I don't care for most of the end of age crises, but I really enjoy the end of antiquity invasion crisis. I setup my games to where it always picks that type of crisis. It's great for leveling up commanders, too. What do you all think about the invasion crisis? Is there one that you like more? I haven't decided with crisis I prefer for the other ages.
Invasion crisis
- Thread starter TomSpren
- Start date
MutilationWave
IDDQD
It's the only one I enjoy. I noticed in my last antiquity game that a blockade of invader ships were off my coast, they attacked a couple scouts in the water but didn't attack my land units. Still thought it was cool.
I don't remember getting that one. I might be confusing it with the barbarian crisis, which I get a lot.
Are the invaders land-based, water-based, or both?
Are the invaders land-based, water-based, or both?
MutilationWave
IDDQD
Both. I also call it the barbarian crisis.
My problem with it is that if I'm in a good spot, with enough troops around, then it's not really a crisis, it's just an XP farm. It at least forces you to have a military, and protect. And if you slot the -6 combat strength card because you don't want to give up the gold for the other cards, they can be tough to fight if you don't have your troops as L3.
That would be a possibly useful change. During the Crisis IP could give less XP (say 50% less, then 75% less, then 0 XP) at the different stages of the Crisis.
The Invasion crisis is by far my favourite too!
However I do find enjoyment in the others as well.
The Plague is a lot of fun if you're at war. As long as your settlements have enough walls, they're basically self-defending during the crisis!
Also, conquering an infected enemy settlement is a lot of fun, as their units keep dying.
While the Loyalty crisis can be an absolute pain if you're multiple settlements above the limit, it can also be fun - those settlements you lose make for easy re-conquering and boosting your Commanders' experience.
The Religion crisis is essentially just a big bonus for me - after completing the legacy path I completely ignore religion, meaning the Crisis policy card gives +8 happiness in all settlements.
Not to mention the considerable bonuses you get if handling the Crisis well! My favourites are Powerful Fortifications (Antiquity Invasion), Minister the Sick (Antiquity Plague), Westphalian Sovereignty (Exploration Religion) and Contagion Theory (Exploration Plague).
However I do find enjoyment in the others as well.
The Plague is a lot of fun if you're at war. As long as your settlements have enough walls, they're basically self-defending during the crisis!
Also, conquering an infected enemy settlement is a lot of fun, as their units keep dying.
While the Loyalty crisis can be an absolute pain if you're multiple settlements above the limit, it can also be fun - those settlements you lose make for easy re-conquering and boosting your Commanders' experience.
The Religion crisis is essentially just a big bonus for me - after completing the legacy path I completely ignore religion, meaning the Crisis policy card gives +8 happiness in all settlements.
Not to mention the considerable bonuses you get if handling the Crisis well! My favourites are Powerful Fortifications (Antiquity Invasion), Minister the Sick (Antiquity Plague), Westphalian Sovereignty (Exploration Religion) and Contagion Theory (Exploration Plague).
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 3,527
I don't enjoy any of the crises. They tend to vary between minor annoyance and causing the AI problems. So glad they're optional. They definitely don't add to the narrative of civ switching, as when you handle the crisis well, surely that means you shouldn't switch, right?
MutilationWave
IDDQD
I don't think I've ever seen these bonuses, and the only time I struggle with crisis is loyalty if I'm way over the settlement cap. Do you know what activates these?
stealth_nsk
Deity
Totally agree here. Based on previous games I could say Ed loves crisis and disaster mechanics a bit too much. But yeah crises being optional help.
@TheMarshmallowBear did a data scrape or something along those lines a while ago, I can't remember the thread, but I did save the screenshot - I reference it every time a Crisis hits!
Keep in mind that some of these aren't entirely accurate (perhaps they were changed in certain patches) - for example Early Industrialization doesn't require 10 Sawmills and Gristmills, I believe the correct number now is around 5.
When you fulfill a requirement, the bonus appears in the list of legacy options after an age change.
Last edited:
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
- And here you have nailed one of the most basic problems with Civ VII: in-game events that do not contribute to their purported 'narrative'.
