New Continuity option.

[CliffCo]

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?

They shouldn't have combined stopping units being shuffled around with the other changes where we can now roll over units.

 

[Chefofrats]

What's stopping you from deleting some units if you don't like them transitioning?

 

[Gorbles]

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'm all for adding options. Changing the default way the game was already being played is more than giving an option. It's making me choose an option to go back to how I was already playing.

This is something that has a significant impact on balance and transitions! It's not a straightforward improvement (a la keeping your units in their existing positions).

What's stopping you from deleting some units if you don't like them transitioning?

You're making me do something I didn't have to do before. What's stopping you from being happy with the new setting being truly optional, instead of defaulted to being turned-on?

 

[Leucarum]

that would be the most complex board game.

I suspect Chess wouldn't even make the top 50% of board games by complexity these days...

 

[Siptah]

I suspect Chess wouldn't even make the top 50% of board games by complexity these days...

Nah, it‘s actually not far lower than Brass Birmingham on BGG for complexity. Both sit between 3.5 and 4 on a scale 1-5 indicating high complexity. Chess does have complex decision making, so I think it‘s deserved. Complexity is not just amount of mechanics, otherwise even a video game like civ would count as very complex - because it features a lot of mechanics. Yet, in civ the answer whether A or B is usually both, while in most board games, you actually have to decide. Exponential actions as in civ give you many options, but they make decision far less important. That reduced complexity a lot. That said, the original civ board game is quite complex, the newer one is way simplified.

In overall ratings, chess is of course rated much lower than BB overall, though.

 

[Crashdummy]

I suspect Chess wouldn't even make the top 50% of board games by complexity these days...

Then i never played any "complex" board games. As i said, in my lifetime excluding chess, board games were always played in family meetings with kids included in a casual environment, with lots of laughs and often letting the kids win. I dont know this game you guys talk about, but i have a feeling its not very friendly to kids and casual family meetings like the ones i described

 

[Berrern]

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

I was the one who posted the screenshot with 17 settlers, and that was just an experiment in my first 1.2.3 game! I was sort of hoping that the AI would do something similar, but of course they didn't.

The issue here is that they tried to fix something that wasn't broken. I can't recall seeing anyone complaining about civilian units not being transitioned between ages - the complaints were centered around your units being all reshuffled!
Yet they went ahead and changed it so every unit transitions, even if you don't have a single commander.

I enjoyed having to build commanders to ensure my units transitioned, I enjoyed the times where I mistimed it so I didn't get a commander and 4 of my units disappeared... Now that challenge is completely gone.

Anyway, from what I'm reading in this thread, some people actually enjoy exploiting this, so fair play. If it made the game more enjoyable for some, then all the better!
I'll just avoid doing it again - at least until the AI starts doing it.

 

[Leucarum]

Then i never played any "complex" board games. As i said, in my lifetime excluding chess, board games were always played in family meetings with kids included in a casual environment, with lots of laughs and often letting the kids win. I dont know this game you guys talk about, but i have a feeling its not very friendly to kids and casual family meetings like the ones i described

I've also never played Brass Birmingham. It is definitely not a light family event game though. Not that there is anything wrong with those!

I will say that current board game design sensibilities have probably influenced Civ7 a lot. Ed Beach having designed several... The mechanics around era progression stand out to me as something that could have been lifted straight out of a lot of recent games.

 

[Gorbles]

Board game influences date all the way back to the original Civ. Obviously, no small amount of Empire (a video game, to save folks a click) in there as well.

 

[Leucarum]

Board game influences date all the way back to the original Civ. Obviously, no small amount of Empire (a video game, to save folks a click) in there as well.

Yeah. The word "Current" wasn't a descriptor I chose by accident. Things like the era progression seem very in tune with recent board game design trends.

 

[Elhoim]

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?

That's why I say there's no coherent design, when players are just left with the "responsibility" of ignoring the game incentives and rules to avoid tripping on exploits.

BTW, this doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the option for people who like that, but for the ones that won't to play with the max of the rules and still have a challenge, they shouldn't be charged with "designing" their own game.

 

[Uberfrog]

That's why I say there's no coherent design, when players are just left with the "responsibility" of ignoring the game incentives and rules to avoid tripping on exploits.

BTW, this doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the option for people who like that, but for the ones that won't to play with the max of the rules and still have a challenge, they shouldn't be charged with "designing" their own game.

I agree with this. A game needs balance, and to have its systems work together by default. By making Continuity the new default way to play, Firaxis appear to have upended the game’s balance in such a way to completely undo any anti-snowballing which was the stated aim of the system in the first place.

I think this a is a peril with modern dev feedback loops, with vocal criticism pushing developers towards poorly considered solutions that don’t really address the issue.

 

[pjotroos]

I'd say that arguably snowballing in Civ VII is the worst it's ever been, because now you get that period at the end of Exploration where you are obviously massively ahead, you know that you will win, you know how you will win, but - until you are allowed out of the era - you cannot actually progress towards it, so you are doing the equivalent of burning the tires in your sports car, spamming future techs & civics, stockpiling your traders, and your tech boosts, and your skill points, just so you can shoot out of the gate even harder at the start of modern.

