Playing One civ through the Ages

[Krikkit1]

And Ibn Battuta gives you all options?

No…he should probably just get 2 or 3 (the civ’s 2 plus expansionist). It would be good to not dilute the civ’s identity too much.

 

[Leucarum]

No…he should probably just get 2 or 3 (the civ’s 2 plus expansionist). It would be good to not dilute the civ’s identity too much.

Boo. Ibn Battuta deserves nice things too! Maybe let him get 2 random ones plus expansionist added each time

 

[luca 83]

I signed up to participate in the workshop. I am curious what ideas Firaxis has devised for playing one civ through the ages.

With that said, I enjoy ages and civ switching. I don't need playing the same civ through multiple ages to enjoy the game, and like some others, I am hopeful that the inclusion of one civ through the ages doesn't impact the devs making the age system and civ switching better and better.

However, I am all for adding options for players so they can play the game the way they want to play the game. If its added, it just another option for me to further enjoy the game. I do not see Firaxis getting rid of ages. I hope that whatever form one civ through the ages takes, its enough for hold outs to enjoy, but reading through this thread, I'm pretty skeptical that anything but a full removal of ages will satisfy some. Firaxis has put itself in a very awkward position.

Anyhoot (remember, I like the ages system and my likes and dislikes below correspond with that)
What I would like: Being able to play an antiquity civ into the exploration and modern ages. Playing an exploration civ into the modern age.

I think playing one civ through all three ages, at its basic level, should be easy to implement. On age transition, your previously played civ is included on the civ selection screen. You select it, you play it. Selecting a previous civ should be a challenge, not a dull continuation. Make it hard on the player for making that choice, and reward them bountifully for meeting that challenge.

Challenges: Earlier, more intense crises. Overbuilding costing more. Make traditions available through a generic or civ specific civic tree (keeping only the main civic tree could cause issues with players moving through it too quickly); said Traditions have both bonuses and malices corresponding with a civ choosing to stick with old traditions (not civ switching)(example: increase production cost of new science buildings but your previous age science buildings are culture +X). No new uniques, but you can build old unique buildings/improvements/units (this is presuming you can't start the game with an exploration or modern civ). Unique military units would be stuck at their max strength of the previous age. Negative relationship modifiers with other leaders. Fewer options to raise settlement cap. etc

Rewards: Additional Narratives that reward attributes. Alternative/unique routes/bonuses to completing legacy paths in a given age (example temples can house relics, receive treasure convoys in your capital from slotting imported treasure resources). Additional diplomatic actions (we are the ancient and magnanimous X, bow down to us!). Bonuses to old infrastructure (improvements, buildings, wonders). Unique military units retain both their production cost and maintenance cost. etc

What I wouldn't like: Playing an exploration or modern civ in antiquity. Playing a modern civ in exploration.

I don't want to go back to America in 4000 BC...if it happens, it happens, but I would ask that an option to lock civs in their preferred age be included if such a change were to occur (let me play the game I want to play).

This shows, as already explained and mentioned a year ago, that leaders are irrelevant; only the situations in the simulation and the character traits of the leaders, which change according to events, matter. It is essential to improve artificial intelligence and for the game to remember its choices and those made by the player.

 

[ColtSeavers]

But let's say they give it a shot. Can you then answer my questions r.e. support for a design that Firaxis should follow?

I'm personally opposed to them "just giving something a shot" when they could be using that resource on other things, if it's not even going to please a majority of the people who aren't into changing (to them) foundational aspects of their civilisation across Age Transitions. But regardless of what I want, you should want the implementation they settle on to please as many put off by history in layers as possible. Even if that number isn't 100%, or even really close to it. This should be in your interest! So why not explore the question?

As I said before, if I were Firaxis I'd focus only on these very easy achievable goals:
1.) You can play any Civ throughout the Ages, including Modern Civs like America! That would also be especially important for TSL Maps!
2.) You have at the least the option that Leaders and Civs match. So no more playing against Catherine of Greece, there must be an option to prevent this.
3.) There must also be an option for your opponent's Civ to stay the same throughout all ages, not just yours!

On top, you add some generic units/ bonusses and don't care too much about balancing these. That's it!

 

[Crashdummy]

As I said before, if I were Firaxis I'd focus only on these very easy achievable goals:
1.) You can play any Civ throughout the Ages, including Modern Civs like America! That would also be especially important for TSL Maps!
2.) You have at the least the option that Leaders and Civs match. So no more playing against Catherine of Greece, there must be an option to prevent this.
3.) There must also be an option for your opponent's Civ to stay the same throughout all ages, not just yours!

On top, you add some generic units/ bonusses and don't care too much about balancing these. That's it!

