Settler's edition announced

[Leucarum]

If we look at Civ5 and Civ6, they had roughly the same pattern:

1. First expansion pack coming in a year and a half after release (Civ6 faster, Civ5 slower)
2. Second expansion pack coming roughly a year after first one
3. The majority of civilization and leader DLCs coming before the first expansion pack, due to potential inconsistencies of making DLC compatible with both vanilla and expansion rules
4. Civ6 also had some additional content sold after the normal lifecycle, due to its large success

I generally expect the game to follow the same pattern with a twist: if the first expansion will be focused on 4th age, it won't prevent further civilization and leader DLCs to appear after this first expansion. Moreover, 4-civ packs will make much more sense as you'll get 1 civ per age with the last one only working if you have the expansion. My guess is that it was the original plan - to make 4th age expansion relative early and continue selling civ and leader DLCs before and after it.

However, I agree with you that selling more civilizations and 4th age could anger some people. So I assume to make it work, Firaxis will have to continue throwing significant gameplay improvements via free patches for months to come if they want people to buy more DLCs.

I was more referring to the current collections. If there's a 4th age in the works I'm dropping out regardless.

 

[j51]

Yeah the fourth age (if it comes with new civs) is a terrible idea. I’d guess that 2/3 of the people on this forum who actually still play the game would be upset if they did that. By the way things are shaking out here that could be reducing the player base from Civ VI to a Civ VII with a fourth round of civs to One Sixth of what it was!

 

[disjointaccount]

Personally I'm pro-4th age. I think having an endgame age that's actually designed around just chasing wins would alleviate a lot of my issues with modern, plus I just like the post-WW2 era.

The system definitely has some kinks that need ironing out but I think there's a lot of potential for a fourth age to improve things.

 

[j51]

Personally I'm pro-4th age. I think having an endgame age that's actually designed around just chasing wins would alleviate a lot of my issues with modern, plus I just like the post-WW2 era.

The system definitely has some kinks that need ironing out but I think there's a lot of potential for a fourth age to improve things.

I agree with that kind of 4th age. It would be great to have an endgame that gives modern room to breathe. I just don’t think the fourth age should include another civ change. I feel like that’s a big red line for a lot of people that still like this game.

 

[Leucarum]

The 4th ages I'd tolerate:
No new civs, just a short victory lap.
Secret SMAC spinoff.

 

[MrRadar]

When the 3rd age is already mostly irrelevant for the final outcome, why one would need the 4th one? To do more busywork that basically decides nothing? Everything has been as good as finalized by the middle of the second age. Exactly as it was in the case of Civ 6. After that point there's no more meaningful resistance or competition from the AI. What remains is imitation of activity.

 

[McSpank01]

The game does feel like it needs a 4th age, but doing so would need massive reworks of what comes before it to make it work. If the 3rd age is already viewed as the end point, what do you do for players who want to keep going?

I miss a lot of the cool Information Age stuff from 6, I miss real tourism and jets and death robots. I want that kinda thing.

You couldn’t really add new civs for this age however. So it would need to be free and all modern civs would carry over. That in of itself creates a bunch of problems.

It feels like this is a can that has been massively kicked down the road by Firaxis.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The game does feel like it needs a 4th age, but doing so would need massive reworks of what comes before it to make it work. If the 3rd age is already viewed as the end point, what do you do for players who want to keep going?

I generally agree that 4th age requires a lot of work on the game to be interesting and to be valuable for the rest of the game. At least, something has to be done with conquest victory and settlement limits, otherwise military-oriented playthroughs will not last till 4th age.

But I want to comment on the last part, 3rd age would feel totally differently if it won't be the final one even with the current game rules. Imagine that instead of pursuing a single victory, you'll need to maximize as many legacy paths as possible? Digging out all the artifacts you can, stockpiling factory resources, going through science tree and do projects, all while having ideological wars? Looks pretty fun.

 

[disjointaccount]

I agree with that kind of 4th age. It would be great to have an endgame that gives modern room to breathe. I just don’t think the fourth age should include another civ change. I feel like that’s a big red line for a lot of people that still like this game.

