Modern Age needs to be extended

[stealth_nsk]

If the 4th age is a full age just as the other 3 but with a victory condition built in, it will just take over the current problems from the 3 age: now the third age will be fine (with some tweaks), but the 4th age will be short and just a race towards victory. This is why I think the solution of a 4th age that is just the victory race and no full age is superior.

The total number of civs in the game is limited. We don't know the number (and nobody does yet), but we can call it "x". With 3 full ages, each age has x/3 civs. With 4 full ages, each age only has x/4 civs. Given how many people wish for more fleshed out "pathways" in the already existing three ages, slowing down the process of fleshing out by adding a fourth, and further limiting the total number of civs per age, should be considered a severe downside of a 4th age with its own civs.

Another upside of a victory-only 4th age is that these could be made for the earlier ages as well, i.e., you can have an antiquity only game + victory phase and an exploration only game + victory phase.

I only partially agree with the last point. Yes, if we don't get 4th age expansion, we'll likely get expansion with much more civs for other 3 ages, but too many civs would make them less distinctive (like in previous civ games), so I think the game will hit the sweet spot of 20+ civs per age with 2 expansions, one of which is 4th age and it's fine. Anyway, added all this to the table:

 

[Siptah]

Thanks for adding! I still feel there's a very heavy bias towards to first option that isn't really explained in an obvious way
Hence, I remain convinced that a victory-only 4th age without additional civs is the best solution I also think it doesn't break civ 7 core gameplay, so it doesn't really have any downside to me (expect if you want a full 4th age that is - people that want to play a full age with helicopters and cyber-warfare don't get what they want).

I think timing is also important. Investing dev time in a full fourth age with new mechanics and civs at this point instead of fixing the mechanics for the 2nd and 3rd age, and releasing this in 2026 could be the game's death sentence. Honestly, to me this seems like one of the worst things that could happen for the game. If a full fourth age happens in 2028, when the first three ages have 20 civs and play similarly great as the first one, I could see a full fourth age being welcomed much more warmly.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Thanks for adding! I still feel there's a very heavy bias towards to first option that isn't really explained in an obvious way
Hence, I remain convinced that a victory-only 4th age without additional civs is the best solution I also think it doesn't break civ 7 core gameplay, so it doesn't really have any downside to me (expect if you want a full 4th age that is - people that want to play a full age with helicopters and cyber-warfare don't get what they want).

I don't think I get a clear picture of "victory-only 4th age":
1. Does 3rd age keeps its legacy paths or they are redesigned?
2. What should be included in 4th age victory race?
3. Which game mechanics should be available in the 4th age?
4. What civs should be used in this 4th age and with which abilities?

 

[Siptah]

I don't think I get a clear picture of "victory-only 4th age":
1. Does 3rd age keeps its legacy paths or they are redesigned?
2. What should be included in 4th age victory race?
3. Which game mechanics should be available in the 4th age?
4. What civs should be used in this 4th age and with which abilities?

1. 3rd age becomes a normal age. It is played until 100%, there are crises, victory projects are removed.
2. a new starting tier of units for the age and few techs/civics with few buildings and units. Focus is on getting a project done to end the game. Projects are completed in competition, i.e., not just building them in a city for a previously known amount of turns based solely on production. They have multiple facets, and some (economy, culture) take into account how far the other players are and require input of the respective yield. Previously achieved legacy milestones give you a boost for the project. All the new buildings interact with victory projects. Late 3rd age buildings keep their yields.
3. see above. it's all about getting to victory and stopping others from getting there. No need for different trade route mechanics or additional great works.
4. no new civs. You select 1-2 abilities based on your legacy goals in the 3rd age. Rename civs if that is important, but it should be more custom-tailored (as it is more contemporary). See my comment in the post above on timing as well. This could happen within a year, a full 4th age should absolutely not happen in the next years.

The general point is to wrap up the game in a separate age. This is short, maybe 30 turns. It could be 1960-1990 for example.