Crisis Events should be largely random - give the gamer any impact on how much or which crisis, and the gamer will game it every single time. But the Results of the crisis should be dependent on how well the gamer and the AI entities handle it, and should impact more than a couple of Legacies between Ages. As stated, why should you have to switch Civs when your old one was doing so well?
The 'Crisis Management' should be a major factor in the way the Age ends:
Completely bungle the Crisis - you are modeling Rome to Frankish Gaul, where there isn't much left of the old Civ but some titles.
Have to make some fairly major adjustments (like moving your capital and changing your language) and you are modeling Rome to Byzantium - your Civ is still pretty easy to recognize in the new Age.
Sail through the Crisis, and you are modeling Sassanid Persia and have to wait about another 250 years until the Islamic Conquest comes along, and even then your culture dominates your conquerors for the next 500+ years after that.
All Civs change, frequently enormously, over time. That the game has never adequately modeled that before is no reason to go back to that Fantasy Narrative. But modeling changes as Mandatory at Specific Times regardless of events is equally Fantasy and, as has been proven by Civ VII's (lack of) acceptance, far harder to accept for the majority of gamers.
I’m interested to see if they go towards this direction in the proposed “Collapse” mode. Actually destructive Crises that are more focused on saving what little you can coupled with longer Ages sounds like fun. New Civs and IPs can spring from the remnants of your empire in the following age and you’d have the option of fighting for the land back. Almost like a simulation of the fall of Rome or the changing of Chinese dynasties.
Lebo44
Warlord
If a version of civ can be played outside of age, then it should be 100% players choice, there should be no need to “unlock” playing whatever the next age version of your current civ is by “handling the crisis well”
Crises (and how you play them) Should
1. unlock Legacies*
2. additional unlock for certain Other civs
3. affect the narrative on the change over
*and these should be revealed in the Crisis screen during the Crisis
Last edited:
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
I think they need to go in more than one direction on Age Transition/Civ Collapse.
Age ("Collapse") Transitions where you have No Choice but to change Civs because your old one is simply no longer viable (like, Your Civ Has Become An IP: start another game or change Civs) would 'force' the Civ Switch Narrative.
On the other hand, there has to be another potential outcome, because the current transitions where you have no choice but to switch is simply not viable with the majority of gamers.
This is why any Collapse mode has to also have a "Struggle Through" mode in which, although possibly seriously crippled, your Civ survives in some form.
I would go so far as to postulate that survival could include elements of the current Transition Model.
As in, you might change various Uniques and aspects while keeping the Civ title and graphics - a sort of Extreme Legacies imposed by the way you coped or failed to cope with the Crisis.
Another potential outcome would be changing to a transitional Civ - as in, the current model of having 'historical choices' (as warped as some of them appear to be) like Normans from Rome or Chinese Dynastic transitions. Made actually transitional (Rome OR Greece to Byzantium, Han to Tang Dynasty, Norman to Britain, etc) this should give the gamer many aspects of his 'old' Civ combined with new and more Age-appropriate Uniques with the 'new' Civ.
And finally, a complete change of Civ in (almost) all aspects. This is what we frequently have imposed upon us in the current game, but change Imposed to Choice and it becomes more palatable. Basically, this is saying I got hit by every imaginable Crisis, lost X percent of my population to plague, another percentage to Emigration, lost my capital, my army, all my trade routes. The only thing left of my Civ is Legends and fuzzy memories - but I'm not out of the game yet, I can still continue playing as Insert Totally Inappropriate Civ Here
The point being that it might not be your preferred choice, but it is a choice, not a mandate from the Developer Gods . . .
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 3,527
Honestly Civ6 had its Dramatic Ages and Apocalypse modes which I never heard people say they played frequently. My a priori is that that is the fate of any collapse mode. People will try it once and bounce off. Ironically something like it and crises are probably needed for the design to work... But they aren't fun so it's probably better if they don't work.
Boris Gudenuf
Deity
Now this is interesting, because while I never played Apocolypse Mode because it seemed too much like Imposed Disasters without antecedents (in fact, very much like our current Civ VII Transitions) but I always played Dramatic Ages without fail - in fact, even back then I was hoping for a version with More Dramatic Ages linked to in-game events - just as I'd like to see now in Civ VII.
Different games for different folks, I guess. . .