I think just by virtue of the irl timeline Civ 7 operates alongside, even if there were civ switching for a 4th age, it'd inherently have a lot of "Colonial America -> modern USA", "British Empire -> UK" type stuff. Not entirely, especially with a lot of former colony nations, but I think its starting roster would have the most "natural progression" options, like how China and India currently are.

That said, I'd be fine with no switching for that transition (though there are definitely some civs specifically associated with the post-ww2 era it'd be really cool to see).

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think just by virtue of the irl timeline Civ 7 operates alongside, even if there were civ switching for a 4th age, it'd inherently have a lot of "Colonial America -> modern USA", "British Empire -> UK" type stuff. Not entirely, especially with a lot of former colony nations, but I think its starting roster would have the most "natural progression" options, like how China and India currently are.

That said, I'd be fine with no switching for that transition (though there are definitely some civs specifically associated with the post-ww2 era it'd be really cool to see).

We counted it in the 4th age thread and actually the number of mandatory transitions is quite small. The current modern age implementation of Russia and Japan makes it unnecessary to implement them in 4th age (although Japan needs an Exploration age version), so it's like 6 civs out of probably 15 by the time of the expansion release.

 

[disjointaccount]

Out of interest, what is the maximum amount you would be willing to spend on Civ VII and all dlc by the end of its cycle? Do you have a conception of a maximum you would spend, or a price per minute played you think is good value?

I think there was a thread about this a while back. I like price per minute played as a metric for more story focused games. Like, if I shell out £60 for a AAA Naughty Dog game or one of the Insomniac Spiderman games (which aren't really my thing but like if I were) or whatever, I'd expect at least 60 hours of fun gameplay. £10 indie game; 10 hours; etc.

I think it works less well for games where there's a greater emphasis around repeatedly playing rounds/matches/games/whatever. I'm on 1,600 hours and counting in BTD6 but I think I'd stuggle to convince anyone it's worth £1.6k. I don't really have an objective metric for games like that; it's just a case of "do I feel like what I paid was fair for what I got". And in the case of Civ, I think it was. I pre-ordered the Founder's edition for full price, because I'd seen enough ahead of launch to know I liked the look of the game, and have 488 hours in it so far, and haven't really slowed down. I enjoy the game and the DLC content has been fun. Are there objectively games where I could get more content in terms of like, the number of assets or lines of dialogue or whatever in the game for that amount of money? Sure. But even aside from the fact that's not a very good way to measure it, I think it's kind of besides the point. For me, Civ 7 passes the gut feel check of, "did this feel like a ripoff?", which is what I care about.

The DLC is definitely a little pricey, but it's nothing out of the ordinary when considering the genre's industry standards, and I can objectively say that even as an ignorant end user, waaay more goes into producing content for 4x games than a lot of other genres. The number of assets needed for all the building and unit models, all the different systems and how they interact; I can accept the DLC prices here compared to something like Dead Cells (which is my usual go-to for laughably overpriced DLC). I'm also more willing to shell out for devs I like. Going back to the BTD6 example, I bought their DLC and QoL fast track mode and ended up barely even touching them, but Ninja Kiwi are such fantastic devs I don't grudge them the money at all. I have a lot of thoughts on how Civ 7 launched, most of them "mixed" at best, but something that has been very clear throughout the runup to launch and period since is that Firaxis care a lot about their game and really listen to feedback, which is more than can be said for the devs of literally every other AAA game I play, so I'm willing to cut them some slack.

I'm someone who likes getting new stuff day 1, so unless something drastically changes to kill 7 for me, I'm assuming I'll just keep getting the various DLCs or passes or whatever as they're announced and end up having spent a few hundred quid on Civ 7 over the course of its lifespan. As long as I keep enjoying the game as much as I am now, I think for me that will still feel like I've got my money's worth (if I stop enjoying it I'll just stop buying DLC lol). That's a very subjective metric, but ultimately this is a measure of "cost per fun", which is inherently pretty individual. I could absolutely wait and just get a Steam key for the full bundle late in the game's lifespan, but I'm impatient and to me, getting my hands on the new content ASAP - both to play it and be part of the feedback and balancing, which I personally have found to be a really cool aspect of 7 thus far (though yes, it probably should have been labelled EA) - is worth coughing up the difference.