 

[stealth_nsk]

1. Ok
2. So, it still require full expansion with new units, buildings, tech, etc.
3. This means that some of 3rd age civs and leaders will work and some will not

So, to me it looks like worsen version of second column, because second column supposed civs will be updated to match 4th age mechanics and leaders would still work with it

 

[Siptah]

2. So, it still require full expansion with new units, buildings, tech, etc.

Yes, of course. It's not a quick fix, but a proper solution. But probably way less than half of what a fourth age would be. Or maybe just a 10th?

3. This means that some of 3rd age civs and leaders will work and some will not

I don't think so. All leaders will work, just as they do now. And all civs will work mechanically, because you select the abilities yourself. Naming-wise, yes, I can see the problem with, e.g., Mughals. But the civs don't need uniques, so can easily be renamed (or custom-named).

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yes, of course. It's not a quick fix, but a proper solution. But probably way less than half of what a fourth age would be. Or maybe just a 10th?

I don't think so. All leaders will work, just as they do now. And all civs will work mechanically, because you select the abilities yourself. Naming-wise, yes, I can see the problem with, e.g., Mughals. But the civs don't need uniques, so can easily be renamed (or custom-named).

Leaders explore a lot of current mechanics, some grant additional resource slots, some - additional slots for great works, some interact with masteries and so on. If all of this will be implemented in 4th age, it will be just full age.

So, generally you want full 4th age, but without designing civ unique abilities, replacing those abilities with customly selected?

So, compared to full 4th age it will have the bonus of having 33% more civs per age in earlier ages, but at the cost of playing generic civs in 4th age and breaking the core game design.

 

[Siptah]

So, compared to full 4th age it will have the bonus of having 33% more civs per age in earlier ages, but at the cost of playing generic civs in 4th age and breaking the core game design.

I don't think it does break the core design, if we don't consider it a full age. And we really shouldn't.

But it seems what just have very different opinion on what is currently good for the game, and we should leave it at that. You will continue to lobby for a full fourth age, and I will continue to think this isn't a good thing

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't think it does break the core design, if we don't consider it a full age. And we really shouldn't.

But it seems what just have very different opinion on what is currently good for the game, and we should leave it at that. You will continue to lobby for a full fourth age, and I will continue to think this isn't a good thing

Probably I don't see it that way, but in my book, for example, if you implement all the things which let leader abilities play, you'll create a full age.

As I said, I'm arguing not because I find full 4th age appealing itself, it's because alternatives look much worse once you try to dive into details.

 

[aelf]

I find it hard to formulate the point about civ switching fatigue, because it's generally in the last one (follow/break Civ7 core design). It's just if you don't like Civ7 core game design, you'll dislike following it even more...

There's no denying that civ switching as a concept is getting a mixed reaction, and some of the people who don't like it much are nevertheless still playing the game. I think there's no reward in alienating this group without being able to get new converts.

 

[stealth_nsk]

There's no denying that civ switching as a concept is getting a mixed reaction, and some of the people who don't like it much are nevertheless still playing the game. I think there's no reward in alienating this group without being able to get new converts.

I've added this point to the table already, but I still disagree with it. Civ switching is a core game mechanics in Civ7 and I don't think breaking it would make it better for those who dislike it. But it could easily make the game worse for those who like this mechanics or are just ok with it.

 

[aelf]

That's why I think it's better to sidestep this issue entirely and extend the Modern Age. And throw a bone to missing modern civs by introducing some sort of evolution mechanism, likely through ideologies.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That's why I think it's better to sidestep this issue entirely and extend the Modern Age. And throw a bone to missing modern civs by introducing some sort of evolution mechanism, likely through ideologies.

Well, it's clearly an option. I'd really like to see all the contemporary age themes and see the game extended to Alpha Centaura flight like all civ games before. But that would only work if Firaxis will be able to make 4th age interesting, otherwise extending modern a bit instead would be fine.

