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

[stealth_nsk]

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.

Devs comments clearly could be read in any way. My point is a little be different. Potential 4th age could be a thing or not, it could be good or bad if implemented, but at least there's clear reasoning behind doing it. For extending modern age I don't see any reasons.

 

[Lord Lakely]

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.

This argument needs to be repeated more and loudly.

Nobody plays Civilization for the Modern Civilizations.

The large draw is playing as a historical Civilization, or Civilizations.

The most popular Civilizations are Rome, Greece and Egypt.

So if you add a fourth contemporaneous Era, you're not really adding something the playerbase WANTS to be added. NOT A SINGLE PERSON (honey he's shouting again) on this board has expressed LIKE for the idea of a Fourth Age (if they have, I've skipped over them). Every person talking about it is basically high on copium, expressing how they'd like to see it added in a way that irritates them the least, not because they want it. You have accepted, no, RESIGNED YOURSELF to the possibility.

It is outright something we do not want, and we are the OPEN-MINDED part of the Civilization Fan Comunity.

And if there's ANY doubt to any of the words I'm writing here, well, put them to the test. Start a poll. A SIMPLE Closed Question Poll: "Do you want a fourth era to be added". Add three options: Yes, No and Abstain.

And we will see what we collectively think about this. And more importantly, so will the devs.

But I highly doubt that the poll will skew towards "yes".

EDIT: I have made the poll: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...a-to-be-added-to-the-game-via-dlc-xpac.694383. Vote and let us settle what we actually think about this.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I have no qualms to extend the Modern Era up to the 1990s (and expand the Antiquity and Exploration Era's) if needed by adding more content. But a new era with different rules, different Civs, new art assets, new Victory types... absolute insanity.

 

[Leucarum]

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.

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.

While I do think quite a lot of people enjoy modern era civs - I'm really not one of them. I love the alt-history of civ. Even as it stands, I don't enjoy the vibe of many modern era civs in 7, even though I think their abilities are more interesting than I expected overall

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

The next live stream is going to have info on future plans.

 

[Krikkit1]

This argument needs to be repeated more and loudly.

Nobody plays Civilization for the Modern Civilizations.

The large draw is playing as a historical Civilization, or Civilizations.

The most popular Civilizations are Rome, Greece and Egypt.

So if you add a fourth contemporaneous Era, you're not really adding something the playerbase WANTS to be added. NOT A SINGLE PERSON (honey he's shouting again) on this board has expressed LIKE for the idea of a Fourth Age (if they have, I've skipped over them). Every person talking about it is basically high on copium, expressing how they'd like to see it added in a way that irritates them the least, not because they want it. You have accepted, no, RESIGNED YOURSELF to the possibility.

It is outright something we do not want, and we are the OPEN-MINDED part of the Civilization Fan Comunity.

And if there's ANY doubt to any of the words I'm writing here, well, put them to the test. Start a poll. A SIMPLE Closed Question Poll: "Do you want a fourth era to be added". Add three options: Yes, No and Abstain.

And we will see what we collectively think about this. And more importantly, so will the devs.

But I highly doubt that the poll will skew towards "yes".

EDIT: I have made the poll: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...a-to-be-added-to-the-game-via-dlc-xpac.694383. Vote and let us settle what we actually think about this.

I don’t want it just the way that irritates me the least…I want it because of the unique mechanics it would allow (although they could do it in ways that would irritate me, but that’s true of any aspect of a civ game)

I do think they should make a 4th age, but they should do it in a way so as not to irritate people.

Since people like playing as long ago civs, Way Before any 4th age (and 3rd civ switch) they should add an ability to keep your civs Name(and City List and Graphics style)..as well as the ability to customize the actual name and rename individual settlements.

Honestly, I’d rather they replace the current 3rd age with a 1950+ age than end the tech tree at 1950. (but 4 ages would be better in my opinion)

 

[RedCourtJester]

This argument needs to be repeated more and loudly.

Nobody plays Civilization for the Modern Civilizations.

The large draw is playing as a historical Civilization, or Civilizations.

The most popular Civilizations are Rome, Greece and Egypt.

So if you add a fourth contemporaneous Era, you're not really adding something the playerbase WANTS to be added. NOT A SINGLE PERSON (honey he's shouting again) on this board has expressed LIKE for the idea of a Fourth Age (if they have, I've skipped over them). Every person talking about it is basically high on copium, expressing how they'd like to see it added in a way that irritates them the least, not because they want it. You have accepted, no, RESIGNED YOURSELF to the possibility.

It is outright something we do not want, and we are the OPEN-MINDED part of the Civilization Fan Comunity.

And if there's ANY doubt to any of the words I'm writing here, well, put them to the test. Start a poll. A SIMPLE Closed Question Poll: "Do you want a fourth era to be added". Add three options: Yes, No and Abstain.

And we will see what we collectively think about this. And more importantly, so will the devs.

But I highly doubt that the poll will skew towards "yes".

EDIT: I have made the poll: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...a-to-be-added-to-the-game-via-dlc-xpac.694383. Vote and let us settle what we actually think about this.

