Late Age "Airtime" AKA 50 Turns Between Peaking And Crisis. We Need This

tman2000

King
Joined
Feb 11, 2025
Messages
674
I got the Crossroads DLC but didn't pay for the founder's which included the Rise DLC.

Frankly, even having PAID for Crossroads, I never even bothered playing Nepal. I burnt out at that point. So I would never bother paying for Rise.

However, Tides is free. Thus, I have reinstalled Civ 7 and played.

Right now, I've played Tonga with Teach to set up a Pirates game. Huge Archipelago map. I think I made the right choice. I sort of messed up my optimization and could have expanded more and done better, but even so the Tonga scout ability to cross oceans and explore distant lands has been amazing on a Huge/Archipelago map. My civilization is small and weak but I have a lot of the map scoped out. I also have a ton of naval units. Teach's ability to poach naval units is key, and while I think age reset is better or I prefer the idea of it, continuity means my Antiquity naval units (ugh Antiquity naval is lame in Civ 7) that I've built and the many many I have poached will start me out very strong in Exploration. The perfect set up for a plunderin' nasty Pirates campaign. My plan is to find unclaimed treasure spots and settle them, while building a massive navy that punishes everyone else for expanding. We'll see.

Still, something that was clear before, but very clear now, is that Age progress is too aggressive.

Tonga has this ability to build - in theory - culture and influence. It has an AMAZING ability to trade and even befriend distant lands city states (wow!). But it's turn 60 before any of that really comes into force, and then the crisis comes before I know it.

Without the pacing of non-standard game speed, I want to have developed districts, pump out wonders, build many trade routes, have a powerful navy BEFORE the crisis hits. I want to realize and leverage the potential of my Antiquity civ, THEN transition to abandon it.

In this philosophy, the crisis would hit harder, but primarily faster.

So I recommend about 50 turns fluff at the end of each age to realize and leverage the engines you've built, then a harder, and much faster crisis at the end of that. Rather than having a hard transition, I support continuity but in conjunction with very punishing crisis.

I need to somehow soar on the wings of my antiquity success for a bit before moving on, so the crisis must be late and short, but if the late, short crisis is punishing, then continuity itself won't nullify the idea of an age "reset".

It's clear to me this is the change needed. Other than this, there is a very difficult, nuanced, subtle issue with the "just convert to cities and recycle production resources" META. That META holds, but it depends on a dice roll that provides production resources. They've nerfed it to a degree but it still fundamentally exists. They need to really correct for this and I think a 50 more turns buffer at the end of Antiquity to play in the playground you built before a transition is necessary.
 
I'm interested in how this would play out. I agree that the Crises sometimes come along just as I feel that I'm starting to get a lot of my Civ online. When I first started playing, the Happiness Crisis seemed insurmountable, the Plague seemed really ugly, and the Invasion quite dangerous. Now, the Happiness crisis depends solely on playstyle - and often doesn't affect my core cities at all. Plague is still ugly and frustrating, and Invasion is just target practice and training for my Commanders. How would you change each of these to make them harder/faster? The Invasion one seems the easiest - just triple the number of troops coming at you - but then you run into the problem that many of the AI Civs would be wiped out entirely...
 
I'm interested in how this would play out. I agree that the Crises sometimes come along just as I feel that I'm starting to get a lot of my Civ online. When I first started playing, the Happiness Crisis seemed insurmountable, the Plague seemed really ugly, and the Invasion quite dangerous. Now, the Happiness crisis depends solely on playstyle - and often doesn't affect my core cities at all. Plague is still ugly and frustrating, and Invasion is just target practice and training for my Commanders. How would you change each of these to make them harder/faster? The Invasion one seems the easiest - just triple the number of troops coming at you - but then you run into the problem that many of the AI Civs would be wiped out entirely...
Crises could Easily be made harder/easier for individual players. If the you want 3x the units on Invasion, just get 3x as many units to target Player X and then have less or more target Player Y.

That is probably something they need to do if they want the Crises to be serious. (so they don’t kill the AI…how hard it is for the Human v the AI can easily depend on the Difficulty Level)
 
that’s why I play ALL my games with long ages setting… it’s not quite what you’re looking for but it’s a start
I'm not sure anyone could agree on how to fix it, but it feels like the sentiment is similar: Just when things feel like they are working, the crisis hits and its game over on the era.
It feels like somehow we need some time to rock on.

