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

[Evie]

For me the dislike comes from reducing the number of civs in each age meaning less options each age (and need options in single age game). I want cultural and geographic diversity in each era far more than i care about having Another Game Phase.

Far better three ages with twenty civs each than four with fifteen.

 

[Professor Phobo]

The more I think about it, the more I think I'd love to see a "five minutes into the future" age with fictionalized near future civilizations along the lines of the Beyond Earth sponsors.

But if the original modern age ends with world wars as its crisis, then we need a 4th age that is 1945-present day which has maybe "nuclear war", "global pandemic" and "climate change" as its crisis points, leading to the big shakeup that creates the Beyond Earth sponsors. So I guess I'm talking about two more ages being added at the end?

The fifth and final age's victory conditions can be "how do you get humanity out of the sci-fi apocalypse?", with one of them being sending a starship to Alpha Centauri...

 

[stealth_nsk]

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.

Well, I have those concerns too, but with age resetting part of the game, this could be much less an issue. Also, some slowing down always comes in expansions, I'm pretty sure the current game speeds take this into account.

 

[Professor Phobo]

I'm sure if we get full sized expansions like the olden days, we'll probably get one focused on each of the Age with maybe 33% extension of mechanics, tech tree elaboration, etc, apiece. Certainly I think a lot of room to grow the game. As long as it's all adequately implemented with on/off switches, I say bring on the Mega Marathon Hypercomplicated We Simulated The Virulence of History's 100 Most Influential Diseases expansion.

 

[Nikolai II]

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.

Age 3 already has a victory. I hope any further age 4,5,6 etc will be optional after the victory, or you can choose in the game settings how many ages you want to play. I am intrigued by future ages for Civ7 though. Imagine a new version of ToT's space colonization or SMAC2.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Age 3 already has a victory. I hope any further age 4,5,6 etc will be optional after the victory, or you can choose in the game settings how many ages you want to play. I am intrigued by future ages for Civ7 though. Imagine a new version of ToT's space colonization or SMAC2.

Actually each age has some kind of victory, it just doesn't end the game, unless this age is the last one. So, having victory in the 3rd age will not make any problems for the 4th age, those victories will just become legacy paths.

Also, if there will be 4th age, it clearly will not be something like SMAC, just the contemporary age from the middle of XX century to the middle of XXI, with some futuristic elements like GDR.

 

[Zaarin]

Well, I have those concerns too, but with age resetting part of the game, this could be much less an issue. Also, some slowing down always comes in expansions, I'm pretty sure the current game speeds take this into account.

I don't have an issue with slowing down the pace of the game a little (I'm an Epic player, after all), but adding 200 turns to the game just sounds like a lot of tedium. If it's 200 turns of the hundred years after WW2...I give it a resounding no thank you. Not to mention the development time it would sap out of filling out the previous ages.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't have an issue with slowing down the pace of the game a little (I'm an Epic player, after all), but adding 200 turns to the game just sounds like a lot of tedium. If it's 200 turns of the hundred years after WW2...I give it a resounding no thank you. Not to mention the development time it would sap out of filling out the previous ages.

As I understand, currently ages have around 150 turns on standard speed, for example in VanBradley exploration video, he had 155 turns in antiquity before going to exploration. So, going from approximately 450 to approximately 600 turns is something an expansion normally does.

 

[Krikkit1]

Age 3 already has a victory. I hope any further age 4,5,6 etc will be optional after the victory, or you can choose in the game settings how many ages you want to play. I am intrigued by future ages for Civ7 though. Imagine a new version of ToT's space colonization or SMAC2.

I do think the ability to set the Victory age (as well as the Starting Age) will be important.

Then once a civ has achieved the Victory in the selected Victory Age, you have the options to
-End Game (see Replay)
-Keep on playing in Current Age (Endless Ancient/Exploration/etc)
-Go on to Crisis and Next Age (if applicable)

 

[Acken]

I don't think there will be a 4th age. But extending modern a bit to rework those seemingly lackluster victory conditions sounds like a real possibility to me. At the moment it feels they didnt have the time to fully flesh out their victories and therefore just gave everyone a project and will ship it like that until they can fix it in a year

 

[Zaarin]

As I understand, currently ages have around 150 turns on standard speed, for example in VanBradley exploration video, he had 155 turns in antiquity before going to exploration. So, going from approximately 450 to approximately 600 turns is something an expansion normally does.

