Poll: Did you like the new era system overall?

[Shurdus]

I like it a lot. In previous installments, the game did have eras but also then some eras feel more important than others. The new system keeps the game limited to those eras that seem most intense and fun.

 

[Phrozen]

The age system is fine but the legacy system seems to pigeonhole you. I think it would of been better if instead of switching civs in each era, you switched to a leader from a group of leaders from each era. You can tie uniques to leaders while leaving civs fairly generic but strong in a certain era.

 

[TheGrayFox]

I've been playing since Civ1. I don't understand what you don't understand. It's a new system and every Civ since 2 has had a new system at launch.

Leaders not being tied to civilisation makes little difference to me. .

it’s almost like it makes a difference to a lot of people who are not you

Leaders not being tied to civilisation makes little difference to me. I find the only leaders in the series to have any personality were in Civ4, so that ship has sailed, tbh. They've just been avatars for the other civs for more than a decade at least.

V had a lot more personality in the flavor of AI when compared to IV, almost objectively.

 

[j51]

I like the game a lot more than 6 (which bored me) so far, but the eras system really could use some work. Most other big changes: civ switching, combat, detaching leaders are fun. Eras changes do feel both rushed and forced though. It would be nice if they were more flexible: a crises comes not because it’s “time”, but because some game conditions were triggered that created it. If you don’t do well, you’re going to want to switch civs, but if you weather the crisis well, you can keep your civ but with some kind of bonus that partially compensates for not switching. (There should still be some kind of not too burdensome malus for not switching to reflect stagnation.)

 

[StargazingDog]

Here is my unga bunga opinion on eras after three games:

ERAS GOOD, ME ACTUALLY FINISH GAMES

ERAS BAD, BUILDING STUFF NEAR END OF ERA FEEL POINTLESS

 

[teakbois2112]

Here is my unga bunga opinion on eras after three games:

ERAS GOOD, ME ACTUALLY FINISH GAMES

ERAS BAD, BUILDING STUFF NEAR END OF ERA FEEL POINTLESS

Building stuff near end of eras is actually better than you think is. Sure, you lose adjacencies but the +2/+3s add up at the start of the next era

The age system is fine but the legacy system seems to pigeonhole you.

I would say less so than Civ VI's boosts nudged you to do a lot of things you normally wouldnt do.
I do wish they werent the same every game. Have a pool of them that randomly rotate

 

[friendlysavage]

This would be improved with an I Love It option. I adore ages

 

[Elhoim]

The main issue with them is how janky the implementation is. I even think that a lot of the design choices were to accommodate the technical aspect of the implementation. It's not a simple civ change or some new rules, it's a new game loaded with imported stuff from the previous era, which connections being remade (sometimes fixing and sometimes breaking), weird distribution of units, etc.

I personally like them, having to re-asses cities, resources, etc, is quite fun. But I would have wanted something that flows a bit better.

 

[Mr. Shadows]

I'm following this thread because the new era system (along with civ switching) was the big change that convinced me I didn't want to play Civ VII. I'm still watching but after reading this it sounds worse than I had feared.

 

[StargazingDog]

I'm following this thread because the new era system (along with civ switching) was the big change that convinced me I didn't want to play Civ VII. I'm still watching but after reading this it sounds worse than I had feared.

For me, the main benefit is that I actually finish games. The Civ 4/5/6 era of spending hours just clicking end turn or moving around units while waiting for the game to end are over. Most of my Civ 5/6 games ended with "well, I could coast on autopilot for the next two hours and get the official win, or just quit now". I find Civ 7 to be engaging the entire time.

We can now play on higher difficulties without handing the AI huge and unfair boosts that ruin many aspects of the game (try completing any early wonders in Civ 6).

It also allows for more flexibility and ease of changing strategy through the game. In Civ 5/6, you started by thinking, "I'm going for a culture/science/military victory", and every action you performed in the game had to be with that goal in mind, including your choice of Civ. Civ 7 allows for more organic and tactical play. You may start off thinking, "I'm going for economic victory", but by the second era, you find that your circumstances would be better with culture or military. You can easily change course with a different Civ and it is fun to do so!

Overall, the age mechanic is a big positive for me. Like I said in my prior post, the only complaint I have is that you have two "end of the world" situations, where you have a handful of turns with no reason to begin large projects. If you want the classic monolithic Civ snowballing over the course of an entire game, then Civ 3/4/5/6 is still here and still perfectly enjoyable.

 

[Pedro P]

I dislike the system as it stands because it feels too much like you are in a theme park ride, stuck firmly on the rails, as you watch things you cannot change.

I am not against the core mechanics, the shift into a new era with a build up of a crisis and sudden, energetic change. But it needs to be more dynamic and the constant chasing of legacies, maybe it would be best served as an optional gamemode, a tweakable one at that. In fact, I would say the system would be very good IF it was easy to mod and make scenarios out of. An Ancient Mediterranean scenario, for example, with 2 ages and the Bronze Age collapse as a series of crisis between the two? That would be fun. But as an all of history system, which forces China to be out there chasing Tea in distant lands in the exploration age? No.