The biggest challenge of potential 4th age is how to deal with the map already filled and fought over. While decolonization, satellites and corporations could add additional layers of the game to the map, I'm not sure if they will be enough.

 

[aelf]

What if the 4th age works like a sudden death mode? If no one has fulfilled the victory conditions by the end of Modern Age, you get an option to determine a winner through score or enter a new optional age with new victory conditions. Whether there are a new set of civs or not wouldn't be such an important issue.

It already sort of works like this in past iterations of the series. Personally, I never experienced endgame things like GDRs or nukes because either I've won or I was going through the motions with space victory.

 

[123joanna321]

I’ve yet to have a full scale ideological world war and I feel like the ideology system is the biggest failure of the modern age. The fact that there is no deterministic path that forces a pick is just wrong. Make political ideology the first culture to get and then have a pop-up which you and the AI pick your ideology. This will totally make the modern age about navigating this and add a bunch more tension to the victory conditions. I’ve finished games where the AI just never picked any.

This will also have the effect of slowing down the start of explorers.

The tech tree also needs to make the second and third tiers of unit upgrades as spread out as possible. It should feel like a significant bump to the military victory to get tanks online and then the next bump at air power. Techs go so fast it just all blurs together.

Increase the cost of everything and I think it would be much more interesting.

I wonder if the game forcing you to pick one, once you researched political theory, like pantheons and religions, would help...

 

[stealth_nsk]

What if the 4th age works like a sudden death mode? If no one has fulfilled the victory conditions by the end of Modern Age, you get an option to determine a winner through score or enter a new optional age with new victory conditions. Whether there are a new set of civs or not wouldn't be such an important issue.

It already sort of works like this in past iterations of the series. Personally, I never experienced endgame things like GDRs or nukes because either I've won or I was going through the motions with space victory.

I think designing new age is a bit too much for an optional feature. If 4th age is to be there, it should always be ingame, unless manually setting the game to end earlier in options.

I wonder if the game forcing you to pick one, once you researched political theory, like pantheons and religions, would help...

If you play on deity (Continents+, standard settings, no mods), it's already kind of forcing. You pick ideology not to make enemies, but to keep some friends. Without it you have war with everyone, with ideology a couple of civs are likely to stay on your side.

 

[aelf]

Eh, ideology has only ever mattered in my games if I wanted to win by military. By the time I've won, maybe a few AIs have picked an ideology.

I think designing new age is a bit too much for an optional feature. If 4th age is to be there, it should always be ingame, unless manually setting the game to end earlier in options.

All endgame features in past Civs were pretty much optional features except those that were directly needed to achieve space victory.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Eh, ideology has only ever mattered in my games if I wanted to win by military. By the time I've won, maybe a few AIs have picked an ideology.

Some AIs are really late in picking their ideology (which is really annoying if you want military legacy path), but some are really quick and you could use it.

I haven't mastered the game yet to AI being not challenging on deity, though.

All endgame features in past Civs were pretty much optional features except those that were directly needed to achieve space victory.

And that's one of the things which could be solved with ages.

 

[MACKA0ili]

I finished a Deity Modern Age Advanced Start game last night and I feel like it gave me some insight into this topic. Some relevant notes:

• Modern Age lasted to about 120 turns or 80% age progression
• AIs adopted ideologies shortly after me despite rushing for it
• AIs pursued the Space Race legacy path competitively with most getting to 2/3 before I reached victory
• AIs utilized tier 3 modern Age land and naval units wars, aerodromes were present but not utilized for war
• Influence and Gold currencies were much more precious due to scarcity compared to cost

Some conclusions I made from my game is that 1) the Modern Age in a full game lacks a setup phase like Antiquity (founding your civ) and Exploration (getting to Distant Lands) which makes the victory race much more prevalent, 2) despite being paced better, tech still felt funneled into Space Race and I ended up with all masteries rather than having to choose to specialize, and 3) Influence and Gold are even more important than they were in previous ages and I had to be careful with how I choose to use it compared to my full playthroughs. Playing Modern Age just by itself definitely feels more complete, but my conclusions only reinforce my belief that the Modern Age should be extended rather than a 4th Age added.