To add a wrinkle: some people do play it for the futurism. Some people like GDRs and environmental crises. Some people liked Beyond Earth and Alpha Centauri.

So while I agree that a contemporary era generally lacks support except by completionists who haven't fully thought through the implications of this (repeating most modern era civs, a lot of circumvention or prodding of current global political issues, etc.), I don't think a fourth era is unlikely. But if implemented in any successful manner, I think it would have to treat the contemporary era/technological revolution as the "crisis," and jump straight ahead into fictitious future factions.

It would have to be the "future" era, period, and rest fully on the sci-fi fans enjoying their fun, nothing contemporary about it. I think anyone hoping for a "contemporary era" has a huge blind spot for both how boring and how problematic that would be.

 

[gdr_willter]

This argument needs to be repeated more and loudly.

Nobody plays Civilization for the Modern Civilizations.

The large draw is playing as a historical Civilization, or Civilizations.

The most popular Civilizations are Rome, Greece and Egypt.

So if you add a fourth contemporaneous Era, you're not really adding something the playerbase WANTS to be added. NOT A SINGLE PERSON (honey he's shouting again) on this board has expressed LIKE for the idea of a Fourth Age (if they have, I've skipped over them). Every person talking about it is basically high on copium, expressing how they'd like to see it added in a way that irritates them the least, not because they want it. You have accepted, no, RESIGNED YOURSELF to the possibility.

It is outright something we do not want, and we are the OPEN-MINDED part of the Civilization Fan Comunity.

And if there's ANY doubt to any of the words I'm writing here, well, put them to the test. Start a poll. A SIMPLE Closed Question Poll: "Do you want a fourth era to be added". Add three options: Yes, No and Abstain.

And we will see what we collectively think about this. And more importantly, so will the devs.

But I highly doubt that the poll will skew towards "yes".

EDIT: I have made the poll: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...a-to-be-added-to-the-game-via-dlc-xpac.694383. Vote and let us settle what we actually think about this.

Oh well... I'll gently say that I'm not agree with you, and I voted "yes" at the poll. I'm quite shocked how someone can treat me just as NOBODY.

 

[Lord Lakely]

Oh well... I'll gently say that I'm not agree with you, and I voted "yes" at the poll. I'm quite shocked how someone can treat me just as NOBODY.

Well apologies to you and anyone who may feel vexed.

"Yes" is, as a matter of fact, leading the poll right now, which is not the result I expected, but I can respect that. This community has always been open-minded to new ideas, and the result is indicative of that. Before we go off in idle-speculation tangents, let's first establish were we, as players and Civ Fanatics stand. My own voice is not represented by the Yes, and it's important to express that.

The results as they currently stand are split, but the Yes Camp is leading. That may change, that may stay the same, time will tell. But at the end of the ride we will have some clarity, at least.

 

[queenpea]

To add a wrinkle: some people do play it for the futurism. Some people like GDRs and environmental crises. Some people liked Beyond Earth and Alpha Centauri.

So while I agree that a contemporary era generally lacks support except by completionists who haven't fully thought through the implications of this (repeating most modern era civs, a lot of circumvention or prodding of current global political issues, etc.), I don't think a fourth era is unlikely. But if implemented in any successful manner, I think it would have to threat the contemporary era/technological revolution as the "crisis," and jump straight ahead into fictitious future factions.

It would have to be the "future" era, period, and rest fully on the sci-fi fans enjoying their fun, nothing contemporary about it. I think anyone hoping for a "contemporary era" has a huge blind spot for both how boring and how problematic that would be.

I’m not really sure how popular the future era mechanics are.

However, I do think it’s inevitable that we will receive expansion packs which extend the timeline, especially considering we are likely to be playing Civ VII for 10+ years.

Also, I will also say that for every player that is worried that a Fourth Age will critically injure the pacing of a game they have not yet played, there are dozens of players who are frustrated that they won’t be able to play as Germany or post-revolutionary China or a united, independent India. These players exist.

 

[AlexByrde]

there are dozens of players who are frustrated that they won’t be able to play as Germany or post-revolutionary China or a united, independent India. These players exist.

To which I'd say, put em in the Modern Age. No reason we can't have a little bit of overlap if they have different abilities and gameplay styles.

 

[Siptah]

To which I'd say, put em in the Modern Age. No reason we can't have a little bit of overlap if they have different abilities and gameplay styles.

Civ personas *shudder*

 

[queenpea]

To which I'd say, put em in the Modern Age. No reason we can't have a little bit of overlap if they have different abilities and gameplay styles.

It just doesn’t work like this in 7. If you did this, you would have to add France, England, and many other “redundant” countries to Exploration.

As an aside, I do believe we will receive these in Exploration eventually.

If I was structuring Civ DLC in a way that was interested in generating profit, I could concoct major expansions for all three ages present at launch, and moving on from there to add additional ages.

