in an era between the current ones at all. It would require to realign some civs, and this is hardly worthwhile if the age is added in an expansion that not everyone gets. It means to support two very different versions of the game all the time, and potentially have two versions of civs depending on whether someone owns the expansion: with a medieval age, Byzantines go there, but without it they are in the exploration age.

I don‘t see an in-between age in a patch either. And while it might have sense to it historically, it has even less reasoning gameplay-wise than a fourth age: what’s the major thing that changes for this age?

Let‘s just keep the 3 ages, and maybe extend the modern one by 5 techs if it is absolutely necessary to include something more recent.
 
I don’t believe in an era between the current ones at all. It would require to realign some civs, and this is hardly worthwhile if the age is added in an expansion that not everyone gets. It means to support two very different versions of the game all the time, and potentially have two versions of civs depending on whether someone owns the expansion: with a medieval age, Byzantines go there, but without it they are in the exploration age.

I don‘t see an in-between age in a patch either. And while it might have sense to it historically, it has even less reasoning gameplay-wise than a fourth age: what’s the major thing that changes for this age?

Let‘s just keep the 3 ages, and maybe extend the modern one by 5 techs if it is absolutely necessary to include something more recent.
Thinking in purely gameplay terms and keeping in mind the technical complications of adding an intermediate Era, I agree with you. They should leave the three Era system as it is and just build upon and expand those three ages with tecnologies, units, buildings, etc.
 
Thinking in purely gameplay terms and keeping in mind the technical complications of adding an intermediate Era, I agree with you. They should leave the three Era system as it is and just build upon and expand those three ages with tecnologies, units, buildings, etc.
The sad thing with this approach is that it probably won't help with some "missing" time-frames. The beginning of Exploration Age could include much more stuff to incorporate the times of 600-1100 to create a time in the game that feels as a time of internal reforms and change. But adding one or two tiers there means that the actual exploration will happen later in the age, and this may be against the Age's design philosophy. Of course, this doesn't need to happen if techs like Astronomy are looked at from a less Western perspective (which currently seems to be the case). Then Astronomy, Cartography and Shipbuilding could remain in the tiers 1-3 - but then the focus is again outwards right from the beginning of the Age.

I'm not up to date how it looks tech- and civic-wise for 1600-1700, which my (in my memorized impression) is not really well captured currently. Maybe it would be easier to include this at the end of the Exploration Age or beginning of Modern Age with a few more techs/civics and buildings?

On the other hand: I've also heard the criticism that there are too Buildings for each yield already. And too many unit tiers to make them interesting. So, maybe I shouldn't think too much about adding before I have my first 100 hours in the game.
 
I also prefer just 3 ages. A 4th sci-fi age could be a fun DLC or mod. Perhaps add in the SMAC factions on civ switching.

I think 3 ages may be a really good blend for civ choices. Plus I don't see a value to new mechanics for a entire new age with legacy paths. If anything the 3rd age would just need fleshed out better if anything. But we have still yet to get a good look at it.
 
As I always said, if there will be the 4th age, I want it will be the future of the playthrough not of the real world.
 
As I always said, if there will be the 4th age, I want it will be the future of the playthrough not of the real world.
I think it would most likely include features that we have seen in previous games — world congress/United Nations, tourism, global warming/climate change. Whether or not you are a fan of these mechanics personally, they have been present in previous iterations and are “tested” in that sense.

Giant death robots, etc., “cure for cancer,” and future space exploration could also easily return.

I see all of these features as a big money pile at the center of the table for Firaxis, and even if one feels that three ages are “perfect” for a game they have not yet played, I can’t see Firaxis not adding future ages and reaching for the money like. I firmly believe that three ages is just the start—the foundation—and more will be built on top of it.

Civ VII is built in layers…
 
I think it would most likely include features that we have seen in previous games — world congress/United Nations, tourism, global warming/climate change. Whether or not you are a fan of these mechanics personally, they have been present in previous iterations and are “tested” in that sense.

Giant death robots, etc., “cure for cancer,” and future space exploration could also easily return.

I see all of these features as a big money pile at the center of the table for Firaxis, and even if one feels that three ages are “perfect” for a game they have not yet played, I can’t see Firaxis not adding future ages and reaching for the money like. I firmly believe that three ages is just the start—the foundation—and more will be built on top of it.

Civ VII is built in layers…
Tourism, world congress, natural disasters…none of that relies on a 4th age, and the Tourism mechanic isn’t even something I’d consider desirable. Natural disasters are already in the game anyway.
 
Tourism, world congress, natural disasters…none of that relies on a 4th age, and the Tourism mechanic isn’t even something I’d consider desirable. Natural disasters are already in the game anyway.

It relies on a fourth age in that currently the game stops around WWII and these features are not in the game at launch.

Natural disasters are not climate change.
 
It relies on a fourth age in that currently the game stops around WWII and these features are not in the game at launch.

Natural disasters are not climate change.
Previous games introduced the world congress much earlier in history than WWII. A congress of Vienna or even earlier international (worldly or religious) congress might have been the model. In any case, it doesn’t need a new age for that at all. It could come at the beginning of modern.

Tourism is a similar thing. Grand Tours, Egyptomania, collecting Chinese Art etc. All that was big since the 1700s. Mass tourism is a different thing, but I‘m not sure we need that?

Climate change would also be interesting to have before. Could be an exploration era crisis for example. Or in the form of narrative events. You may be more after human made climate change, but this is also possible as a 3rd age crisis (if they ever include these).
 
Previous games introduced the world congress much earlier in history than WWII. A congress of Vienna or even earlier international (worldly or religious) congress might have been the model. In any case, it doesn’t need a new age for that at all. It could come at the beginning of modern.

Tourism is a similar thing. Grand Tours, Egyptomania, collecting Chinese Art etc. All that was big since the 1700s. Mass tourism is a different thing, but I‘m not sure we need that?

Climate change would also be interesting to have before. Could be an exploration era crisis for example. Or in the form of narrative events. You may be more after human made climate change, but this is also possible as a 3rd age crisis (if they ever include these).
I’m not saying it’s period correct. As you know, the game is already taking huge liberties regarding the historicity of the Age system.

My point is that there is money on the table, more space in the timeline, and features that have been tested and have been shelved (for now).
 
I wonder how much the dislike for a 4th age comes from how in general civs games tend to get more boring later on. Gotta see if the ages system will already make a difference on it with the modern age when people get their hands in the game.
I don’t believe in an era between the current ones at all. It would require to realign some civs, and this is hardly worthwhile if the age is added in an expansion that not everyone gets. It means to support two very different versions of the game all the time, and potentially have two versions of civs depending on whether someone owns the expansion: with a medieval age, Byzantines go there, but without it they are in the exploration age.
That can be cumbersome but still the easiest part imo. The main reason I see any age midway (and to a lesser extend before the current three ages) is the need to complete change / rebalance at least the two ages between the new one if not the whole game.
 
I wonder how much the dislike for a 4th age comes from how in general civs games tend to get more boring later on.
For me the biggest issue is game pacing. I think three eras is an ideal number. More would hurt the game's pacing (as GS's extended future already did, for example). This would still apply to a fourth age placed somewhere other than the end of the game.
 
Back
Top Bottom