Aesthetically, in what it communicates, it is a total disaster. This game takes itself too seriously, and is deadly afraid of being a bit silly or speculative. I would much rather have Chieftain Abe Lincoln of the America Horde show up in 2000BC than be playing the first civilization game that does not feature any speculative future tech or that makes the genocide of native americans a mandatory historical event.

Like, I cannot understate how much I dislike the current situation. It dethrones things like the Civ4 Native American Stereotype civ in my what the hell devs scale. It made me realize I made a mistake for not spending my 20 years in this fanbase advocating for bronze age american war elephants with star and stripes warpaint, because the opposite side was louder and in listening to them we got the most functionally Eurocentric civ game since the Colonization remake.

 

[ehecatzin]

I like the system, but It's really rough in some areas that should absolutely get expanded and looked into.

Antiquity

I think It's the best balanced so far, you can always focus a couple of the legacy paths and they play together very well, If I'm honest the one thing I'd like to see it's the ability to build wonders in towns and make codexes more flavourful or even tradeable.

Exploration

Here is where it feels the most railroady, every time I've got to rush a couple of settlers to go and grab the treasure resources that pop in the same islands.

• Like other have mentioned before, it would be really cool to incentivize the civs from one continent to push and grab the resources in the other, making it so that stuff like Silk, or Ivory are treasure resources for the other continent. I twould also make it possible to start with a "new world" set of resources and go grab the "old world" treasure resources on exploration.
• why not have 1 or 2 very unique treasure resources appear inland on the homelands? it would make it for an interesting king of the hill race to get them.
• More ways to get legacy points besides "go conquer the new world" like Songhai and Mongols would be very welcome. (I expect the Mexica to be this way when they are added)

Modern

It's honestly the one I've played the least, but the artifact gameplay seems also very first come first serve. Archeologists should really be more like commanders, that have skill trees, and digging an artifact could use the narrative event structure so that getting and artifact is not just a matter of clicking once, but actually finding it. making archeologists have trees could mean you could specialize you archeologist to be diggers, museum keepers, researchers etc.

Legacies

Legacies is where I think a lot of the flavour that would make switching from one era to the next could be implemented. We honestly need more game warping legacies that are tied to gameplay, wonders, or civs. So that's not the same legacies everytime.

Overall I realy like the system and I would like to see it fleshed out more, I think there's a lof of design space still to be explored.

Here is my unga bunga opinion on eras after three games:

ERAS GOOD, ME ACTUALLY FINISH GAMES

ERAS BAD, BUILDING STUFF NEAR END OF ERA FEEL POINTLESS

To complement the unga bunga...NEED WAY TO MAKE ERA LONGER, IF IM HITTING OTHER CIV WITH BIG STICK

 

[Mr. Shadows]

For me, the main benefit is that I actually finish games. The Civ 4/5/6 era of spending hours just clicking end turn or moving around units while waiting for the game to end are over. Most of my Civ 5/6 games ended with "well, I could coast on autopilot for the next two hours and get the official win, or just quit now". I find Civ 7 to be engaging the entire time.

We can now play on higher difficulties without handing the AI huge and unfair boosts that ruin many aspects of the game (try completing any early wonders in Civ 6).

It also allows for more flexibility and ease of changing strategy through the game. In Civ 5/6, you started by thinking, "I'm going for a culture/science/military victory", and every action you performed in the game had to be with that goal in mind, including your choice of Civ. Civ 7 allows for more organic and tactical play. You may start off thinking, "I'm going for economic victory", but by the second era, you find that your circumstances would be better with culture or military. You can easily change course with a different Civ and it is fun to do so!

Overall, the age mechanic is a big positive for me. Like I said in my prior post, the only complaint I have is that you have two "end of the world" situations, where you have a handful of turns with no reason to begin large projects. If you want the classic monolithic Civ snowballing over the course of an entire game, then Civ 3/4/5/6 is still here and still perfectly enjoyable.

Finishing the game has never been a problem in the past so I cringed when Ed Beach start talking as if it were... that the first red flag that I saw when VII was being introduced. In the process of "fixing" this imaginary problem they've added a rubber-banding mechanism that takes control away from the player. In the past it was a game of skill. If you played well you could build a powerful Civ but now it mocks you for playing thoughtfully by resetting just to kill your momentum. This takes control of the narrative away from the player, and the problem is compounded because you're forced to switch Civs. We no longer have workers so we don't get to shape the landscape which means the player has even less agency. Who's playing this game, me or the devs? I bought Civs IV, V and VI years ago so I don't need permission to play them again. What I'm looking for is a reason to play VII and from what I'm hearing my money will be better spent on Kingdom Come: Deliverance II.

