My fear: that there are screens with text "xxx years later" between ages"

What happens to all your units and commanders when you transition age?
You can keep some units that are teleported back to your cities. One streamer said he could keep 6 units. Maybe that's the amount of cities he had (he had 12 settlements total). He said you can also keep units that are attached to commanders, but that, as commanders are expensive, this is also a soft cap of 8-12 units.

Like with the cities downgrade, there is also a way to counteract this: the military golden age gives you additional free units in every settlement.

I'm not against setbacks in games, quite the contrary. I will need to play the game to see how it feels for me though. Maybe it feels unnecessarily punishing, maybe it's a great to have "end of round 1, start of round 2" with a more leveled playing field. But on paper, the choice whether I want to keep my cities, units, culture, or science output is a nice one. Of course, I assume that I rarely have the choice between all four, but usually 2. Yet, it's a goal to strive for to unlock it.
 
As for the commanders themselves, you keep them with all their promotions from what i understood
 
In Civ 6, Units were important and must be maintained - because they have promotions. The promotions were important in two side: they made huge differences in the military power, and they were hard to get.

Now the commanders is the only unit which have promotions. This change any other unit into just replaceable consumables. So loosing unit is not a critical loss anymore. You just need enough yields to rearmament.

It recalls me a memory of Civ 5. Once you completed the Brandenburg Gate, the City with the wonder can train level 3 units immediately. You can recruit any well-trained unit anytime, so you don't have to concern about loosing high level units after that time because you can always replace them.
 
One tester said that if you load your units into the Commanders before transition, you keep more of them. I don't know whether that's actually true.

In this Charlemagne/Rome playthrough, the Antiquity Age ends in 980 BCE (so a gap of nearly 1500 years), and the majority of his army disappears.

They are immortal. Even if you lose one in battle, they just go to sleep for a few turns.
I heard that too, but I have yet to see any evidence of it in these playthroughs.
 
In Civ 6, Units were important and must be maintained - because they have promotions. The promotions were important in two side: they made huge differences in the military power, and they were hard to get.

Now the commanders is the only unit which have promotions. This change any other unit into just replaceable consumables. So loosing unit is not a critical loss anymore. You just need enough yields to rearmament.

It recalls me a memory of Civ 5. Once you completed the Brandenburg Gate, the City with the wonder can train level 3 units immediately. You can recruit any well-trained unit anytime, so you don't have to concern about loosing high level units after that time because you can always replace them.
As often this is good and bad at the same time.
While that obviously lowers the value of individual units and makes every unit more generic, it also allows a civilization that just lost a battle to recover and not necessarily loose the war, or even the game just for one single battle.
 
As often this is good and bad at the same time.
While that obviously lowers the value of individual units and makes every unit more generic, it also allows a civilization that just lost a battle to recover and not necessarily loose the war, or even the game just for one single battle.
Which I think is completely good when matched with the nongeneric immortal commanders wth their unique promotions (their immortality may still require production investment for recovery)

It also seems like unit loss and city->town are both fully instantly reversible with the spending of gold (buy units/upgrade cities) which carries over in transition (with the option of production for the units)
 
Not keeping all units actually makes sense. Because they get free upgrades to the next age base unit, it could easily be abused. Like building lots of units early on antiquity, avoiding much warring on that age to keep those units alive and then start a full conquest early next age where all your units that were cheap to produce get big free upgrades.
 
Regarding new age at the end of the game:


It was also discussed here https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...will-be-focused-on-adding-a-final-age.693639/

The indicator for the next age in the Modern Age Progress Overview is just a bug—it’s not meant to signal future ages or features (As a developer, I saw a lot of such bugs in other software too.).
However, the bug in the mod area is an excellent indicator of this feature.

For me, it was already clear without these indicators. Just look at the time gap when transitioning from the Antique Age to the Exploration Age—we're missing about 1,000 years. That strongly suggests a future DLC: The Dark Age.

