New Continuity option.

[Berrern]

I found settlers and ships carried over to be not that big issue. Your settlers are waiting till they sail to the distant lands anyway, so it's not that big deal - usually you could just buy them.

I respectfully disagree!
In my current game I'm playing with long ages, and I had nearly 30 turns left without any useful/meaningful buildings to construct. So I decided to create a task force for the Exploration age, and I ended up with 8 ships, 19 scouts, and 17 settlers
Also, with a couple of future techs under my belt, I should get Cartography in only a few turns.

Both the east and west coast of my continent are littered with setups like this, ready to search for the distant lands:

Definitely a massive advantage, I'd say! Can't wait for the age to end!

 

[Siptah]

I think that Continuity and long ages don‘t work that well together. I always played and enjoyed long ages before, but now, with good preparation, you can plot down some DL settlements after 5 turns of exploration and just snowball through all legacy paths quickly. And then wait many turns doing nothing until the age ends.

 

[Gorbles]

I dislike the changes in the new option. I feel like they promote way too much snowballing. I don't think VII on release eliminated snowballing, but it certainly helped it ("the AI can't play" is an AI problem, not a problem with players snowballing).

Options are options, but this one being the default makes it look like the devs are implicitly conceding various goals in Age transitions. I (sincerely!) hope this gamble pays off for the longevity of the game. It would've been nice to have it not as the default option.

 

[Berrern]

I think that Continuity and long ages don‘t work that well together. I always played and enjoyed long ages before, but now, with good preparation, you can plot down some DL settlements after 5 turns of exploration and just snowball through all legacy paths quickly. And then wait many turns doing nothing until the age ends.

Couldn't agree more!

What people complained about was your army getting reshuffled after an age transition, which is a fair complaint, and I'm very happy they "fixed" it!
However I don't understand why they decided to make ALL units (army, navy, civilian) survive an age transition! I quite enjoyed the challenge of building enough Commanders for your units to transition to the next age, and it made perfect sense (for balance purposes / to avoid snowballing) that your Civilian units didn't survive the transition - because as my current game proves, it gives you too much of an advantage heading into the next age.

By the way, I don't think long ages is to blame, even with normal age length I'd still be able to build up a considerable quantity of settlers/scouts/ships - but I might not have had enough time to position them perfectly.

 

[pjotroos]

Now that I've played with it, I'm not that bothered by most of what carries over.

You were previously able to settle at the last turn of the previous era to avoid any penalties, anyway, and the research takes long enough at the start of exploration that you don't get a massive advantage, so settlers don't feel massively different. You were also able to get multiple commanders and load them up. If anything, siege weapons and ships carrying over alongside the rest makes it more consistent - and keeping all soldiers probably helps the AI at least as much, so it's not a game breaker.

What makes significant difference is reputation - allowing us to restart alliances straight away, without the need to spend any favour, and immediately re-triggering all the +10% per alliance bonuses in the skill trees.

But the biggest one, by far, is trade. Just getting the access to the traders back on turn one would already change the feel of the start of the era, but being able to walk them all the way up to the target cities in antiquity, and restart the routes immediately, shifts the balance to a crazy degree. Achaemenid Xerxes was already a strong pick before, but he's absolutely top tier now.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Now that I've played with it, I'm not that bothered by most of what carries over.

You were previously able to settle at the last turn of the previous era to avoid any penalties, anyway, and the research takes long enough at the start of exploration that you don't get a massive advantage, so settlers don't feel massively different. You were also able to get multiple commanders and load them up. If anything, siege weapons and ships carrying over alongside the rest makes it more consistent - and keeping all soldiers probably helps the AI at least as much, so it's not a game breaker.

What makes significant difference is reputation - allowing us to restart alliances straight away, without the need to spend any favour, and immediately re-triggering all the +10% per alliance bonuses in the skill trees.

But the biggest one, by far, is trade. Just getting the access to the traders back on turn one would already change the feel of the start of the era, but being able to walk them all the way up to the target cities in antiquity, and restart the routes immediately, shifts the balance to a crazy degree. Achaemenid Xerxes was already a strong pick before, but he's absolutely top tier now.

- And the AI takes advantage of the speedy trade routes, too,

Finally got to start an Exploration Age game and keep track of all the changes with the new Continuity mechanic, and while the military forces didn't make much difference (as posted, the AI also keeps all their forces) but there were a half-dozen merchants/trade routes starting up within 3 turns of the Age starting - the AI Civs all seem to have scrambled to crank out routes immediately.

The relationship continuity also had consequences: three wars that had been going on and off throughout the last half of Antiquity all started right up again within a few turns. The downside of that is that the 3 - 4 AI Civs involved are basically throttling each other: they trade a city or two back and forth, but are so concentrated on fighting each other that so far, in Turn 55 of Exploration, none of them seem to have produced a single overseas expedition or new Distant Lands settlement, and so are not actively competing for the Legacy Paths. I've seen this behavior before, but never as early in a new Age and therefore never as consequential in shutting down all AI activity except the warfighting.

