Playing One civ through the Ages

[stealth_nsk]

If they do that, then they will get even more negativity than today

Trying to make a cheap version of a feature as requested as this can be even worse than not doing anything

I dont think that is what they are siming for though, you dont need a workshop to make a cheap version

The problem here is that there's no universal "requested feature". Some people are ok with minimal immersion changes, some don't agree on anything less than total ages dismantling.

Depending on how this workshop will be implemented technically, Firaxis could even show different versions of the feature for playtest and have a vote.

Finally, cheap implementation could always be shown as first step (and actually that's the right approach to do - in steps).

 

[Gori the Grey]

some don't agree on anything less than total ages dismantling

That, I think, is not in the offing.

I say that just based on the assumption that they chose their phrasing carefully: "play one civ through all the ages."

 

[stealth_nsk]

That, I think, is not in the offing.

I say that just based on the assumption that they chose their phrasing carefully: "play one civ through all the ages."

Yes, sure. But this doesn't prevent people from speculating.

 

[Haig]

I think having single civ play will help the strategy discussion of the game in here, Reddit etc.

I can understand when someone talks about their for example Hungary or Indonesia game in Civ VI, and it's interesting to learn how people use them.

Besides, Hungary gets it's gear in renaissance and industrial eras, but it doesnt make them boring. The civ and the leader have interesting abilities you can start using pretty quickly.

Having an Egypt-Norman-Mexico game strategy talk feels less interesting to me, even with all the extra unique components, or maybe just because of it.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think having single civ play will help the strategy discussion of the game in here, Reddit etc.

I can understand when someone talks about their for example Hungary or Indonesia game in Civ VI, and it's interesting to learn how people use them.

Besides, Hungary gets it's gear in renaissance and industrial eras, but it doesnt make them boring. The civ and the leader have interesting abilities you can start using pretty quickly.

Having an Egypt-Norman-Mexico game strategy talk feels less interesting to me, even with all the extra unique components, or maybe just because of it.

That sounds pretty subjective. I think in terms of strategic talk, Civ7 is much more interesting.

 

[King Flevance]

Each age having its own unique identity is going to be crucial in this. For example, going from Ancient to Exploration, you gain boats that can cross ocean and the ability to cross ocean tiles changes the dynamics of the game. This changes further when it no longer damages you. Each age needs to bring some new mechanics or altered mechanics into play. Another example, though more an example of what not to do, is Pantheons and Religions. If religion instead built on top of pantheons and/or if pantheons limited what religions could be accessed this would probably feel better. The point is each age needs to feel unique and also feel like there are more opportunities.

So far, Firaxis has really leaned on you picking a new civ to make the next age feel unique. They have legacies there as a small effect to this as well. If you pull civ switching, a lot of that "unique feeling" is going to dull out. Piracy is a great addition to the exploration age, if it is done right, because it takes that ocean crossing mechanic that comes in and amplifies it especially regarding treasure fleets. The legacies, they said will be reworked, also have a chance to add a unique feel depending on how you do it. Possibly having each game feel unique with legacies. If the Ages feel unique, you don't need the civ you are playing to feel that unique anymore. That is the beauty of the age system IMO.

What Classic Mode people are asking for is a game mode where there are LESS uniques per game and they know that is what they are asking for. They say so. This idea that the game will be boring without all the civs is not shared by them and I get it. I also like the simplicity of the classic design. We had 6 successful beloved titles without getting new uniques every 1/3 of the game. I don't want civ switching to be the new standard of Civ. I want it to be just an avenue that was explored. I think there is a good game here with potential even without civ switching.

I would just have classic mode be a generic civ template with no uniques and no unique civic tree when you are out of "era". So that when Rome is in Ancient, they shine but get no help in the other ages. When France is in Modern, they shine but not in other ages. You just get the standard units and buildings. It is like their own age is their "Golden Age". Then if the game makes each era feel unique, it will be fun and engaging anyway. Civ switching is not needed to make this design work. Removing civ switching may even make it more obvious where the worst flaws are.

 

[Haig]

Reply to @stealth_nsk's post:

Yeah a matter of taste I guess, it's just a bummer for me that for example Civ 5 Venice civ would not work in this enviroment.

I also feel the system doesn't give opportunity for more unique civs or playstyles, the civs feel a bit samey for me, even though I cant pinpoint why.

 

[Sagax]

I think “same game plan” is not practical with the age structure…how do unique missionaries or air units or bonuses that rely on Treasure Convoys, pantheons, religions, or ideologies work?
Do you research your unique civics multiple times, etc.

Disclaimer: I’m not a dev and only speculating based on we currently have in game.

The same way they worked in Civ 6? I don’t think having UUs relevant at all stages of the game is a hard requirement, seeing how it was rarely the case in previous iterations. If this, of all things, is the hill that hardcore Classic advocates choose to die on, then I can only shrug and scratch my head.

My vague vision is that Civ’s abilities will be adjusted to be age-agnostic, while UUs and UIs remain tied to their respective ages. This may require number tweaking to make later era uniques worth the wait. Any bonuses that are directly tied to age legacy paths should be moved into the unique civic tree and replaced by era-agnostic bonuses - either via swap with a fitting bonus from the unique civic tree, or by designing a new one.

On that note, unique civics is indeed where I think most of the debates will concentrate, as there is neither precedent from past games, nor obvious ways to integrate them into the potential classic mode without feeling “hacky”. Will be interesting to see how that discussion unfolds.

Granted, my core assumption here is that it’s okay for an everlasting civ to lose some of its power level when it is not in its “prime” age - which is again in line with past games. Demanding otherwise goes against the spirit of “classic” in my book.