Maybe this means changing how era score is accumulated. Maybe we need more masteries in the tech trees, maybe we need more gates in the trees (Need mastery in one and then 2 techs to get to the next tier), maybe we just need the final techs to be more expensive. *Why not Both.gif
Not to go off on a tangent but the crisis feel like they need multiple ways to fight/mitigate/ win or straight up lose them. This way at least you can feel like you've taken advantage of your strengths (or not) to fight through them, but come out changed on the other end.
 
that’s why I play ALL my games with long ages setting… it’s not quite what you’re looking for but it’s a start

I used to as well, but it really decreased the difficulty of the game. Once I played my first standard game things became much more urgent and there were more difficult choices. I've converted another person to standard after their first game with it. They had only played longer ages before.

I highly recommend giving it a try! I'd say longer ages is equivalent to dropping down a difficulty level or two.
 
I'm not really sure if this is a pacing problem. I play all my games with standard settings on Deity. Sometimes, I find myself waiting for a crisis to arrive and the age to end after I've done basically everything I wanted to do in the age. More often than that, but not by much, the crisis arrives too early. Other times (rarest of the three but not trivial), it seems to arrive at just about the right time. I think this problem of crises arriving at the wrong time will always be there as long as it's set to arrive at a fixed point in the game measured by age progress. I think this problem only goes away with a crisis mechanism that targets specific players based on their individual progress.

I have a solution in mind that can not only improve crisis timing but also help make crises feel less random and make legacy paths more interesting as well.

We can introduce a N-strike system for crises. When you do something "naughty", you get a strike toward a particular crisis, and when you strike out after N strikes, a non-permanent crisis hits you, and you specifically. You commit a naughty act when you claim legacy milestone points using a "dirty" method, which tends to be a more expedient way of collecting points than a "clean" one.

Antiquity example of clean and dirty ways of collecting milestone points:
  • Expansionist
    • (Clean) +1 Milestone Point for each settlement you founded yourself, excluding the original capital
    • (Clean) +1 Milestone Point for each city state you incorporated.
    • (Dirty) Additional +1 Milestone Point for each city, excluding the original capital.
      • +1 toward Revolts Crisis
    • (Dirty) +2 Milestone Point for each settlement you concurred.
      • +1 toward Invasion Crisis
  • Economic
    • (Clean) +1 Milestone Point for each slotted resource you improved yourself.
    • (Dirty) +1 Milestone Point for each slotted imported resource.
      • +1 toward Plague Crisis for each trade route.
  • Culture
    • (Clean) +1 Milestone Point for the building a wonder for the first time in a city.
    • (Clean) Additional +1 Milestone Point for building the civ-associated wonder.
    • (Dirty) +1 Milestone Point for each subsequent wonder built in a city.
      • +1 toward Revolts Crisis
  • Science
    • ??? (Not sure how to design this one)
A crisis ends either when you deal with it successfully or let it expire. For the Invasion crisis, a successful resolution would mean you (or someone else) disperse an invading tribe or multiple tribes but definitely not ones that infinitely re-spawn until the age ends. You win a reward for completing the crisis resolution quest and the corresponding "crisis meter" resets to 0. In this system, you can be hit with multiple crises in a single age, possibly with crises of a single type. You can also just avoid crises altogether, but that would probably make it more challenging to complete a legacy path.
 
I'm interested in how this would play out. I agree that the Crises sometimes come along just as I feel that I'm starting to get a lot of my Civ online. When I first started playing, the Happiness Crisis seemed insurmountable, the Plague seemed really ugly, and the Invasion quite dangerous. Now, the Happiness crisis depends solely on playstyle - and often doesn't affect my core cities at all. Plague is still ugly and frustrating, and Invasion is just target practice and training for my Commanders. How would you change each of these to make them harder/faster? The Invasion one seems the easiest - just triple the number of troops coming at you - but then you run into the problem that many of the AI Civs would be wiped out entirely...
3x the troops but perhaps 10 turns only for the entire crisis. I also don't like plague as a crisis. Plagues typically coincided with civilization not as ends of them. This seems more like a thing to hit in response to conditions like war, low food production and heavy trading. Like disasters instead of a crisis.