Overall, I do not like the Continuity setting. Even without trying, I had a major advantage starting the new Age, with half a dozen Cogs ready to go on Turn One from the previous Age and 6 settlers on the water a soon as the required Tech was finished (Turn 3). No AI was even close. As much as the random redistribution of units was annoying the old way, this is more annoying in that it keeps the potentially massive Human advantage in planning for a new Age, something that was already in he game but now seems multiplied by the wider potential for keeping everything right where you want it for the new Age.

If the 0 playing time between Ages is supposed to hide the consequences of a Crisis, it's a Crisis that largely no longer affects the Human player very much. I think I'll pass for the future.

 

[Elhoim]

At this point there's no coherent design in this game any longer, they are just throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks.

 

[stealth_nsk]

At this point there's no coherent design in this game any longer, they are just throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Firaxis described their development process for age transition earlier and it fits. Firaxis started with total reset and when started slowly adding features to carry over to the next era. New continuity option just follows the same process they had before the release.

But I agree that it would need much more adjustments to work well.

 

[Siptah]

Firaxis described their development process for age transition earlier and it fits. Firaxis started with total reset and when started slowly adding features to carry over to the next era. New continuity option just follows the same process they had before the release.

But I agree that it would need much more adjustments to work well.

Or just give us options to customize it and have e.g., 1) units are not reshuffled on the map 2) commanders are necessary 3) civilian units don't survive the transition

 

[stealth_nsk]

Or just give us options to customize it and have e.g., 1) units are not reshuffled on the map 2) commanders are necessary 3) civilian units don't survive the transition

It's not that simple. On one hand, more variety is good. On the other hand, more options means worse balance and much more work on AI for each. At the moment I generally like that we have legacy option which works, but has its flows, and kind of nightly build option, which incorporates cutting edge changes, but isn't polished.

 

[Maiq]

Overall, I do not like the Continuity setting. Even without trying, I had a major advantage starting the new Age, with half a dozen Cogs ready to go on Turn One from the previous Age and 6 settlers on the water a soon as the required Tech was finished (Turn 3). No AI was even close. As much as the random redistribution of units was annoying the old way, this is more annoying in that it keeps the potentially massive Human advantage in planning for a new Age, something that was already in he game but now seems multiplied by the wider potential for keeping everything right where you want it for the new Age.

This is one of those things that drives me bonkers. Like, even some small changes that make the player hate the transition less throw the entire thing out of whack because the AI is just incapable of playing well. 6's is still terrible and instead of building on that, they decided that the AI needed to have 3 games of civ in 1 to worry about.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

This is one of those things that drives me bonkers. Like, even some small changes that make the player hate the transition less throw the entire thing out of whack because the AI is just incapable of playing well. 6's is still terrible and instead of building on that, they decided that the AI needed to have 3 games of civ in 1 to worry about.

To be exact, I appreciate that they attempted to put a brake on Human runaway games by requiring a near-total Reset at each Age transition.

Unfortunately, it is not working. Even before the 'Continuity' option was added it wasn't working, as the many posts on these Threads showing a human player going into Modern Age with a 6 to 1 advantage or better in Culture and/or Science and fielding masses of whatever he/she wants to win the game - and other posts about Victories 14 - 60 turns into the Modern Age.

It is still possible for either the Human or AI player (on Diety) to pile up enormous advantages in per-turn Culture or Science and maintain that lead regardless of 'Age reset'.

So, we get the worst of all worlds: an Age reset with Civ Switching mechanic which does not, in fact, do what it was designed to do: keep the game interesting and reasonably playable from start to finish.

 

[Chefofrats]

I don't get this thread. If you don't like the continuity option, play without it, maybe, rather than demand it be changed into non-continuity?

I love it as it is. Can it be exploited? Sure. But what of it? I enjoy the quick start to Exploration I get me when I pre-build scouts, ships, and settlers at the end of the ancient era. If you don't enjoy that, just don't do it? Why demand it be changed for everybody?

 

[stealth_nsk]

I don't get this thread. If you don't like the continuity option, play without it, maybe, rather than demand it be changed into non-continuity?

I love it as it is. Can it be exploited? Sure. But what of it? I enjoy the quick start to Exploration I get me when I pre-build scouts, ships, and settlers at the end of the ancient era. If you don't enjoy that, just don't do it? Why demand it be changed for everybody?

I think there's reasonable fear that with Regroup setting being not default anymore, it will not receive proper support in the future. I really hope both options will and I really hope Continuity will get further tuning.

 

[Crashdummy]

What i dont understand is, you guys say that you dont like that Humans can get such an early advantage, but you are actively forcing it.....

If you dont like the new Age starting with so much advantage, dont build 17 settlers to leave it at the shores ready to dispatch, problem solved. You can build 0 settlers in preparation before the new age and the problem dissapear

In any way, Continuity setting doesnt solve much, those of us that are not playing the game because of age transitoins and civ switching will not come back because this option since it doesnt fix our problems

 

[Leucarum]

I think the point is that one of the reasons the devs introduced eras was to try and curtail snowballing. That wouldn't be a bad thing if it works, but all the era system has done is shift what you need to do in order to snowball. Continuity mode appears to further add to the ways you do this... And on Deity you always have some incentive to implement your snowball hard.