Not really? I can't say R&F changed playtime at all, nor do I recall G&K extending playtime (BNW...might have, but I'm not certain of that either). GS did extend playtime in a way that seriously degraded my experience of Civ6. I almost entirely abandoned the Science Victory because of the extra tedium it added, and it did not enhance the Culture Victory, either. Adding content is fine, but adding an age should be toggleable and would be, IMO, an unfortunate waste of resources that could have been used to improve the existing ages.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Not really? I can't say R&F changed playtime at all, nor do I recall G&K extending playtime (BNW...might have, but I'm not certain of that either). GS did extend playtime in a way that seriously degraded my experience of Civ6. I almost entirely abandoned the Science Victory because of the extra tedium it added, and it did not enhance the Culture Victory, either. Adding content is fine, but adding an age should be toggleable and would be, IMO, an unfortunate waste of resources that could have been used to improve the existing ages.

I mean no every expansion, but if you compare the game before and after all expansion, it's usually longer. Whether it's good or not - totally depends on the implementation. With late game being weak part of previous civ games, it was generally not a great thing. But if 4th age will be done well, I don't think it will be an issue.

 

[Zaarin]

But if 4th age will be done well, I don't think it will be an issue.

The only way to do it well would be to add a separate Bronze Age, but it seems far more likely they'll add a Contemporary or Future Age, which by its nature is automatically "not well" to me. So again, that's effort that could better be spent improving the existing three ages. NB that improving the existing ages would still probably extend playtime somewhat, but in a way that would hopefully be actually enjoyable. Additional Legacy Paths, governments, and religion are all prime candidates for expansion mechanics.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The only way to do it well would be to add a separate Bronze Age, but it seems far more likely they'll add a Contemporary or Future Age, which by its nature is automatically "not well" to me. So again, that's effort that could better be spent improving the existing three ages. NB that improving the existing ages would still probably extend playtime somewhat, but in a way that would hopefully be actually enjoyable. Additional Legacy Paths, governments, and religion are all prime candidates for expansion mechanics.

I understand your dislike for contemporary and futuristic themes, but there are a lot of mechanics, which could work really well from gameplay perspective. And reset between ages clearly could improve it even more.

 

[Zaarin]

I understand your dislike for contemporary and futuristic themes, but there are a lot of mechanics, which could work really well from gameplay perspective. And reset between ages clearly could improve it even more.

Or they could just expand the Modern Age, which already feels like the most underbaked of the three ages. That way we don't need another round of civs or another 200 turns to the game.

 

[sTAPler27]

Age 3 already has a victory. I hope any further age 4,5,6 etc will be optional after the victory, or you can choose in the game settings how many ages you want to play. I am intrigued by future ages for Civ7 though. Imagine a new version of ToT's space colonization or SMAC2.

In my opinion though none of them feel like they were designed as victories but as legacy paths. Collecting antiques from other countries by building explorer units doesn't feel like a 'culture victory' in my mind, especially because culture plays very little role in it

 

[stealth_nsk]

Or they could just expand the Modern Age, which already feels like the most underbaked of the three ages. That way we don't need another round of civs or another 200 turns to the game.

I think we've discussed it a couple of times. Creating new age with totally new mechanics based on all the cool stuff appearing in the contemporary age makes much more sense than trying to push it into modern age.

 

[pokiehl]

I like civ switching but I want it minimized. Doing it twice in a game seems right. And I’m just not at all interested in the potential civs of a “4th age” after modern. Any potential mechanics for that could easily fit in modern, so I just don’t see the need.

 

[ombak]

I think we've discussed it a couple of times. Creating new age with totally new mechanics based on all the cool stuff appearing in the contemporary age makes much more sense than trying to push it into modern age.

I don't know that it does and I think the comments from the dev stream can definitely be taken either way, suggesting that a new age is an option, but so is expanding the modern age.

At this point I think we're reading a little too much into it if we think things like Civ names or a lack of certain features or pieces mean there will be a new age for sure.

 

[theadder]

I like civ switching but I want it minimized. Doing it twice in a game seems right. And I’m just not at all interested in the potential civs of a “4th age” after modern. Any potential mechanics for that could easily fit in modern, so I just don’t see the need.

I agree. A third civ switch seems too much, and it’s easier to add the material into the modern age rather than burden the game with a further transition.