That would be the bare minimum to start talking about something that might end up working

On a more medium/large timeframe, it will also be needed to smooth ages transitions even more, as close as them being non-existant as posssible on the Civ VII framework, but i think thats something the community would be ok with waiting since its a larger change

 

[sonicmyst]

If you'd like an America as a civ in Antiquity but not like Catherine leading Greece, I find it weird that there are acceptable modes when both are fictional gameplay. Really weird.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

If you'd like an America as a civ in Antiquity but not like Catherine leading Greece, I find it weird that there are acceptable modes when both are fictional gameplay. Really weird.

For some, including me, it's more about familiarity. Playing as America in 4000 BC was a feature of the Civilization games since the beginning.

 

[Gorbles]

As I said before, if I were Firaxis I'd focus only on these very easy achievable goals:
1.) You can play any Civ throughout the Ages, including Modern Civs like America! That would also be especially important for TSL Maps!
2.) You have at the least the option that Leaders and Civs match. So no more playing against Catherine of Greece, there must be an option to prevent this.
3.) There must also be an option for your opponent's Civ to stay the same throughout all ages, not just yours!

On top, you add some generic units/ bonusses and don't care too much about balancing these. That's it!

I know your design goals. This wasn't the question I asked!

Regardless, I don't think that this is "fairly easy". If something like this was, modders would've achieved it already. I don't think they'd be planning a whole Workshop if things were that easy. But let's see.

 

[ColtSeavers]

If you'd like an America as a civ in Antiquity but not like Catherine leading Greece, I find it weird that there are acceptable modes when both are fictional gameplay. Really weird.

This has been discussed so many times. Some people find it weird to play as America in Antiquity, others find it weird to play against Catherine leading Greece. Just give people the options to do or to prevent both, I don't understand what's so hard about that!

 

[Smegger213]

Just give every Civ some bonuses and or units that apply to each age.
Or a Civ's unique unit could be upgraded at every age.
Then allow every Civ to be played in every age.

Also get rid of the stupid "any leader can play any Civ" crap. I hate that mechanic more than I hate Civ switching.

 

[Gorbles]

Also get rid of the stupid "any leader can play any Civ" crap. I hate that mechanic more than I hate Civ switching.

No thanks. I enjoy it.

 

[Smegger213]

No thanks. I enjoy it.

You may enjoy it. But tons of players do not. Benjamin Franklin of The Romans is just dumb as F in my book.

 

[Crashdummy]

I dont like Leaders and Civs being detached, i think it lowers the game immersion. That being said, it is something that has a lower impact on my enjoyment than civ switching and ages resets.

I do understand of the three things, Ages resets is the hardest to deal with. I dont think it would be hard to Firaxis to put an option where your opponents cant choose a Leader/Civ combination that is detached. It will mean you wont see some Leaders and some Civs as enemies, ever, but it wouldnt be hard to make

 

[Evolena]

It's always easier said than done.
Especially when everyone are OK with or hate distinct things.

 

[King Flevance]

Currently, there are (I think) 28 leaders and 43 civs. Already it is impractical link civs to leaders without making leaps to connect them. Leaps that can easily seem insensitive to the subject matter also. You would have to add leaders because then people would get picky about those leaps.

 

[luca 83]

Currently, there are (I think) 28 leaders and 43 civs. Already it is impractical link civs to leaders without making leaps to connect them. Leaps that can easily seem insensitive to the subject matter also. You would have to add leaders because then people would get picky about those leaps.

Narration can be managed by a fairly consistent chatgpt system

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

They introduced the pirate mode without any narrative or mechanics explaining how such a government could come about! For example, a monarchy can be hereditary or by acclamation; if by acclamation, there can be power struggles, and even in a hereditary monarchy, there can be power struggles if there are multiple heirs or if a son claims his father's throne.

There is a narrative chain that kind of explores this, imagines it as a constitutional republic or monarchy based upon the Articles of Agreement. The actual political situation was much more in flux, with a code of conduct generally accepted but each person entering into a kind of voluntary, contractual autocracy upon each ship.

 

[Smegger213]

Currently, there are (I think) 28 leaders and 43 civs. Already it is impractical link civs to leaders without making leaps to connect them. Leaps that can easily seem insensitive to the subject matter also. You would have to add leaders because then people would get picky about those leaps.

In Civ 5, there are 43 Civ's and a leader for every one of them. Not counted the ones in Civ 6. The lack of leaders is because of ones that are held back for future dlc. They could make a leader just for a single Civ or maybe a couple of closely related ones.

 

[luca 83]

There is a narrative chain that kind of explores this, imagines it as a constitutional republic or monarchy based upon the Articles of Agreement. The actual political situation was much more in flux, with a code of conduct generally accepted but each person entering into a kind of voluntary, contractual autocracy upon each ship.

I have always maintained, even before CIV was released, and I still believe now that the development of artificial intelligence is the future of civilization.

 

[Albertan Civfanatic]

The devs must stick with the original vision of the game. This is history built in layers. Stop splitting and wasting resources that need to fix already existing features. If you want a single civ playthrough, every entry in the franchise already has that. Let Civ 7 be Civ 7!