I prefer regroup mode, but even so, the age system not really helping curtail snowballing is a knock against it. Not a fatal one, it can be tweaked I expect, but it does undermine its raison d'être slightly.

 

[Crashdummy]

I think regroup mode is atrocious, i think games should never teleport your units for what it would be thousands of kilometers without you being able to do anything

But then again, i think Age trasitions were a terrible idea, i dont think snowballing was an issue (if you play well in the early game you should be rewarded, you should have an advantage and you should be able to snowball) and as i said, Continuity mode is nothing to convince those of us that dont like Ages to come back

 

[Maiq]

I think the point is that one of the reasons the devs introduced eras was to try and curtail snowballing. That wouldn't be a bad thing if it works, but all the era system has done is shift what you need to do in order to snowball. Continuity mode appears to further add to the ways you do this... And on Deity you always have some incentive to implement your snowball hard.

I prefer regroup mode, but even so, the age system not really helping curtail snowballing is a knock against it. Not a fatal one, it can be tweaked I expect, but it does undermine its raison d'être slightly.

I really think that they were married to the idea of the Age system early and just used "no snowballing" as a way to sell it. I mean, I was snowballing harder than ever at launch

 

[Siptah]

I think regroup mode is atrocious, i think games should never teleport your units for what it would be thousands of kilometers without you being able to do anything

But then again, i think Age trasitions were a terrible idea, i dont think snowballing was an issue (if you play well in the early game you should be rewarded, you should have an advantage and you should be able to snowball) and as i said, Continuity mode is nothing to convince those of us that dont like Ages to come back

I would be genuinely curiously how you think about games in which a hard reset is widely appreciated. This is not an attack or anything, I'm really curious if it is an issue of "resets are terrible" or whether it is "resets don't fit with what I expect from civ" or "the way resets in civ 7 are implemented is terrible".

Have you ever played Brass Birmingham? It's often considered the best board game, due to having the highest rating on BGG. That's not a perfect metric by any stance, but it's quite clear that the game can be considered a huge success (in the niche of people that like complex games that is). Around the middle of the game, there is a hard reset when mode of transportation changes from canals and boats to railway. Around 70% of what's on the board is just thrown out. In my experience, this reset (much harder than anything in civ 7) is widely seen as an anti-snowball mechanic that works well and is very motivating. It is obviously a bit much to ask you to try it, as it isn't for free and has quite a learning curve (there's also a steam version, but I haven't tried that). Do you think that when a game like BB (which is of course much less aimed at an audience of millions and of all ages) can be cherished with a hard reset, is there a way to make the reset in civ 7 similarly motivating to build up your empire fast again? Just to be clear, this is not a civ switching (or even ages) questions, it's only about the mechanics of a hard reset.

 

[Crashdummy]

I would be genuinely curiously how you think about games in which a hard reset is widely appreciated. This is not an attack or anything, I'm really curious if it is an issue of "resets are terrible" or whether it is "resets don't fit with what I expect from civ" or "the way resets in civ 7 are implemented is terrible".

Have you ever played Brass Birmingham? It's often considered the best board game, due to having the highest rating on BGG. That's not a perfect metric by any stance, but it's quite clear that the game can be considered a huge success (in the niche of people that like complex games that is). Around the middle of the game, there is a hard reset when mode of transportation changes from canals and boats to railway. Around 70% of what's on the board is just thrown out. In my experience, this reset (much harder than anything in civ 7) is widely seen as an anti-snowball mechanic that works well and is very motivating. It is obviously a bit much to ask you to try it, as it isn't for free and has quite a learning curve (there's also a steam version, but I haven't tried that). Do you think that when a game like BB (which is of course much less aimed at an audience of millions and of all ages) can be cherished with a hard reset, is there a way to make the reset in civ 7 similarly motivating to build up your empire fast again? Just to be clear, this is not a civ switching (or even ages) questions, it's only about the mechanics of a hard reset.

I dont even know what Brass Birmingham is (from the name, it seems to be British? I am from South America, not even near Birmingham). The only board games i play is when we play as a family, often with kids included. I have NEVER played a "complex" board game, neither have i ever played a board game with hard resets. The most complex board game i ever played was probably a one named T.E.G. which is kind of like Risk. I dont have any intention to play any complex board game, I like video games more

So considering my aforementioned 0 experience with complex board games and with a huge risk of being absolutely wrong, i would bet this BB game is very niche and doesnt have a huge market

A hard reset in the middle of a game without me being able to do anything about it often leads me to want to play something else, not to build up everything i already built before fast again

I feel destroying what the player built with effort in the middle of the game is a cheap mechanic that often hides the Developer lack of knowledge/effort/ability to actually make it challenging for such player and a disrespect fo the effort the player did

EDIT: I just realized i play Chess too, that would be the most complex board game. No hard resets either