Regarding a new DLC covering the time before the Antique Age—why not start the game with a major crisis?
1300 BC marked a significant crisis in Europe, often referred to as the Late Bronze Age Collapse. That would be a perfect setting for a DLC, allowing players to navigate through societal breakdowns, migrations, and the fall of great civilizations.
A "Late Bronze Age Collapse" DLC could introduce mechanics like resource scarcity, city-state collapses, and emerging new powers, making the early game much more dynamic and historically immersive.

But the poll currently shows that not everyone shares this opinion on what makes a great game :).
  • Yes​

    Votes: 75 - 41.9%
  • No​

    Votes: 75 - 41.9%
  • Abstain​

    Votes: 29 - 16.2%


I don’t think this rule of having new civilizations per age necessarily has to be followed. However, new civilizations for these eras would make a lot of sense. That’s why I believe this could only be implemented as an expansion DLC.

Traditionally, there have always been two major expansions, and my idea of the "missing 1,000 years" along with a potential future era would fit perfectly into that pattern. The Bronze Age, on the other hand, is more of a personal wishful thinking.
 
Last edited:
What happens to all your units and commanders when you transition age?
I've seen a Civilopedia screen about age transition in one of yesterday videos.
You keep :
* 6 units, moved to settlements (9 in some circumstances but I don't remember which ones - age, speed, map size ?)
* commanders with the units packed inside
 
Which I think is completely good when matched with the nongeneric immortal commanders wth their unique promotions (their immortality may still require production investment for recovery)

It also seems like unit loss and city->town are both fully instantly reversible with the spending of gold (buy units/upgrade cities) which carries over in transition (with the option of production for the units)

Honestly, it's one of the small-medium changes that I'm somewhat most excited about. For a few versions now I've felt that it would make sense for soldiers to be more meat shields, easily replaceable. I haven't looked close enough to see what the maintenance cost on units is, but I'm wondering if things will come in where you might even want to dispand your army between wars to save maintenance, knowing as long as you have some reserve money around, you can spin it back up in relatively short order
 
I've seen a Civilopedia screen about age transition in one of yesterday videos.
You keep :
* 6 units, moved to settlements (9 in some circumstances but I don't remember which ones - age, speed, map size ?)
* commanders with the units packed inside
6 when transition to exploration, 9 to modern. Map sizes weren't mentioned and I believe, if they don't affect city cap, they shouldn't affect those numbers as well.

It also positively surprised me what units are automatically packed into commanders till they are full (or units end). So , you don't have to micro putting them into commanders manually on your last turn.
 
The whole idea of THE "Dark Ages" or dark ages in general should have already been discarded much in the same way the idea of "barbarians" was. It no longer makes sense based on our real-life historical, societal and anthropological knowledge.
A dark age is a time period about which we have little sources. And these are still plenty, so the idea of dark ages shouldn‘t be discarded. And the Europe of 400-800 don‘t qualify anymore for this.

In contrasts, there is a common misunderstanding that dark age means a time period of decline - and this was fostered in civ VI, for example. And it‘s this misunderstanding that needs to go.
 
And the Europe of 400-800 don‘t qualify anymore for this.
Can I ask how this has changed? My knowledge of history is not advanced so I never knew the Dark Ages had had a light shone on them so to speak.
Did they find new archaeological evidence?
 
Can I ask how this has changed? My knowledge of history is not advanced so I never knew the Dark Ages had had a light shone on them so to speak.
Did they find new archaeological evidence?
The idea that this time frame (and up to 1300) is a dark age came from Petrarca in the 14th century. A lot has changed since then. There is the archeological evidence unearthed in the past 200-300 years, plus that artifacts from daily life are now regarded as important sources. But also texts from or about that period that have been reevaluated. Petrarca‘s stance was that antiquity and his own time were „light“ and everything between „dark“. This caught on very well for a long time and has shaped our views of history for a long time.

So, today, we know quite a lot about late antiquity and the early Middle Ages.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom