Modern Age Gripe

[GunsGermsandSteel]

I'm actually one of the (seemingly) few who are mostly enjoying Civ 7.

That said there's one thing in particular that kinda breaks this game for me. That is: Modern Age units spanning way too large a time period. Technically it happens in the other two ages as well, but it's just not as noticeable to me. For example I was playing as French Empire and the 3rd upgrade for their unique 'Garde Imperiale', a musket wielding clearly Napoleonic Era unit, is tied to the same upgrade that maxes out tanks. So you literally have an M4 Sherman fighting alongside a Napoleonic Musket man. It's just so wrong to me. It's also not like ah well that kinda crap can happen in civ. No, they literal share the upgrade. There's no way to avoid.

Please fix this. I don't care how, but it hardcore kills the immersion for me. Its like all the extra effort that went into French tier 1 tank cosmetically looking like a Renault FT 17 is completely wasted...

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm actually one of the (seemingly) few who are mostly enjoying Civ 7.

That said there's one thing in particular that kinda breaks this game for me. That is: Modern Age units spanning way too large a time period. Technically it happens in the other two ages as well, but it's just not as noticeable to me. For example I was playing as French Empire and the 3rd upgrade for their unique 'Garde Imperiale', a musket wielding clearly Napoleonic Era unit, is tied to the same upgrade that maxes out tanks. So you literally have an M4 Sherman fighting alongside a Napoleonic Musket man. It's just so wrong to me. It's also not like ah well that kinda crap can happen in civ. No, they literal share the upgrade. There's no way to avoid.

Please fix this. I don't care how, but it hardcore kills the immersion for me. Its like all the extra effort that went into French tier 1 tank cosmetically looking like a Renault FT 17 is completely wasted...

Hear you loud and clear.

The Modern Age Tech Tree and Unit list is simply wretched.

For starters, of course, many of the units are mis-labeled, others do not upgrade at the right points, and the most iconic 'Modern units - the tanks, artillery and aircraft of WWII, come late in the Age, generally after you have already been at World War for some time.

I, for one, am sick and tired of fighting most of my Modern Wars with Landships and Dreadnaughts, neither of which lasted more than 15 years IRL before becoming Obsolete.

The other problem which you also allude to, is the peculiar Unique Units that Civ has used for years, like Viking Berserkers (a fraction of a percentage of Viking warriors) or the French Garde Imperiale, the graphic of which is Napoleon's Grenadiers a'Pied of the Imperial Guard, 2 regiments out of 200+ in the French Army: a tiny fraction being used, again, to represent the entire infantry force of the French Army.

This is particularly galling when there is an excellent Modern Age substitute for the Garde Imperiale:

The French line infantryman from the 1840s to 1915 (the illustration is from 1914, in fact) wearing bright red baggy trousers, blue jacket and overcoat, and distinctive kepi headgear: virtually the same graphic image appropriate for most of the first half of the Modern Age, and very different from the Basic Infantry of any other Modern Age Civ.

 

[sixty4half]

Also, having a Hussar as a Unique Cavalry in Modern when everyone else has tanks....... yeah... it's "unique"

 

[Krikkit1]

They should probably shift them so all of the WW units are last Tier

Infantry, Siege, Naval: Tier3=WW I
Cavalry, Range, Air: Tier3=WW II

Tier 2 should be 1800s (ie no Tier 1 or Tier 2 Air units…maybe a scout Zeppelin that can upgrade to a bomber…to give you something to use the Aerodrome for)

 

[sixty4half]

Technically Hussars, and other Cavalry like them, fought in WW1.

 

[Tanel]

Early gunpowder units really get the short end of the stick in Civ 7. They come too late in the Exploration and don't really fit into Modern as they are quite quickly switched out to WW1 era units which makes a lot of earlier UUs feel awkward. Yes cavalry fought in WW1 but they shouldn't be as good or better than a tank.

In terms of unit progression the game should really have 4 Ages.

 

[fantsu]

There will be missmatch involved when you combine ancient/classical together and do the same with medieval/renaissance and industrial/modern.
I dont see a way out unless they will add plenty of eras to the game.

 

[UWHabs]

Early gunpowder units really get the short end of the stick in Civ 7. They come too late in the Exploration and don't really fit into Modern as they are quite quickly switched out to WW1 era units which makes a lot of earlier UUs feel awkward. Yes cavalry fought in WW1 but they shouldn't be as good or better than a tank.

In terms of unit progression the game should really have 4 Ages.

They just need a little more time and space between the start of the era, and when the WW1 units start appearing. You only need like 3 techs before you hit landships and rifles. They need to like double the number of modern techs, and then move the WW1 units to like the 3rd column so you need a good 6-10 techs before you can unlock them. And then you can bulk out the later part of the tree more too, instead of basically devolving into a single line of air units, have a little more variation to unlock.

