[Mod Potential] 4 Age systems: Add Medieval Between Antiquity and Exploration Age.

[moondog385]

I'm currently working on designing civ paths for a four-age system just for fun. I agree that the game would have worked better with this split but I think we're well past that at this point. I don't know how they'd even start redesigning civs and reworking the game's pacing around this. What's done is done I fear.

I understand that three acts is a nice little convention but it just evokes the tripartite European periodization to me of ancient-medieval-modern. Four ages would have been more in line with current historiography I think, because you could have combined ancient and classical into the first age, and then the long nineteenth and contemporary into the fourth age. Now we're stuck in a weird spot where the game doesn't even cover contemporary history.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

With 4 ages you can have a three part low countries line:

Feudal: Flanders
Exploration: Holland
Modern: Netherlands

There's still Age 1 to start with.
Celts.

 

[Lord Lakely]

It's generally a bad idea to add another age because Ages as a whole just don't work that well. Every transition is an interruption of the game's flow, and the time each age lasts is hardly satisfactory enough - it either lasts way too long, or not long enough.

Besides, what game mechanics would divide the two middle ages from each other? How would you handle Culture? Scientific Victory? What would the goals for domination be?

You can partition the game in as many little segments as you like, but that doesn't change that each age has its own tech tree, civ roster, mechanics and victory conditions, and all of those need to be accounted for every Age. If anything, the amount of ages should be *reduced* back to one, with the option of Civ switching where in previous installments you would have entered a new era, with certain Civs only being pickable within certain time periods.

With 4 ages you can have a three part low countries line:

Feudal: Flanders
Exploration: Holland
Modern: Netherlands

Having Netherlands AND Belgium representation is by itself already generous, given the gaps in the current Civ roster. Either do Holland and Belgium, or Flanders and Netherlands, and be happy with it.

 

[MutilationWave]

the time each age lasts is hardly satisfactory enough - it either lasts way too long, or not long enough.

I tend to agree with the larger point of your post, but I'm curious what you mean by this part.

I wish antiquity were longer, but the longer ages option makes the game easier, which is exactly what I don't want. Exploration feels about right, and I generally don't even bother with Modern, at least in my past couple games.

So in what circumstances are the ages lasting too long or not long enough?

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

You can partition the game in as many little segments as you like, but that doesn't change that each age has its own tech tree, civ roster, mechanics and victory conditions, and all of those need to be accounted for every Age. If anything, the amount of ages should be *reduced* back to one, with the option of Civ switching where in previous installments you would have entered a new era, with certain Civs only being pickable within certain time periods.

We've talked about some of that on the previous page. We all agree that the current culture victory conditions could move to the second age, and the third age would require acquiring great works of art. Economic path could revolve around founding guilds etc.

Having Netherlands AND Belgium representation is by itself already generous, given the gaps in the current Civ roster. Either do Holland and Belgium, or Flanders and Netherlands, and be happy with it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Belgium finally gets in the game. At least they don't have to worry about having a leader.
Which is why I think that Dutch Republic will be Exploration and can go into Modern Belgium.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I tend to agree with the larger point of your post, but I'm curious what you mean by this part.

I wish antiquity were longer, but the longer ages option makes the game easier, which is exactly what I don't want. Exploration feels about right, and I generally don't even bother with Modern, at least in my past couple games.

So in what circumstances are the ages lasting too long or not long enough?

I generally find that the balance is a bit off. When i play with regular ages I never reach the level of development i want, but with longer ages on i spend 30+ turns twirling my thumbs at the end of Antiquity and Exploration, as I rake in legacy points, deepening my snowball. There's quite a bit of customization but I've never been able to reach that Baby Bearesque 'Just Right' sweet spot.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I wouldn't be surprised if Belgium finally gets in the game. At least they don't have to worry about having a leader.
Which is why I think that Dutch Republic will be Exploration and can go into Modern Belgium.

Belgium already had a leader last edition, Ambiorix.

