Military and wars limited to Ages... is it so bad?

[Big J Money]

One complaint I've seen is how abruptly a war can end at the end of an Age. You can be sieging a city, with 1 turn until you can capture it, and then the Age ends and you get nothing for your trouble.

Coming from previous Civ games, I understand this complaint. It's not something we've had to experience before. However, I find it intriguing. In previous games, I've always felt that war & conquest is the easiest and most reliable path to victory. Being offensive, you can also ensure that an opponent does not beat you. Is your neighbor going for a cultural or science victory? Not if they lose half their cities! Additionally, I also feel that war is the easiest way to get a steamroll going against the rest of the world. Science can also steamroll, but it happens later. A military minded opponent can stop a science steamroller before they take off. Okay, enough of an intro.

What I'm interested in with Civ VII is how military play is limited to a single Age. Your goal is no longer to "take as many cities as you want", but to take as many as you can before the Age is over. There is essentially a timer. A military player must set reasonable goals and achieve them. And even when they do achieve their goals, the reset at the next Age means that any steamroll is slowed down.

Ultimately, I think looking at the end of war at the end of an Age as a "ripoff" is the wrong way to look at it, and only happens when we want the game to be like previous games. I rather intend to look at it as something to plan and prepare for. If I want to take their best city, or the city with a wonder I want, or whatever, it's up to me to make sure I succeed before the Age ends. Thoughts?

 

[Ornen]

I don’t know what everyone is complaining about, just take a damn peace deal. AI will give you whatever cities you want anyway…

 

[Nurse Michael]

People should just look more closely at the age progression meter. Try to understand and adapt to the concepts of the game.
'You are too late' is a concept in many games. So plan your invasion earlier.

Also, with the age length set to 'long' on a standard speed, you got plenty of time to go on a conquering spree if you desire.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

As a historian, I conceptualize the Age Ending in historical terms, which gives me some good examples to make sense of the in-game events.

The Ottomans besieged Vienna in 1683. This is sometimes considered the height of their power, since it coincided with their furthest march into central Europe. It failed, dramatically and catastrophically, and after that the Ottoman Empire started contracting rapidly to its end after WWI.

The Roman military, despite massive problems all over the western Empire and the sack of Rome in the 5th century, was still winning battles against the Huns and Visigoths after that catastrophe (sack of Rome, 410, battles won in 451 and 470)

The French Army was innovating in military organization and professionalism in the late 18th century, introducing Divisional organizations in the Seven Year's War, organized light infantry units, professional officer schooling for artillery and engineering officers - and then the entire state collapsed in the French Revolution and 'Revolutionary Napoleon' became the beneficiary of all the French military innovations.

So, basically, Age Ending is a Process, not a single Event - which is exactly how it is modeled in the game.

 

[AriochIV]

The settlement limit is likely to halt your tide of conquest long before the end of Age will.

My problem with the end of Age reset is that first, it feels very artificial and external, rather than something organic to the playthrough. It's the hand of the developer reaching over your shoulder and telling you it's time to stop playing and move on to a different game (because the next Age is literally a different game).

Second, it's another huge opportunity for the game's quirks and inconsistencies to screw you over and destroy any immersion you had. You know that huge fleet that was sweeping all before it on the high seas? It's been teleported to an inland lake next to that town that was gifted to you in a peace deal deep in enemy territory that you forgot you even had.

 

[ToothedBomb]

It's incredibly jarring that the game essentially stops and resets everything so you can play the next 'round.' That's a restriction that didn't exist in previous entries and it feels like a massive step back. I understand that any new rules or restrictions can bring interesting opportunities for decisions and strategies, but I think the cons heavily outweigh the pros in this instance.

 

[wesplaysciv]

Maybe the goal of the crises (which I turn off for now anyway) is partly to incentivize the player to organically stop any wars to focus on this other issue? I think they could dial that up, and your cities get more unhappy as age end gets closer so if you are at war to try to get an extra settlement you could also lose one to discontent.

 

[TheGrayFox]

One complaint I've seen is how abruptly a war can end at the end of an Age. You can be sieging a city, with 1 turn until you can capture it, and then the Age ends and you get nothing for your trouble.

Coming from previous Civ games, I understand this complaint. It's not something we've had to experience before. However, I find it intriguing. In previous games, I've always felt that war & conquest is the easiest and most reliable path to victory. Being offensive, you can also ensure that an opponent does not beat you. Is your neighbor going for a cultural or science victory? Not if they lose half their cities! Additionally, I also feel that war is the easiest way to get a steamroll going against the rest of the world. Science can also steamroll, but it happens later. A military minded opponent can stop a science steamroller before they take off. Okay, enough of an intro.

What I'm interested in with Civ VII is how military play is limited to a single Age. Your goal is no longer to "take as many cities as you want", but to take as many as you can before the Age is over. There is essentially a timer. A military player must set reasonable goals and achieve them. And even when they do achieve their goals, the reset at the next Age means that any steamroll is slowed down.

Ultimately, I think looking at the end of war at the end of an Age as a "ripoff" is the wrong way to look at it, and only happens when we want the game to be like previous games. I rather intend to look at it as something to plan and prepare for. If I want to take their best city, or the city with a wonder I want, or whatever, it's up to me to make sure I succeed before the Age ends. Thoughts?