Also with the modern era being the last era (for now), you could even add a whole bunch of extra techs to the end that give smaller boosts. So give me like 2-3 techs/masteries for each unit type to be able to more specialize them and give me extra bonuses to them, to sort of simulate a "Tier 4" unit. You can still have everything converge on Rocketry, but I almost feel like the modern era is ripe to give us a big web of techs and bonuses to units, and almost let me customize the tech path based on my full army. That might help stretch out the units too, if you can jump ahead and jump around a little more.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Anyone who played Civ 7 and paid attention to the details can clearly realise that the Modern Age is two distinct ages shoved together, maybe because of time limitations. I think, they already got in some hot waters over the changes to the formula so if they ACTUALLY left out Flight and Space Race I think people would've been even more aggressive in criticism. So I'm 100% convinced that there were meant to be four ages but they only managed to get two and half ages finished.

The Modern Age clearly is about the Industrial revolution, even the civilizations and the roster fit that criteria (Tsar Russia, Colonial America, French Republic etc).

Now, I don't think they cut or "made the fourth age specifically so they could sell it"., I geniunely think the game was either rushed to release and that got pushed back, especially since we found a reference to a fourth age (Atomic), which would fit the Modern theme (and you can easily extrapolate some changes like moving the Ideology and Space Race victory to this new age while keeping the Archeology and Factory paths as is). There should also be no problem filling the roster of this age (Soviet Union pops to mind, HUmankind had no problem with it).

So I feel the reason why the Modern Age feels so disjointed is that: it's actually two ages shoved into one which causes problems. I anticipate a fourth age, but I wonder how logistically they will deliver it because a fourth age poses problems, though Civ 6 showed they have no issue making DLC passes require other DLCs.

 

[UWHabs]

Anyone who played Civ 7 and paid attention to the details can clearly realise that the Modern Age is two distinct ages shoved together, maybe because of time limitations. I think, they already got in some hot waters over the changes to the formula so if they ACTUALLY left out Flight and Space Race I think people would've been even more aggressive in criticism. So I'm 100% convinced that there were meant to be four ages but they only managed to get two and half ages finished.

The Modern Age clearly is about the Industrial revolution, even the civilizations and the roster fit that criteria (Tsar Russia, Colonial America, French Republic etc).

Now, I don't think they cut or "made the fourth age specifically so they could sell it"., I geniunely think the game was either rushed to release and that got pushed back, especially since we found a reference to a fourth age (Atomic), which would fit the Modern theme (and you can easily extrapolate some changes like moving the Ideology and Space Race victory to this new age while keeping the Archeology and Factory paths as is). There should also be no problem filling the roster of this age (Soviet Union pops to mind, HUmankind had no problem with it).

So I feel the reason why the Modern Age feels so disjointed is that: it's actually two ages shoved into one which causes problems. I anticipate a fourth age, but I wonder how logistically they will deliver it because a fourth age poses problems, though Civ 6 showed they have no issue making DLC passes require other DLCs.

Yeah, as an "industrial age" simulator, it makes a lot of sense how it is if you basically ignore the last 2-3 techs in the tree towards Rocketry. What reason they ended up doing it as they were - maybe they didn't want to make another roster of civs, or just felt the industrial period was running too short, or they ran out of time or what. Regardless, it does need some work, whether that's to expand the current age we have, or split it back up and sell the 4th age in the next expansion.

 

[protocol7]

Now, I don't think they cut or "made the fourth age specifically so they could sell it"

We'll see, based on whether it comes as a free bonus or if they sell it to us.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

We'll see, based on whether it comes as a free bonus or if they sell it to us.

I'd like to emphasise, is what I mean is I don't think they did this "intentionally" to sell as a 4th DLC, but more that they had their hands forced in the decision.

 

[untitledjuan]

I'd like to emphasise, is what I mean is I don't think they did this "intentionally" to sell as a 4th DLC, but more that they had their hands forced in the decision.

The same happens with the other two ages, they shoved the Middle Ages and the Renaissance into a single age spanning 1400 years, leading to a lot of anachronisms.

 

[GunsGermsandSteel]

I think having a rework of the ages is probably the answer. To me though even just a simple skin change for each tier upgrade would fix it for me. I just can't stand having Napoleonic Era musket men fighting alongside WWII era tanks (and it's unavoidable).

Having a 4th age really makes sense. They could fix that in a major expansion.

As an aside, I know that technically things like Immortals and Roman Legionaries were technically farther apart in time than Garde Imperiale and WW1/WW2 Tanks, but technologically Immortals and Legionaries are fighting with very similar gear. Tanks and muskets are worlds apart.

 

[j51]

I think the issue with unique units like the hussar, Cossack and imperial guard continuing into the world war era could be fixed by having them upgrade into a second unique instead of just a 2nd and 3rd version. Hussar and Cossacks could be mainline cavalry units and later they upgrade to Panzers and T-34s, or such but still have the same special abilities. Basically they’re an upgrade with a reskin and new name. This could be used for any civ with that kind of mismatch in modern.

Also as people have stated above: the WWI era units need go, be replaced with a mid-late 19th century tier, or at least be pushed back.