Actually Belgium has quite a few good leader picks in its history, but they all predate the foundation of the Belgian state. Mercator, Rubens, Godfrey of Bouillon,... Civ7 could amend that, but given the ample choice across all of Europe and the dearth of European Civs to facilitate them all, I'm not holding on to hope.

 

[Kurtbob]

I am on board with this idea, but like others have said, it would need to fleshed out beyond units and buildings (though I love all of the work put into the lists OP). I enjoy the ages system, but they need to feel less alike; each age should add not only new legacy paths, but new mechanics to play with.

Thoughts I have with little time to elaborate

Antiquity: focused on expansion (going wide). basic civ mechanics.
Feudal-middle ages-medieval (is there a better name?): focused on consolidating age 1 expansion (going tall). add religion (initial toned down creation and expansion), guild/trade, feudalism/manorialism, and specialist mechanics
Exploration: focused on expansion (going wide). add distant land / ocean expansion, mercantilism/isolationism, piracy/mercenary, great works of art/music and expanded religion (aggressive expansion, removal) mechanics
Modern: focused on consolidating age 3 expansion (going tall): add imperialism/decolonization, industrialization (which should include crazy new mechanics), and globalization/-isms mechanics

 

[Xandinho]

I'm currently working on designing civ paths for a four-age system just for fun. I agree that the game would have worked better with this split but I think we're well past that at this point. I don't know how they'd even start redesigning civs and reworking the game's pacing around this. What's done is done I fear.

I understand that three acts is a nice little convention but it just evokes the tripartite European periodization to me of ancient-medieval-modern. Four ages would have been more in line with current historiography I think, because you could have combined ancient and classical into the first age, and then the long nineteenth and contemporary into the fourth age. Now we're stuck in a weird spot where the game doesn't even cover contemporary history.

Considering how everything is structured now, it barely feels like you’re actually playing through the Middle Ages. It’s almost as if you finish the Classical era and then skip straight to the Age of Exploration. I understand that this is largely due to the economic path of the Exploration Age, which pushes you to search for new lands from turn one, but still, the Middle Ages are one of the community’s most beloved periods, and in the current rigid, highly scripted era system, they end up feeling squeezed out.

 

[moondog385]

Considering how everything is structured now, it barely feels like you’re actually playing through the Middle Ages. It’s almost as if you finish the Classical era and then skip straight to the Age of Exploration. I understand that this is largely due to the economic path of the Exploration Age, which pushes you to search for new lands from turn one, but still, the Middle Ages are one of the community’s most beloved periods, and in the current rigid, highly scripted era system, they end up feeling squeezed out.

I feel the same thing applies to Modern with how the 1700s-era technology is supplanted by industrial and World War-era tech within the first ten or so turns. Though Modern has a whole host of other issues as well.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Another reasons why an insertion age is needed.

Khmer was actually Age II Civ. and did in fact traded with Chola Empire.

And my proposals of another Southeast Asia TWO civs of the new Age III (Exploration) will be Taung oo and Ayutthaya. While i know little of Taung Oo uniques infrastucture. Ayutthaya UI should be UQ. 'Fortified Temple' of sort (but I don't agree with the word 'Wat' because it was shared by many in Mekhong Southeast Asia. Basically it was loaned from Khmer.)

- Avasa= Walled enclosure. Originally many Wats here in Thailand (Particularly Central Region) are all has crenelated walls. These are intended to be something similiar to Castles but not where governor/chief lives.
- Arama = Monastery.

Through I might reconsider other options because (Rattanakosin) Siam already got Baang (บาง) as UTI. But one of the two elements of UQ should results in a fortified quarters with science and cultural significant.

 

[UWHabs]

Considering how everything is structured now, it barely feels like you’re actually playing through the Middle Ages. It’s almost as if you finish the Classical era and then skip straight to the Age of Exploration. I understand that this is largely due to the economic path of the Exploration Age, which pushes you to search for new lands from turn one, but still, the Middle Ages are one of the community’s most beloved periods, and in the current rigid, highly scripted era system, they end up feeling squeezed out.