Happiness crisis makes sense but maybe more of a loyalty crisis if they add a loyalty system.
 
that’s why I play ALL my games with long ages setting… it’s not quite what you’re looking for but it’s a start
Yeah I'm trying to wrap my head around this. The problem with Civ 7 in general is the missing phase of leveraging what you've built. Sure, that's sometimes the dreaded snowball, but there are limited versions of this like colonizing empty land, fighting over arctic uranium, or the religious game. I just never can wrap my mind around the cadence of the mid-game in any age.

Having the right hammer resources to build up a few cities as quickly as possible seems to be the general play. I never can tell which buildings or techs I should build or why. I just make big cities and the buildings and tech happens. There's a bit of meaningful choice in where you improve first, a little in placement but not much, more so in settlement decisions and then war. But I just never feel like I have any really compelling strategy for what to research and build and it gets to the point where I am actively annoyed by being forced to consider these choices each time. Like they're just bloat and diminish quality of life.

I still am trying to determine what the "ought" of this design is, how I'm supposed to deal with it, why exactly it's not fun relative to whatever the intent is, and what would make it fun.

But one thing that's clear is all my unique buildings and bonuses come into effect a little just as crisis hits and the age starts to end.
 
You can also just avoid crises altogether, but that would probably make it more challenging to complete a legacy path.
This sounds like a great potential system. It parallels ideas about soft age transition I've written about before. I just don't know why they went with the system they did. Civ 7 could have been anything.

I just never feel the fun within the age cadence. It's not that I want to snowball, it's that I want to pick a plan, execute it, and feel the satisfaction from doing so. Civ 7 constantly feels on one side of the extreme or the other. You run out of time to do what you planned, or you're so successful your plan is trivial you could really do any plan. Crisis comes to early, or too late.

I also get the feeling they basically streamlined Civ out of the game, leaving behind meaningless vestiges as a "Civ mask" but without the substance. To the point where I've commented multiple times that Civ 7 might be a better version of itself if it just dumped more features and streamlined more.

Well, anyway, I can't conceive of how to fix this. I know the pacing is off but I don't know the solution.

The best I can think of for 7's age cadence is tech trees with permanent trade-offs, with wonder-like first come first serve "epiphany" techs at the top of the tree. So each player who accumulates enough science can pick from 5 epiphanies, but once you pick you cannot pick again, nor can any player pick the one you've picked. This is standard for board games and that's what Civ 7 is let's be honest.

Your first tech category is cheap, and the cost scales up, so you trade-off sailing, or mines, or trade, or war etc. That's going to be your main strategic advantage for the rest of the age, but you can slowly add in other specializations only that you will have to catch up (perhaps one or two specializations by the end of the age, coming on board mid-age and late-age). Then, if you are specialized in science, you can compete for the "epiphany" bonus abilities.

This is the sort of mechanic that would be better suited for the cadence structure with these ages.

It's really sad because I think in some ways technological progress is the primary game mechanism going back to Civ 1. It just doesn't fit with these snappy rise and fall tactical scenario challenges called ages.
 
This sounds like a great potential system. It parallels ideas about soft age transition I've written about before. I just don't know why they went with the system they did. Civ 7 could have been anything.
You can turn of crises in the game settings before you start the game. This way youll never have this issue

In relation to your initial point though I think it comes at different times in different games as it depends on what other civs are also doing. Sometimes its before I peak, other times during and other times after. I think it adds more vairability to the game with it being different and would get boring and predictable if it was solely dependent on what your civ has done/achieved
 
This sounds like a great potential system. It parallels ideas about soft age transition I've written about before. I just don't know why they went with the system they did. Civ 7 could have been anything.

I just never feel the fun within the age cadence. It's not that I want to snowball, it's that I want to pick a plan, execute it, and feel the satisfaction from doing so. Civ 7 constantly feels on one side of the extreme or the other. You run out of time to do what you planned, or you're so successful your plan is trivial you could really do any plan. Crisis comes to early, or too late.

I also get the feeling they basically streamlined Civ out of the game, leaving behind meaningless vestiges as a "Civ mask" but without the substance. To the point where I've commented multiple times that Civ 7 might be a better version of itself if it just dumped more features and streamlined more.

Well, anyway, I can't conceive of how to fix this. I know the pacing is off but I don't know the solution.

The best I can think of for 7's age cadence is tech trees with permanent trade-offs, with wonder-like first come first serve "epiphany" techs at the top of the tree. So each player who accumulates enough science can pick from 5 epiphanies, but once you pick you cannot pick again, nor can any player pick the one you've picked. This is standard for board games and that's what Civ 7 is let's be honest.