 

[Menocchio]

I find this funny, because one complaint people had about previous games was that civ UUs didn't last very long. Now they last the whole era, but people still complain. Personally, I think it's fine as-is: to request essentially multiple uniques across one or two time periods is, I think, a bridge too far—especially where some of those civs simply don't/won't have any options for this. On the other hand, sure, later unique units should have alternate weapons or something: this already happens with the Mikasa (it gets hilarious huge guns) so, to me, it would be reasonable if those French imperial guards were given bolt-action rifles.

 

[GunsGermsandSteel]

I find this funny, because one complaint people had about previous games was that civ UUs didn't last very long. Now they last the whole era, but people still complain. Personally, I think it's fine as-is: to request essentially multiple uniques across one or two time periods is, I think, a bridge too far—especially where some of those civs simply don't/won't have any options for this. On the other hand, sure, later unique units should have alternate weapons or something: this already happens with the Mikasa (it gets hilarious huge guns) so, to me, it would be reasonable if those French imperial guards were given bolt-action rifles.

I totally get that civ is kind of tricky to balance. That said it's crazy to have a system where gunpowder unique units upgrade alongside tanks. It's not like 'oh you just quick tracked your calvary techs so now you have tanks alongside musket men'; no, literally you upgrade your tanks from Renaults to Shermans at the same time you upgrade Garde Imperiale to Tier 3.

It's wild to me they went to the trouble of making extra non-unique landship models (Renault, Mark V, AV7), but yet they must fight alongside musket wielding Garde Imperiale. I would rather have a single landship model but have visually era appropriate infantry fight alongside it.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I just finished a game as Buganda, with its unique Modern infantry unit. Same name, different tiers, all through the age (Abambowa)

Mentally, I don't think that the unit acts the same, dresses the same, and is wielding the same weapons throughout Modern.
I view them as the next *generation* of this civ's unique infantry unit. More connected in attitude, espirit de corps, than actual gear/hardware/tactics.

So a tier 3 Garde Imperiale will carry weapons comparable to the tier 3 American Marine or the tier 3 Infantry company (that everyone has).
A tier 3 Prussian Hussar is no longer riding a horse, any more than the US 1st Cavalry Division (which still exists) is not still riding horses.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Technically Hussars, and other Cavalry like them, fought in WW1.

Badly. Except in the open spaces of the Eastern Front and down in Palestine, cavalry had even more trouble than the infantry did in making obsolete tactics work in the face of modern firepower.

On the other hand, cavalry leaders were so conservative as a group that the German post-war cavalry were still officially issued lances until the early 1930s and the American Cavalry Arm absolutely refused to take part in the formation of the new Armored Divisions in 1939 - 1940 and so became utterly obsolete as any of their officers who wanted a career quickly transferred to the new Armored Branch. In other armies, cavalry were so opposed to machinery that early French, British, and American tank units were all formed by the infantry and the cavalry, when it did, only got involved in the tanks much later.

Considerably different from the Civ progression of Cavalry to Landships/Tanks that looks so smooth and logical - historically, it was anything but.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Modern Age fails on two levels:

On the one hand, the Units barrel straight from 1750 smoothbore musket-wielding infantry and saber swinging horse cavakry to magazine rifles and landships, skipping the entire 19th century in the process. Givfen that the period of the Age is roughly 200 years - 1750 to 1950 or so - this is half the Age simply vanished from the unit mix.

Second, it covers two distinctly different Problem Periods. First, the Industrial Age of, roughly the end of the 18th century to the late 19th century, (or over half the Age in Time) in which the rise of an entire new social class - industrial workers - and their egregious exploitation by industrialists led to huge social unrest and a scramble to find solutions to fend off revolutions, and the 20th century Rise of Ideologies that led to World Wars of unprecedented scope and ferocity.

Basically, there should be two 'mini-Crisis' periods in the Age: one at the very beginning as you start building Factories and Railroads, the definitive harbingers of Industrialization, and a second starting about the last 1/3 of the Age in which Ideologies become nearly controlling factors in your diplomacy and politics.

Right now, the Tech Tree throws Industrialization (Factories and Rail Stations) into the end of the first third of the Age (Tier 2 Techs) where they coincide with Field Guns, Howitzers and Rifle Infantry - all graphically WWI units. This is Flat Wrong since Industrialization largely took place 30 - 100 years Before WWI or even the advent of WWI infantry and artillery units, which date to approximately 1900

Tier 4 Techs have all the WWII units except Heavy Bombers, leaving Tiers 5 and 6 - the last 1/3 of the Age, for only the space program/Science Win. Given that this would conceptually be everything after about 1910 if the Tech Tree had any relationship to an in-game calendar, this makes the entire Age feel like it has been crammed into 2/3 of the Age Time - which is accomplished by simply leaving out at least one Tier of units between Tier 1 and Tier 2.

To cover the Major Events of the Modern Age the Tech Tree needs major revision, the 'tiers' of military units need at least one more level between the current tiers 1 and 2, and the progression from Industrial Era and its problems to the Era of Ideologies needs to be more explicitly modeled so that the gamer feels - as the politicians of the 19th and early 20th century did - like he is trying to keep a dozen plates spinning on sticks while wearing a bucket on his head and oversized clown shoes.