Yeah, you end up with this weird thing where you have crusades and knights happening at the same time as exploration and discovery. More often than not, I tend to skip religion until the end of the age and just try to hammer out the relics at the end.

I think you can make a 4-act structure work... I think basically antiquity stays as it is more or less, and it's about exploring the map and setting up your initial empire, then the second age turns into consolidating your mainland, and establishing your empire (guilds/trading, feudalism, religion). Obviously it would have to play in to a changed religious mode, however you change that. Maybe the science path is something like "House of Wisdom"? You could cheap out and just have it as another codex chase, although maybe in a different form. Or maybe you bring back the global great scientists and the science path becomes a race to recruit great scientists.

And then the age of exploration opens up the other half of the map, and is more like the current exploration age about discovering the new world, settling there. You could still have religion as a thing in the age, but maybe you lose the relic chase part, and it just is another way to balance yields, not involved in any victory paths.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Another reasons why an insertion age is needed.

Khmer was actually Age II Civ. and did in fact traded with Chola Empire.

And my proposals of another Southeast Asia TWO civs of the new Age III (Exploration) will be Taung oo and Ayutthaya. While i know little of Taung Oo uniques infrastucture. Ayutthaya UI should be UQ. 'Fortified Temple' of sort (but I don't agree with the word 'Wat' because it was shared by many in Mekhong Southeast Asia. Basically it was loaned from Khmer.)

I agree that the Khmer would need to move to Age II. I'm not sure what the best SEA civ for Age I would be?
In regard to the Majapahit, where do you think they should go? Historically they should probably stay in Age II, but gameplay wise they do make sense for Exploration. As for the others you mentioned I agree about Taungoo, though I might just name the civ "Burma". Shwedagon Pagoda is already in the game as a world wonder and it was definitely built before the Taungoo, so they could incorporate some of Pagan Kingdom in their design.

I think you can make a 4-act structure work... I think basically antiquity stays as it is more or less, and it's about exploring the map and setting up your initial empire, then the second age turns into consolidating your mainland, and establishing your empire (guilds/trading, feudalism, religion). Obviously it would have to play in to a changed religious mode, however you change that. Maybe the science path is something like "House of Wisdom"? You could cheap out and just have it as another codex chase, although maybe in a different form. Or maybe you bring back the global great scientists and the science path becomes a race to recruit great scientists.

And then the age of exploration opens up the other half of the map, and is more like the current exploration age about discovering the new world, settling there. You could still have religion as a thing in the age, but maybe you lose the relic chase part, and it just is another way to balance yields, not involved in any victory paths.

I mentioned it on the previous page, but I think a science path could be a race to build monasteries and universities. Religion could still play a part by making sure the monasteries are in cities under your religion. "House of Wisdom" is a good name for it.
The Relic race would also need to stay in Age II, and the Age III culture path can do with acquiring works of Art and displaying them.

 

[Xandinho]

The scientific path in Age II (Medieval Age) could remain as it is now, with just a few balance changes to make it more strategic (for example, increasing the amount of yields per quarter from 40 to 50). I'd also increase the importance of universities by making them provide +1 to the specialist limit in their quarter, removing this bonus from Urban Planning. Universities would now become atemporal.

For the scientific path in Age III (now Exploration Age), I'd bring Great Scientists back, and each one would generate a major discovery. Major discoveries would produce an academic book that could be placed in universities and libraries (which would also become atemporal). Great Scientists would no longer be generated only by universities and libraries, but by a variety of other sources — masteries, narrative events, small missions such as building near natural wonders, natural-disaster effects, and so on.

In any case, since they mentioned they are working on legacy paths, I believe they' add alternative paths for all victory types. Perhaps features like Great Scientists, guilds, and works of art for the cultural path… are already part of their plans.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

For the scientific path in Age III (now Exploration Age), I'd bring Great Scientists back, and each one would generate a major discovery. Major discoveries would produce an academic book that could be placed in universities and libraries (which would also become atemporal). Great Scientists would no longer be generated only by universities and libraries, but by a variety of other sources — masteries, narrative events, small missions such as building near natural wonders, natural-disaster effects, and so on.