I'm going to respectully disagree. Telling people complaining about this that its a problem in perspective falls flat. The game is forcing you to stop what you were doing for a completely arbitrary reason outside of your control in order to creates a completely unnatural and forced break reset inbetween what feels very specfically like board game rounds and many of us absolutely do not like it and actually do want the game to remain like previous ones in this regard.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

It's incredibly jarring that the game essentially stops and resets everything so you can play the next 'round.' That's a restriction that didn't exist in previous entries and it feels like a massive step back.

I was worried that's what it would feel like but I was surprised how natural the progression felt, it really adds a new dimension to the game.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I'm having the opposite reaction. I'm hesitant to *start* wars when the crisis starts, since I don't know when it will end. I'm developing a "hunker down" mentality as the progress meter hits 90%, trying to finish up the legacy paths that are close.

 

[Steinernein]

I'm having the opposite reaction. I'm hesitant to *start* wars when the crisis starts, since I don't know when it will end. I'm developing a "hunker down" mentality as the progress meter hits 90%, trying to finish up the legacy paths that are close.

You could, instead, do a limited war with the aims of taking just a single city before the age ends knowing that you'll have capacity in the next coming age at around 95% -- things like war weariness won't be a factor since you can't have an eternal war.

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I deliberately ended my antiquity age by conquering a capital (I was totally peaceful for most of it) which brought the game over the limit.

 

[King Flevance]

I agree that age transition needs to be smoother. Considering the mechanics, it can only ever be smoothed to a certain degree. With legacies being what they are, we need a defined line separating ages. However, resetting so hard feels both unnecessary and even able to be abused somehow given enough time to learn the system. Wars should not just end but you should have your units pushed back to your borders. This could be seen as the crisis forced both nations to abandon the military campaign on the verge of victory/defeat to deal with issues. More like a cease fire to deal with a crisis.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

The crisis should be more punishing making it impossible to wage a war as the age comes to a close. The crisis should be all consuming forcing the player to deal with it at the expense of everything else. Nation building should grind to a halt. Maybe the crisis policies should be more punishing.

 

[Big J Money]

Telling people complaining about this that its a problem in perspective falls flat.

I don't intend to come across as telling people their perspective is wrong. I'm only considering a different perspective, personally*. I don't think that a person having a different opinion needs to cast any judgment or aspersions on others' opinions. i.e. I'm not saying that other people have a problem in perspective, I'm just saying that I personally think the tradeoff is worth it.

* -- This is also with the caveat that I haven't played the game yet, and I might in the end change my own mind and not view the new mechanic so favorably.

 

[anemo]

One complaint I've seen is how abruptly a war can end at the end of an Age. You can be sieging a city, with 1 turn until you can capture it, and then the Age ends and you get nothing for your trouble.

Coming from previous Civ games, I understand this complaint. It's not something we've had to experience before. However, I find it intriguing. In previous games, I've always felt that war & conquest is the easiest and most reliable path to victory. Being offensive, you can also ensure that an opponent does not beat you. Is your neighbor going for a cultural or science victory? Not if they lose half their cities! Additionally, I also feel that war is the easiest way to get a steamroll going against the rest of the world. Science can also steamroll, but it happens later. A military minded opponent can stop a science steamroller before they take off. Okay, enough of an intro.

What I'm interested in with Civ VII is how military play is limited to a single Age. Your goal is no longer to "take as many cities as you want", but to take as many as you can before the Age is over. There is essentially a timer. A military player must set reasonable goals and achieve them. And even when they do achieve their goals, the reset at the next Age means that any steamroll is slowed down.

Ultimately, I think looking at the end of war at the end of an Age as a "ripoff" is the wrong way to look at it, and only happens when we want the game to be like previous games. I rather intend to look at it as something to plan and prepare for. If I want to take their best city, or the city with a wonder I want, or whatever, it's up to me to make sure I succeed before the Age ends. Thoughts?

I think that the problem could be solved by setting a meter of 10-15 turns after the conditions of age changing are met, so that the players have time to prepare.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I don't intend to come across as telling people their perspective is wrong. I'm only considering a different perspective, personally*. I don't think that a person having a different opinion needs to cast any judgment or aspersions on others' opinions. i.e. I'm not saying that other people have a problem in perspective, I'm just saying that I personally think the tradeoff is worth it.

* -- This is also with the caveat that I haven't played the game yet, and I might in the end change my own mind and not view the new mechanic so favorably.

Oh this is totally fair. I really wasn't trying to imply that you were forcing your opinion down anyone's throat or anything like that and you are totally within your rights to share your opinion as you have. However you framed the topic as a response to those complaining about abrupt ending of age and how it impacts war/diplomacy and asked for thoughts and I'm just explaining why I don't think "if you just change your perspective, it's interesting" is going to satisfy those people.

 

[AD1730]

I agree that age transition needs to be smoother. Considering the mechanics, it can only ever be smoothed to a certain degree. With legacies being what they are, we need a defined line separating ages. However, resetting so hard feels both unnecessary and even able to be abused somehow given enough time to learn the system. Wars should not just end but you should have your units pushed back to your borders. This could be seen as the crisis forced both nations to abandon the military campaign on the verge of victory/defeat to deal with issues. More like a cease fire to deal with a crisis.

I despise anything in games that feels very artificial and "gamey". Everything about this ages mechanic is just that.