 

[Crashdummy]

What Classic Mode people are asking for is a game mode where there are LESS uniques per game and they know that is what they are asking for. They say so. This idea that the game will be boring without all the civs is not shared by them and I get it. I also like the simplicity of the classic design. We had 6 successful beloved titles without getting new uniques every 1/3 of the game. I don't want civ switching to be the new standard of Civ. I want it to be just an avenue that was explored. I think there is a good game here with potential even without civ switching.

You dont need Uniques to make a 4x game interesting. I think part of the problem with Civ 7 was that too much thinking and resources were put on things like Uniques, things like Distant Land and how to adapt a whole Age around it, tasks to present to the player to guide them, etc and too little time and effort was placed into thinking what made Civilization a great franchise and how to improve on that

Flavor stuff like Uniques are fine, but they are not the core of the game. What makes a 4x game fun is not that. In fact, the fact that in previous Civs you were with no uniques, playing against other Civs with uniques made the game mroe interesting. When everyone is unique, no one is

 

[Leucarum]

Demanding otherwise goes against the spirit of “classic” in my book.

Are they really trying to make a classic civ though? I think they still want Civ7 to be Civ7 and not Civ6.5.

When you stop and think about it there are certainly civs whose abilities would be very interesting in different ages... One of the ironies of 7 is that I think they designed civs which would work in any age very well by going deeper.

I think for UUs I'd rather see them transfer abilities onto units of matching class in the other era (though some air/navy units are awkward), and for UIs - I think it'd feel like you were missing out if you couldn't build them in the ages after they unlock, even if it makes earlier civs more potent as a result....

 

[Sagax]

When you stop and think about it there are certainly civs whose abilities would be very interesting in different ages... One of the ironies of 7 is that I think they designed civs which would work in any age very well by going deeper.

I don’t think this conflicts with my comment. My point about age-agnostic abilities is exactly that, and most of the civ abilities indeed already fit. But then you have something like Mongolia, where gaining Legacy points is at the front and center of its civ ability, not buried in civics. That’s the example of something I think they need to shuffle around or redesign.

I think for UUs I'd rather see them transfer abilities onto units of matching class in the other era (though some air/navy units are awkward), and for UIs - I think it'd feel like you were missing out if you couldn't build them in the ages after they unlock, even if it makes earlier civs more potent as a result....

Could be. My only point of reference for this is Civ 5, where certain UUs had their uniqueness represented by promotions instead of a flat CS bonus - and they could carry over to upgraded units as a result. This, however, is unlikely to be reproduced in Civ 7, where promotions are tied to Commanders. So whatever carryover approach they adopt, it will be something brand new.

 

[Leucarum]

I don’t think this conflicts with my comment. My point about age-agnostic abilities is exactly that, and most of the civ abilities indeed already fit. But then you have something like Mongolia, where gaining Legacy points is at the front and center of its civ ability, not buried in civics. Thats the example of something I think they need to shuffle around or redesign.

Agreed. And the legacy path changes are going to be every bit as impactful as the civ switching changes IMO.

 

[Kumbao]

Some people are ok with minimal immersion changes, some don't agree on anything less than total ages dismantling.

Who? Show us one example.

 

[Sagax]

Who? Show us one example.

Raises hand
Personally, I’d be satisfied with the ability to keep your civ name, city list, and base architectural style.

I won’t say no to bigger changes towards the more “classic” experience, though.

 

[Krikkit1]

Raises hand
Personally, I’d be satisfied with the ability to keep your civ name, city list, and base architectural style.

I won’t say no to bigger changes towards the more “classic” experience, though.

Which is why Both should be options (ideally in game with an option to force the AI to take a specific approach)

 

[Kumbao]

Raises hand
Personally, I’d be satisfied with the ability to keep your civ name, city list, and base architectural style.

I won’t say no to bigger changes towards the more “classic” experience, though.

That is different. He said that there are people who are only satisfied when Civ gets rid of the entire ages system. Which I doubt.

I agree to a degree with you. I would welcome the option to entirely get rid of the ages. But I dont need it. I would already be satisfied with the option to keep my Civ through all ages (same for the opponents).

 

[KayAU]

Isn't that Millenia's approach (which has been criticized for its lack of civ identity, amongst other reasons)?

I didn't think of that, but yeah, kind of. Millennia has multiple trees, and you start out with a completely bland, generic nation. It has elements of what I suggested, but it's not quite the implementation I would have wanted. Perhaps I should play some more Millennia to get to know it better. But I wouldn't want such a bland starting point, and I would also have wanted more flavour and a more complex, interconnected tree.

 

[Gorbles]

That is different. He said that there are people who are only satisfied when Civ gets rid of the entire ages system. Which I doubt.

Crashdummy and aieeegrunt are both people who I believe want the Age system gone, or at least reduced to its form in VI. I recall aieeegrunt saying that while Ages in VI are better, even the gameplay mechanics there aren't ideal (but the rest of the game makes up for it).

Pretty sure I'm not misrepresenting them either. Apologies in advance to both if I am.

The point is, this is a real opinion held by real people. There will be others (I've seen many such comments on social media - "when are you getting rid of Ages", "bring the game back to <insert Civ here>", etc).

 

[stealth_nsk]

That is different. He said that there are people who are only satisfied when Civ gets rid of the entire ages system. Which I doubt.

I agree to a degree with you. I would welcome the option to entirely get rid of the ages. But I dont need it. I would already be satisfied with the option to keep my Civ through all ages (same for the opponents).

Well, we have at least this comment in the recent threads https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/playing-one-civ-through-the-ages.700423/post-16881775 and more earlier

 

[Kumbao]

Well, we have at least this comment in the recent threads https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/playing-one-civ-through-the-ages.700423/post-16881775 and more earlier

He wants the mechanics fixed. He doesnt say that he wants them dismantled.