My only question with that is would the game have to produce generic Great Scientists?
It sounds great but considering Great People are civ specific that's why I avoided anything to do with a Great Scientist race and figured that the yields and specialists could still work with the new Exploration Age. Plus, that sounds something like the Abbasids would be good at, but they'd most likely be in the Medieval/Feudal Age II.

 

[MutilationWave]

atemporal

For us dummies out here does that mean ageless?

 

[Xandinho]

My only question with that is would the game have to produce generic Great Scientists?
It sounds great but considering Great People are civ specific that's why I avoided anything to do with a Great Scientist race and figured that the yields and specialists could still work with the new Exploration Age. Plus, that sounds something like the Abbasids would be good at, but they'd most likely be in the Medieval/Feudal Age II.

True, but there are still many great scientists who aren’t tied to any civilization and could definitely be used: Galileo Galilei, René Descartes, Isaac Newton, Ibn Khaldun, and so on. I doubt all of them will be assigned to a civilization in the future.

For us dummies out here does that mean ageless?

Yes. I was thinking of the Portuguese version when I typed it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

True, but there are still many great scientists who aren’t tied to any civilization and could definitely be used: Galileo Galilei, René Descartes, Isaac Newton, Ibn Khaldun, and so on. I doubt all of them will be assigned to a civilization in the future.

Something that I could also see is having maybe have the ability for certain specialists to become Great People? A specialist could be become a Great Scientist through acquiring a certain number of science yields and make a discovery. The same could go for Artists and that is how they produce a Work of Art.

 

[Lord Lakely]

I agree that the Khmer would need to move to Age II. I'm not sure what the best SEA civ for Age I would be?

Champa. They are basically the only unique culture from that region who are not yet represented in the game AND who can be placed in Antiquity.

The documentation on Funan is poor (I asked @Andrew Johnson [FXS] about it when the game released, and I recall he replied something among the lines of - 'Funan'can be either another name for Khmer or for the Lac Viet, or something else.' I don't know. What I took away from it is that scholars don't appear to agree what 'Funan' exactly was beyond that it existed in the territory what would later become the Khmer empire.

So if you really want something to start the antiquity with from SEA you are pretty much locked to the Cham. I don't know enough about them to theorycraft a unique mechanic for them though. If you want to extend the Indonesian or Viet lines to two acts, then you can also advocate for a Sumatran Indonesian state like Melaya or Sri Vijaya (but again - there is a LOT of cultural overlap with Majapahit, so this may also be a bit tricky) and the Lac Viet.

I dunno. I don't like the idea of adding more of what is easily the worst mechanic of the game. It's tempting to split Exploration up because that is the Age I'd like to see expanded the most in terms of available Civs. Better that we call what we have a 'Good Enough' and try to enjoy ourselves, imo. And pray that the stream of DLCs doesn't end.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Champa. They are basically the only unique culture from that region who are not yet represented in the game AND who can be placed in Antiquity.

The documentation on Funan is poor (I asked @Andrew Johnson [FXS] about it when the game released, and I recall he replied something among the lines of - 'Funan'can be either another name for Khmer or for the Lac Viet, or something else.' I don't know. What I took away from it is that scholars don't appear to agree what 'Funan' exactly was beyond that it existed in the territory what would later become the Khmer empire.

So if you really want something to start the antiquity with from SEA you are pretty much locked to the Cham. I don't know enough about them to theorycraft a unique mechanic for them though. If you want to extend the Indonesian or Viet lines to two acts, then you can also advocate for a Sumatran Indonesian state like Melaya or Sri Vijaya (but again - there is a LOT of cultural overlap with Majapahit, so this may also be a bit tricky) and the Lac Viet.

You are right that the Champa probably are the best option right now.
If we didn't get Dai Viet, I'd be tempted to put Lac Viet instead, so that the Khmer could move into a Feudal Age, where I think they would thrive better with religion gameplay.