 

[AlexByrde]

Civ personas *shudder*

I'm advocating for a bit more difference than just between personas here. That's a cost saving measure whereas I'm talking full civs. (Although I can imagine actual civ personas and idk how I feel)

Whether we divide history into 3 ages or 4, there's a lot of periodization that gets lost in there that can't be explored if you don't double dip in the same regions history. For example, what about Qin China or Mamluk Egypt in the earlier ages? Do we need to exclude those because the Han and Abbasids are in? I don't personally think so, but whether that's Firaxis's philosophy or the realm of modders is obviously yet to be seen.

In terms of the hypothetical 4th contemporary/future age, I am very very interested in the mechanics that can be added, but the possible civs list just isn't interesting to me. So my position then is to iterate the Modern Age to have those mechanics and slot in interesting civs to the most reasonable age we've got regardless of overlap

 

[Evie]

Yes, we should exclude Qin china (at least until very late in the game development cycle) because Han China is in. Mamluke is more detable (Mesopotamia vs Egypt, Arab dynasty vs slave-warrior of diverse origins Dynasty), but we certainly should not have the other Mesopotamia-centric caliphates.

At the end of the day, we only have so many civilizations, and it's remarkable how often people forget that. Qin may be nice to have on paper, but at whose expense should they come? Korea? Vietnam? A whole variety of other Asian people who are far more diverse from Han/Qin and from each other than Han and Qin are? That's the real question, and the presence of Han make Qin less essential.

LIkewise for extra eras. Dividing sixty civ between four era instead of 3 means five fewer civilizations in each era, alls so already-represented areas can have yet more representation,,. Sorry not sorry, this is a terrible idea.

 

[queenpea]

Yes, we should exclude Qin china (at least until very late in the game development cycle) because Han China is in. Mamluke is more detable (Mesopotamia vs Egypt, Arab dynasty vs slave-warrior of diverse origins Dynasty), but we certainly should not have the other Mesopotamia-centric caliphates.

At the end of the day, we only have so many civilizations, and it's remarkable how often people forget that. Qin may be nice to have on paper, but at whose expense should they come? Korea? Vietnam? A whole variety of other Asian people who are far more diverse from Han/Qin and from each other than Han and Qin are? That's the real question, and the presence of Han make Qin less essential.

LIkewise for extra eras. Dividing sixty civ between four era instead of 3 means five fewer civilizations in each era, alls so already-represented areas can have yet more representation,,. Sorry not sorry, this is a terrible idea.

I think we might have five or more Ages by the time we are done with VII…

 

[Rajendran_P]

Don’t see a reason why we should not have 4th Age with additional gameplay mechanics, units, and more.

Maybe, developer would want to consider setting player’s gameplay timeline in the game startup menu to select which Age they would want to end and complete the games.

 

[RedCourtJester]

My bigger concern is to what extent development of other eras (future or otherwise) would deprive us of meaningful expansion on the eras we currently have.

I would rather the game double down on the design it has and implement all of these edge "classical," "renaissance," "contemporary" civs into the eras we already have instead of splitting up options and demanding they flesh out entire new eras with 10+ civs.

And the same would apply to a hypothetical future era, albeit maybe with more wiggle room. I would prefer they not devote any resources to developing future era civs until after the main three eras have all the players we expect and want. Although I would also speculate that we live in a different time than Beyond Earth, and it might be "impolitique" to propose any sort of dominant expansion/consolidation of current world powers; it might just make more sense to provide players with a lot of generic, non-cultural/political designs and then let them just choose which cultural/political aesthetic they want to represent in the future era. So, say you could choose one of several civ archetypes, but then label yourself as "American Reclamation Incorporation" or "Franco-Iberia" (or some newly envisioned set of "sponsors").

But either way, I would prefer the devs exhaust all of their design space in the three eras we have. No medieval or future age is worth losing out on potential civs like Muisca, Bulgaria, or Morocco, or whatever fits into the current grand design.

 

[Evie]

I think we might have five or more Ages by the time we are done with VII…

Short of a truly absurd (like, 150+) civ count, that would be sheer idiocy, and I cannot fathom what kind of reasoning would lead someone to think destroying per-age diversity for more ages is any sort of good idea - the argument put forward for it always seem to boil down to ignoring the fact that we won't have unlimited civ numbers.

The hints we have gotten of a fourth age have largely discouraged me from getting the game at this point, because unless they handle it in a way that limits the waste of civ slots, there is no way to have more ages without removing what I want most from the game: a wide and diverse selection of civs in each age. The more ages there are, the further the game goes from my bank account.

 

[queenpea]

Short of a truly absurd (like, 150+) civ count, that would be sheer idiocy, and I cannot fathom what kind of reasoning would lead someone to think destroying per-age diversity for more ages is any sort of good idea - the argument put forward for it always seem to boil down to ignoring the fact that we won't have unlimited civ numbers.

The hints we have gotten of a fourth age have largely discouraged me from getting the game at this point, because unless they handle it in a way that limits the waste of civ slots, there is no way to have more ages without removing what I want most from the game: a wide and diverse selection of civs in each age. The more ages there are, the further the game goes from my bank account.

I didn’t say it was a good idea. I just think it’s likely.