And to underscore all of this, I want to stress that this is not me excusing games getting more expensive or saying we shouldn't rally against anti-consumer practices or even that Civ 7 is a particularly good deal (ultimately, that one's completely subjective because it really just depends on if you like the game or not). I do think labelling the launch period as early access would probably have been the right move, but price-wise I don't think Civ is doing anything its contemporaries aren't and so singling it out on that basis feels detrimental to the actual problems with the game.

 

[McSpank01]

I generally agree that 4th age requires a lot of work on the game to be interesting and to be valuable for the rest of the game. At least, something has to be done with conquest victory and settlement limits, otherwise military-oriented playthroughs will not last till 4th age.

But I want to comment on the last part, 3rd age would feel totally differently if it won't be the final one even with the current game rules. Imagine that instead of pursuing a single victory, you'll need to maximize as many legacy paths as possible? Digging out all the artifacts you can, stockpiling factory resources, going through science tree and do projects, all while having ideological wars? Looks pretty fun.

Much of this makes me wonder if one of the reasons that modern age victory conditions feel so unsatisfying is because they cut the 4th age at a late stage. Potentially the initial plan was for the modern age to be doing something different, still going legacy paths rather than victory conditions.

Although I don't like the idea of going for all of the legacy paths at once, I like the idea of civs needing to specialise, or at least room for different types of civs. A civ that is a large militaristic empire, should not also be competing for the same things as a small peaceful diplomatic and cultural civ. Going in one direction should make it harder to go another one.

 

[Sagax]

But I want to comment on the last part, 3rd age would feel totally differently if it won't be the final one even with the current game rules. Imagine that instead of pursuing a single victory, you'll need to maximize as many legacy paths as possible? Digging out all the artifacts you can, stockpiling factory resources, going through science tree and do projects, all while having ideological wars? Looks pretty fun.

As someone who’s already doing that in my games to level up leaders - no, it’s not that much fun in my practice. It’s the same slog times 4.

A lot of that is due to the poor design of Modern, but also if you have an explosive Exploration game (and you typically should), then there is little excitement Modern can bring to you. If you really tried to go after all Exploration legacies, then chances are you already have a vast sprawling empire with both productive cities and strategic settlements with Treasure resources (almost all of which transition very well into Modern as Factory resources or useful Empire resources). Slot in Living Standards ASAP, buy Explorers with the first available cash, invest into a friendly Scientific IP first and other IPs a turn later - and that’s it, you’re set for the rest of the game.

For all the talk about the age system combatting the snowballing in the game, it really doesn’t do that well - because even with age reset, those who have the most amount of settlements and legacy points will kick off the new snowball faster than others. And the Continuity mode in its current state only exacerbates that. Just like Industrial in previous games, Modern gives you the same “beginning of the end” feeling, and quadrupling your objectives/micromanagement during this time does not directly translate into “fun”. I don’t know how much of that is fundamental design issues vs AI just breaking down with all new mechanics thrown at them, but the feeling is there either way.

 

[Leucarum]

For all the talk about the age system combatting the snowballing in the game, it really doesn’t do that well - because even with age reset, those who have the most amount of settlements and legacy points will kick off the new snowball faster than others.

To an extent I feel like Firaxis are trapped between a rock and a hard place with snowballing. They needed to really commit to equalizing players between eras if they wanted to curtail it, but they didn't commit fully and what they did do has been so unpopular that the direction of travel has gone the other way. What we currently have has changed what snowballing looks like, but since the AI suffers more on era transitions I think it honestly makes the snowball worse.

With how joined up 7's design is, if one area is weak it has knock-on effects elsewhere. If you don't deal with snowballing then (especially) modern and exploration become weaker. And that hits the raison d'être of Civ Switching like a freight train.

With Firaxis moving Civ7 in a pro-snowballing direction, unless something changes I think the design is going to slowly unravel, and I don't think that's neccessarily the worst thing for the game's long term appeal... I do want it to survive. Antiquity is the best that Civ has ever been!

 

[Duncan9999]

I do not think this will achieve much other than piss off the People who bought the Founders edition.