 

[rocksinmypath]

Finishing the game has never been a problem in the past so I cringed when Ed Beach start talking as if it were... that the first red flag that I saw when VII was being introduced. In the process of "fixing" this imaginary problem they've added a rubber-banding mechanism that takes control away from the player. In the past it was a game of skill. If you played well you could build a powerful Civ but now it mocks you for playing thoughtfully by resetting just to kill your momentum. This takes control of the narrative away from the player, and the problem is compounded because you're forced to switch Civs. We no longer have workers so we don't get to shape the landscape which means the player has even less agency. Who's playing this game, me or the devs? I bought Civs IV, V and VI years ago so I don't need permission to play them again. What I'm looking for is a reason to play VII and from what I'm hearing my money will be better spent on Kingdom Come: Deliverance II.

You're literally responding to someone who's saying they were struggling to finish their games before 7. Who are you to say that problem is imaginary?

 

[chazzycat]

Late to the thread, but personally I am loving it so far (5 games under my belt). It's just so much more...dynamic. I love getting to play with 3 different sets of unique abilities throughout the game, and also, to find combinations with powerful synergies across the ages.

People say they feel pigeonholed into doing stuff due to the milestones, but you can always just...resist the urge. In my Persia to Mongolia game I completely ignored all victory conditions in the exploration age and it was totally fine. The vast empire I conquered just served as my industrial base for the modern era...who cares if I missed a couple attribute points along the way.

I will admit though, it does feel MUCH more civlike when it's a progression that feels historically natural. My first game was Rome to Inca to America and it was a bit disjointed thematically. My second game of Maurya to Chola to Mughal felt much more natural and civvy. I really think that once the roster is more fleshed out so that every civ has multiple, natural choices for progression, it will be the best civ ever.

 

[Gedemon]

Moderator Action: deleted a few off topic posts, please do not try to derail this thread

 

[SammyKhalifa]

not a new age unless things previous would be very rearranged; but I'd to see it go beyond the 1950s with further space stuff, etc. along the lines of the other games.

 

[Taefin]

I can hardly imagine being more happy with Civ7, mostly due to the age mechanic. Obviously learning it would be more fun with reasonable UI, but I learned 6 (got in after GS) mostly using the wiki, not using in-game resources. In civ6, I felt depressed about every game by the time it ended (like I just wasted the last 5 hours after the game was decided), even if those games started out fun. In 7 I feel like I am always doing something, up until maybe the last 10-15 turns of modern when something decides the game, at which point shift+enter and fast AI turn times make the rest of the game quick. I look forward to the end-game stats being added, to make this last 20-30 minutes feel more worth it.

If there is something I’d like to see added/improved in ages, it is a tech and/or civic at the end that starts to mix up the gameplay. For example, the game feels like it’s missing the advent of gunpowder warfare since this tech is just a 5 CS boost to existing units, which otherwise behave the same, and aren’t especially game-changing (I assume, I’ve never gotten them), rather than “city walls are now part of history”. Also, some civs, like Spain, have guns in 400CE, and miss this sense of invention. Then, the rubber banding of the next age would allow for short windows of technical superiority to emerge, without ending the game.

 

[chazzycat]

fast AI turn times make the rest of the game quick.

It's off topic, but truly, no one is talking about this enough. The turn times are SO FAST in this game! There's practically zero downtime now. I love it so much

 

[Mistro]

I didn't vote because I don't have Civ 7. (I have Civ 6 but playing Civ 4 atm) This topic is the main thing keeping me from buying Civ 7 and reminds me of how different people play with anything because we are all built differently. When I was a kid playing with toys, I was the type who like to articulate every move of my action figures as though I was animating them. I had a main boss character out of all of them and had a story and narrative for the world I created over years that still affect me to this day. I recognize that's my joy and others play differently. Some of my friends just bash the action figures together and even throw them across the room and I can tell they are not as emotionally immersed as I would be. Don't mean they didn't enjoy what they had, it's just that's how they express themselves.

I said all this to say there are those who have a more intimate relationship with their role playing and like to go deep. And there are those who are not as sentimental at all and are not looking at it the same way. I'm a sentimental type so I have reservations about things being detached including the leader from the civilization and worse the civilization I like to lose hours of sleep developing being interrupted twice. That's my personal reaction to how Civ 7 was designed. It doesn't seem to be designed for people like me who develop a civilization for the long haul. Nothing wrong with being single but don't take away the option to be in a long relationship.

Sometimes I can care less about the typical paths to victory in the civ games I have and just want to take my imagination into a sandbox like creating the greatest cultural city for artists of all time going for music, and artistic wonders etc. with a military no one wants to mess with and I have hours and hours to do that in Civ 4. In Civ 7 it seems like time is a major factor and I'd rather focus on fun than time. If I put in many hours to develop an army and find myself in the middle of a war I'm about to win and the game goes "whooa there fella, that's enough. Now come over here and see what happened 300 years later. Now you get to kinda start over in a new land" I know I will not like it at all...unless the transition somehow kept my empire consistant and some kind of acknowlegment of my last war effort was available. I think interrupting a climax is bad. My plan is to keep an eye on developments surrounding the whole era ending mechanics and how mods effect the more mature game before I decide to buy it or not.