stealth_nsk
Deity
I can't remember anyone claiming it.
I think all people you're replying to actually support the inclusion of the ability to play as one civ. What we're discussing is how it could be done.
Playing One civ through the Ages
- Thread starter Krikkit1
- Start date
ColtSeavers
Prince
Apparently, this guy disagrees with this one: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...w-iterations-of-the-game.692045/post-16678719
stealth_nsk
Deity
Nope. That guy just disagrees with the "minority" statement, regardless of which side it's applied to.Apparently, this guy disagrees with this one: https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...w-iterations-of-the-game.692045/post-16678719
The issue is you also want Traditions /Unique Infrastructure for certain Leader/Civ/Memento/Wonder, etc. effects.
Also ideally you want some uniques that expire and are good for that age.
But a simple…you get 3 attribute points for each of your attributes (6 total) (instead of the normal 1each and a choice, 3 total)
Would be a strong, slightly flavorful choice for a out of age civ.
What spin?
Where did I claim only a vocal minority disliked "civ switching"?
Where did I say it's therefore "not worth trying" (to please people who dislike it)?
Are you getting me confused with someone else, or something?
I responded to you claiming the amount of effort it required. "giving it a shot" is a separate argument.
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?
SupremacyKing2
Deity
I do think Firaxis could/should tweak/add uniques to civs to help them out of age. For example, France could get a "gaul" unique building in the Antiquity Age.
stealth_nsk
Deity
That's questionable path, because it's very close to balancing two versions of a civ for two game modes. If I were them, I'd start with more generic bonuses (like free leader attributes proposed) and if the mode will be popular, put more love into it.
Evolena
King
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2016
- Messages
- 982
I cannot count how many things exist (not only in games) that nobody ever asked for, and have been a great success nonetheless.
Also you cannot say what a minority/majority of people think, because you only ever hear those who expresse themselves on the subject on the canals you're listening. Even player counts are not a great indicator for that.
Also you cannot say what a minority/majority of people think, because you only ever hear those who expresse themselves on the subject on the canals you're listening. Even player counts are not a great indicator for that.
SupremacyKing2
Deity
Yes, I realize this idea would mean 2 versions of a civ. So it would mean a lot more work.
That would be my preferred choice as it minimizes having to create a second version of civs.
That would be interesting, but also confusing such as if hypothetically Gaul is released as a playable civ later does that mean they get access to the French Avenue quarter, with Salon and Jardin buildings, if you play them all the way to Modern?
stealth_nsk
Deity
I think this comes very close to another concept we were discussing - selecting civ name and picking bonuses for each era based on unlocks. In this case you could select France as name for civilization and settlements, pick Gaul bonuses (once they will be released) in antiquity, Norman in exploration and France in Modern, effectively playing one civ. With more civilizations coming that would be easier and easier.
I think that would be impractical.... because it would mean essentially creating 86 new civs (as there are 43 currently in the game/coming DLC)
This is why I think having it based on attributes might work better. So in Antiquity
France would get the Diplomatic and Militaristic UIs, Traditions and bonuses
Normans would also get the Diplomatic and Militaristic UIs, Traditions, and bonuses
Mongols would also get the Militaristic Bonuses... but not the Diplomatic ones they would get the Expansionist ones instead.
That would still mean creating 18 new partial "civs" (but they wouldn't have their own graphics, art, music assets, and wouldn't need as detailed historical look)
Essentially each one would have ~2-3 civics with 1-2 traditions, . give some bonuses to military or civilian units (as opposed to UUs)... and you could get a choice for which one gave you its UI.
Another possibility would be to have it like Modern Ideology... Antiquity France can research the Diplomatic Antiquity Tree or the Military Antiquity Tree but not both.
(it would still get the standard Diplomatic & Military Attribute points at the standard times.)
That might be the best... because that way You can choose what You want Modern Rome / Antiquity America / Exploration Tonga to be... to you want to make your Assyrian Empire a Scientific Powerhouse or a Military one... or perhaps Scientific in Exploration/ Military in Modern.
Last edited:
Crashdummy
Prince
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2025
- Messages
- 408
Apparently not enough in other platforms, or they wouldnt be doing this. And they wouldnt have admitted slow sale start, or they wouldnt be giving content for free to get more players to play, etc, etc
SupremacyKing2
Deity
I am not suggesting creating whole new civ versions. I am just suggesting adding maybe an extra unique building or unique unit to some of the civs. So a Modern Age civ might get one extra Antiquity unique or an extra Exploration unique.
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).
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).
It is only a matter of artificial intelligence that must adapt to events and situations and to events that extend over time in a historical continuity, and therefore a historical continuity is mandatory, but in a more simulated way.
And you would have to do that for 43 civs…wheras there are only 6 attributes, and that way you don’t have to think of something that is “Modern Norman” but not British or French or “Antiquity Qajar” but not Persia.
By just giving “Antiquity Qajar” Diplomatic and/or Expansionist bonuses/Traditions/UI, they can have bonuses without worrying about overlap.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 3,298
It'a the solution I'd go for too... Except maybe leaders attributes should also be an option to unlock your traditions
I like that idea as well, you get 2-4 options.
Leucarum
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2018
- Messages
- 3,298
And Ibn Battuta gives you all options?
Similar threads