Nonsense, Founders editon cost me around £75-80 on CDKeys as Im sure it did many. So don't think I'm too bothered about the new edition on Steam thats a few quid cheaper, and even if it was more it would hardly piss me off as we all know games get discounted.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Much of this makes me wonder if one of the reasons that modern age victory conditions feel so unsatisfying is because they cut the 4th age at a late stage. Potentially the initial plan was for the modern age to be doing something different, still going legacy paths rather than victory conditions.

I don't think it was cut at late age. Civ6 was also released without the final age, which was added in an expansion and Civ6 on release also didn't have proper Alpha Centaury science victory. Also, we'd see much more leftovers if 4th age was cut later.

As someone who’s already doing that in my games to level up leaders - no, it’s not that much fun in my practice. It’s the same slog times 4.

A lot of that is due to the poor design of Modern, but also if you have an explosive Exploration game (and you typically should), then there is little excitement Modern can bring to you. If you really tried to go after all Exploration legacies, then chances are you already have a vast sprawling empire with both productive cities and strategic settlements with Treasure resources (almost all of which transition very well into Modern as Factory resources or useful Empire resources). Slot in Living Standards ASAP, buy Explorers with the first available cash, invest into a friendly Scientific IP first and other IPs a turn later - and that’s it, you’re set for the rest of the game.

Agree. Modern needs a lot of attention. But still, hunting multiple legacy paths improves the feel of the game compared to plain single victory rush.

For all the talk about the age system combatting the snowballing in the game, it really doesn’t do that well - because even with age reset, those who have the most amount of settlements and legacy points will kick off the new snowball faster than others. And the Continuity mode in its current state only exacerbates that. Just like Industrial in previous games, Modern gives you the same “beginning of the end” feeling, and quadrupling your objectives/micromanagement during this time does not directly translate into “fun”. I don’t know how much of that is fundamental design issues vs AI just breaking down with all new mechanics thrown at them, but the feeling is there either way.

Snowballing is still a big problem, but I think it's not the problem with core game mechanics, it's a problem with balance and implementation. For example, AI buildings are still a mess, so it's a bit of a random thing whether AI will build decent infrastructure or not. I think the time will come when developers will focus on precise balancing and AI fine-tuning, but at the moment we have so big changes coming with each patch, that fine-tuning will quickly become obsolete.

 

[pjotroos]

Agree. Modern needs a lot of attention. But still, hunting multiple legacy paths improves the feel of the game compared to plain single victory rush.

Think this is one of those "agree to disagree" ones. Culture and military are the only ones that require active participation in modern era, and they don't really compliment each other, nor do they feel like they build off the previous eras. Military victory in particular effectively rewards not doing too much conquest in exploration. Meanwhile, if I already played enough of modern era to get culture or military done, I can basically shift-enter my way to economic and science completion.

Same as Sagax, I'll sometimes hold off winning if I care about leveling up the leader I play, and it really drags. I'm no longer making strategic or tactical choices. None of the four objectives are ever at risk. Game's won in exploration.

 

[Crashdummy]

I would think you would want 6 civs per DLC at a bare minimum, it really is the Civ that gives the DLC the sense of value. Leaders themselves feel like window dressing to me. Civ Switching does mean that each DLC needs a lot more content to pad itself out, otherwise it just looks bare bones.

The whole purpose of Civ switching, to me, was to sell cheaper Civs for more money. We get 1/3 of a Civ for a higher price than we got a full one in previous Civs

 

[Leucarum]

Game's won in exploration

Antiquity, surely?

That's the same as it always has been though in Civ. I do applaud Firaxis for trying to curb snowballing, but even at release they didn't commit to it enough to make a difference. And they seem to be watering it down further. Other Civ games survived snowballing though so it is probably only a problem thanks to civ switching gating 2/3 of civs into irrelevant eras.

 

[Krikkit1]

Antiquity, surely?

That's the same as it always has been though in Civ. I do applaud Firaxis for trying to curb snowballing, but even at release they didn't commit to it enough to make a difference. And they seem to be watering it down further. Other Civ games survived snowballing though so it is probably only a problem thanks to civ switching gating 2/3 of civs into irrelevant eras.

I think they could still mitigate snowballing by boosting the AI each age based on AI performance in the previous age.