Your first tech category is cheap, and the cost scales up, so you trade-off sailing, or mines, or trade, or war etc. That's going to be your main strategic advantage for the rest of the age, but you can slowly add in other specializations only that you will have to catch up (perhaps one or two specializations by the end of the age, coming on board mid-age and late-age). Then, if you are specialized in science, you can compete for the "epiphany" bonus abilities.

This is the sort of mechanic that would be better suited for the cadence structure with these ages.

It's really sad because I think in some ways technological progress is the primary game mechanism going back to Civ 1. It just doesn't fit with these snappy rise and fall tactical scenario challenges called ages.

I never really understood this argument that Civ 7 is too streamlined. I'm pretty sure they decided to leave some elements of the game "undercooked" with the intention of fleshing them out with continued updates. I'm genuinely impressed with how they've managed to turn things around with the latest set of updates, and I'm sure they intend to re-visit and enrich the crisis system.

That's not to say that I'm a fan of how they've approached the development of Civ 7. There must've been so many signals during development that told the devs that all the things we're discussing here + the latter two ages were going to get released in an unacceptable state. I'm just picking one example here, but I cannot imagine that any designer at Firaxis felt any pride in their decision to duplicate Civ 6's religion system in Civ 7. I think Civ 7 would be in a much better spot now if Firaxis had decided to reserve the latter two ages as two separate expansions. They would've bought themselves a lot of time to think about not only age-specific gameplay but also the crisis system and how to handle age transitions. The crisis system, in particular, would've been an excellent feature to drop as a game mode during the run-up to the release of the Exploration age expansion. Alas, Firaxis chose to release the game in an unfinished state and try to fix it for I'm guessing years to come. I really do mean it when I say I'm impressed by their ability to identify what's wrong, be very diplomatic in how they deal with an irate player base, and take the necessary steps to fix all the problems they've identified so graciously that it almost appears that was their plan all along, but I just think, maybe naively, that all of this could've been avoided.
 
I'm genuinely impressed with how they've managed to turn things around with the latest set of updates, and I'm sure they intend to re-visit and enrich the crisis system.
Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I don't agree with this and can't even wrap my head around it realistically. The rest of your comment is covered as an extension of this core disagreement.
 
I'm not trying to be rude here, but I can't wrap my head around how you could disagree that the last two patches have improved the game quite a bit.
The game is fundamentally unfun, backed by objective play counts and scores. The latest patches are rather trivial and especially so given the fundamental problems which need to be solved. This is not to say the patches weren't an improvement, just that they had little to do with what is fundamentally wrong with the game.

The purpose of this topic, for instance, is to better define what's wrong and discuss if a specific pacing change could - unlike the latest patches - meaningfully address what's wrong.
 
The game is fundamentally unfun, backed by objective play counts and scores.
In statements like this, it's better to replace "fundamentally" with "to me", because there are a lot of people who put hundreds of hours into the game and still enjoying it.

EDIT: And, of course "objective" needs to be replaced with "my interpretation of"
 
This is not to say the patches weren't an improvement, just that they had little to do with what is fundamentally wrong with the game.
As the low player count is a (good) part of your evidence for the game's issues (sensible metric), presumably, if the player count improves, then they are targeting what issues people have with the game. Which issue is "fundamental" is entirely subjective a lot of the time.

That said, I also think pacing needs a look at. But I don't think pacing necessarily has anything to do with what you consider a fundamental issue, so care should be taken in the analysis.
 
The game is fundamentally unfun, backed by objective play counts and scores. The latest patches are rather trivial and especially so given the fundamental problems which need to be solved. This is not to say the patches weren't an improvement, just that they had little to do with what is fundamentally wrong with the game.

The purpose of this topic, for instance, is to better define what's wrong and discuss if a specific pacing change could - unlike the latest patches - meaningfully address what's wrong.
What exactly is this fundamental issue you want addressed? I agree the game has big fundamental issues, but I wouldn’t expect the devs to fix them in patches because these issues are… fundamental. My understanding of your complaint is that pacing is off, but if you believe that issue can be resolved by just simply pushing back the crisis timing-wise or by any equally simple measure they could’ve taken in one of the recent patches, I fail to see how that’s a fundamental problem.
 
Back
Top Bottom