 

[Leucarum]

I finished a Deity Modern Age Advanced Start game last night and I feel like it gave me some insight into this topic. Some relevant notes:

• Modern Age lasted to about 120 turns or 80% age progression
• AIs adopted ideologies shortly after me despite rushing for it
• AIs pursued the Space Race legacy path competitively with most getting to 2/3 before I reached victory
• AIs utilized tier 3 modern Age land and naval units wars, aerodromes were present but not utilized for war
• Influence and Gold currencies were much more precious due to scarcity compared to cost

Some conclusions I made from my game is that 1) the Modern Age in a full game lacks a setup phase like Antiquity (founding your civ) and Exploration (getting to Distant Lands) which makes the victory race much more prevalent, 2) despite being paced better, tech still felt funneled into Space Race and I ended up with all masteries rather than having to choose to specialize, and 3) Influence and Gold are even more important than they were in previous ages and I had to be careful with how I choose to use it compared to my full playthroughs. Playing Modern Age just by itself definitely feels more complete, but my conclusions only reinforce my belief that the Modern Age should be extended rather than a 4th Age added.

I agree that advanced start modern age is pretty good. I guess you can either argue that production/gold at advanced start tend to be low enough to create an artificial constraint, or that it's proof the snowball is too much.

I don't think I get a clear picture of "victory-only 4th age":
1. Does 3rd age keeps its legacy paths or they are redesigned?
2. What should be included in 4th age victory race?
3. Which game mechanics should be available in the 4th age?
4. What civs should be used in this 4th age and with which abilities?

I think we're approaching this from two different viewpoints, with different priorities.

My priority is making victory feel more satisfying. I think that there's a fundamental issue with having a normal gameplay loop in an age where you are racing to victory. I.e. the standard gameplay loop and the victory race are in opposition to one another. In a victory race, the goal - especially on higher difficulty or in multiplayer - will be to doggedly pursue your chosen victory type. That means you won't really explore the features of your chosen civ unless they help boost the way you are trying to win. That in turn skews the designs of those civs if they are to be relevant. The snowball also gets pretty extreme, and adds to the feeling that your chosen civ seems to really not matter. Making modern era work like other eras - where you are trying to score points rather than a race I think is a good idea, and would really help let those civs shine. But, score victory probably isn't very satisfying for a lot of players, it is kind of an "oh, the game ended" kind of moment.

To that extent the idea of a short 4th "victory race" age, which doesn't try to introduce new civs, and which just pools together the accumulated bonuses you've acquired, feels like an interesting way to make an ending actually feels definitive. At the same time, it allows the current modern era civs to go through a full game loop. What I really wouldn't like in a 4th age is for Firaxis to just shift the problems which are currently there in the 3rd age, one step further along the chain. That would to my mind devalue any new civs who were introduced.

I get the impression that your priority would be a full age where we'd get to experience cold war/globalization/WW2 etc, with a roster of contemporary civs? So I can appreciate that a short "victory age" would feel like you were being cheated out of something cool.

That's perfectly valid, but to me, just adding an age without solving existing problems still leaves the question of how to make victory satisfying still up in the air. It still leaves questions around how to make civs matter in an age which is a victory race, how to mitigate a 3rd snowball cycle when 2 is already a lot, and - for me - the micromanagement at the end of age 3 is approaching the limit of what I want to see, how to keep that under control? Plus, the civ roster already feels very sparse and repetitive with only 11 civs per age, I really don't want to see a new age's worth of civs until we've at least doubled the current civ count.

And I guess you could always combine the two viewpoints and have a 5th mini-victory age after the modern era (or an era of your choice).