If I had a snowball this massive in Civ VI, I could just get my sub-200 turns science victory and start again. No such luck here. And this is from someone that actually massively enjoys the eras system, because it does meaningfully break up the game, and the first 30 minutes of a new era is lots of fun little choices.

 

[Siptah]

I'd say that arguably snowballing in Civ VII is the worst it's ever been, because now you get that period at the end of Exploration where you are obviously massively ahead, you know that you will win, you know how you will win, but - until you are allowed out of the era - you cannot actually progress towards it, so you are doing the equivalent of burning the tires in your sports car, spamming future techs & civics, stockpiling your traders, and your tech boosts, and your skill points, just so you can shoot out of the gate even harder at the start of modern.

If I had a snowball this massive in Civ VII, I could just get my sub-200 turns science victory and start again. No such luck here. And this is from someone that actually massively enjoys the eras system, because it does meaningfully break up the game, and the first 30 minutes of a new era is lots of fun little choices.

I wonder if it would be better if there wasn't a first past the post system in modern, but rather finishing this final project is only marking the end of the game. The winner isn't who actually finished the project, but the one that collected most milestones on the way. That would give you the incentive to process on all legacy paths as far as possible at the end of the ages, and the modern era wouldn't be so much of a race to finish fast (except if you are in the lead anyway).

This will inevitably prompt a comparison with Humankind's fame mechanism. But I think the legacy paths (and especially once they add more of them) are mostly more interesting to follow compared to collecting stars in Humankind. Some of these were meaningful (e.g., number of territories), others really bland (e.g., numbers of techs and gold).

 

[Leucarum]

I wonder if it would be better if there wasn't a first past the post system in modern, but rather finishing this final project is only marking the end of the game. The winner isn't who actually finished the project, but the one that collected most milestones on the way. That would give you the incentive to process on all legacy paths as far as possible at the end of the ages, and the modern era wouldn't be so much of a race to finish fast (except if you are in the lead anyway).

This will inevitably prompt a comparison with Humankind's fame mechanism. But I think the legacy paths (and especially once they add more of them) are mostly more interesting to follow compared to collecting stars in Humankind. Some of these were meaningful (e.g., number of territories), others really bland (e.g., numbers of techs and gold).

I've said before I'd like an option to turn the victory projects off and just have score victory? I don't think the fame system was one of Humankind's mistakes.

But I think before that ideally the AI would have to engage with exploration/modern legacy paths better... And the culture paths should ideally not be awful after antiquity.

 

[Siptah]

But I think before that ideally the AI would have to engage with exploration/modern legacy paths better... And the culture paths should ideally not be awful after antiquity.

I agree. But speaking of which, what happened to the modern era AI? I remember the race for artifacts around release, but now this is almost gone. There are many more artifacts on the map, but the AI gets only a handful and then somehow stops.

 

[Maiq]

I wonder if it would be better if there wasn't a first past the post system in modern, but rather finishing this final project is only marking the end of the game. The winner isn't who actually finished the project, but the one that collected most milestones on the way. That would give you the incentive to process on all legacy paths as far as possible at the end of the ages, and the modern era wouldn't be so much of a race to finish fast (except if you are in the lead anyway).

This will inevitably prompt a comparison with Humankind's fame mechanism. But I think the legacy paths (and especially once they add more of them) are mostly more interesting to follow compared to collecting stars in Humankind. Some of these were meaningful (e.g., number of territories), others really bland (e.g., numbers of techs and gold).

I don't think turning every game into a score victory is the answer

 

[pjotroos]

I wonder if it would be better if there wasn't a first past the post system in modern, but rather finishing this final project is only marking the end of the game. The winner isn't who actually finished the project, but the one that collected most milestones on the way. That would give you the incentive to process on all legacy paths as far as possible at the end of the ages, and the modern era wouldn't be so much of a race to finish fast (except if you are in the lead anyway).

I think that would just replicate the feeling of the end of Exploration, honestly. You already know you won, but the progress bar is still below 100%. I have dropped my thoughts on Modern in a separate post, though, since this is technically a discussion about the Continuity option, and I had many

 

[Siptah]

I don't think turning every game into a score victory is the answer

Yeah it's probably a bit boring. But on the other hand, if we already have the three eras as separate games, it would make sense to utilize this to make it less of an end-game race, and more of an all three mini games matter? I mean, that's one of the points of a reset in games, in my opinion. Get a score for what you've achieved until then, strap down the game to some extent, and start anew with a fresh base and slightly different rules. It seems what civ 7 was going for as well. But if all that score from previous eras does is shave off 1-2 turns in the end, and give some mild bonuses for snowballing, it's quite useless as a mechanic.

 

[Cymsdale]

often letting the kids win.

Gross