Yeah, this really Rouen'ed a lot of people's opinion on the game.
So, No Britain?
- Thread starter Albertan Civfanatic
- Start date
queenpea
Emperor
Oh no, you didn't...you did.Yeah, this really Rouen'ed a lot of people's opinion on the game.
Hojo Tokimune, Tomyris, and Gorgo were all new to me; Teddy Roosevelt, Catherine de Medici, Trajan, Frederick Barbarossa, and Mvemba a Nzinga were not new but were novel and refreshing choices. All from the base game.
thecrazyscot
Spiffy
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2012
- Messages
- 3,107
With the added bonus of making room for the Kingdom of Sicily!!!
thecrazyscot
Spiffy
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2012
- Messages
- 3,107
Conversely, Mvemba a Nzinga was the only one new to me while Tokimune was one I was aware of but only tangentially. I would argue given your list of novel/refreshing choices in Civ6 that there's just as robust a list of novel and refreshing choices in Civ7.
This would certainly help from a civ transition standpoint. Adding a full fourth age would likely make the game too long though, as many have pointed out. I understand why they broke up the game the way they did, it just creates some problems, like the Normans being in exploration when they are really a quintessential medieval civ.
I have thought about what if you had a shorter era (1/2 or 1/4 as long as normal) between the ancient era and the exploration era.
By my count we have Ibn Battuta, Jose Rizal, and Harriet Tubman.
(I actually like the inclusion of Tecumseh, too, but he's an extremely, extremely obvious choice so no credit given.)The age names are best ignored; the Exploration Age is both Medieval and Exploration.
queenpea
Emperor
I don't believe we'll see more ages. The three-act structure works, and every age added both lengthens and dilutes the game.For now.....
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
No! Bad extra age talk! Back to your cage! Stop giving Firaxis bad ideas!
queenpea
Emperor
You can believe whatever you want to believe
I see it as an undesirable (in most cases) but inevitable eventuality.
I just don't think it aligns with what we've seen of FXS' design philosophy. There's plenty of money for 2K's shareholders in adding more content to the existing ages. I could see a Future Age (ugh) being added somewhere down the line in a few years, but I don't think we'll see additional ages added in the middle of the game.You can believe whatever you want to believe
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 4,166
Putting aside the fact that it’s not, in fact, evil for a company to want to make money by providing a good for purchase:
I think there are plenty of better ways for Firaxis to give us more content and expand the game without upending what seems to be an elegantly designed 3-act system. I’d much sooner take more civs, more leaders, more wonders, and more stuff added to each existing age.
I think there are plenty of better ways for Firaxis to give us more content and expand the game without upending what seems to be an elegantly designed 3-act system. I’d much sooner take more civs, more leaders, more wonders, and more stuff added to each existing age.
queenpea
Emperor
Evil?
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
It's synonymous with French.
That's why they're out to conquer the leader list.
That's why they're out to conquer the leader list.
ombak
Prince
One thing to consider about whether or not they add a new age is that there will always be some players who don't purchase an eventual expansion. Adding on to the end is considerably less awkward than adding to the beginning or the middle if you still have some portion of your playerbase not using the additional feature.
I still am not in the one more age camp, but I'm even less in the early or middle age camp for this additional reason.
I still am not in the one more age camp, but I'm even less in the early or middle age camp for this additional reason.
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2017
- Messages
- 4,166
The way it’s framed above (complete with the Satan emoji) is that it’s inevitable for a 4th age to be added because of rapacious greed on their part.
My point is if they want to continue to make money from the game, which they are entitled (and obligated) to do, there are better and easier ways to do it. There’s no obvious need, financial or otherwise, for a 4th age, IMO.
queenpea
Emperor
I think you’re reading too far into my little emojis and assuming perhaps that I have the worst possible intentions.
The cute flaming devil emoji (note: not Satan) is meant to depict my mischievous self having a little fun on an online forum and stirring the pot.
That aside I do think we will have more ages. It’s fine and it’s capitalism. I’m an American from New York and I understand the concept of “the hustle.”
Jose Rizal is actually not in any middle school textbooksBy my count we have Ibn Battuta, Jose Rizal, and Harriet Tubman.
The age names are best ignored; the Exploration Age is both Medieval and Exploration.
The philippines does not have middle schools :^)
Jokes aside, I think they went with relatively safer choices for leaders because of three major things:
1. Leaders and Civs are divorced
2. Leaders lead 3 different civs in a game
3. Leaders are not strictly heads of state anymore (ok there were exceptions before but now it's not as rare)
Going with more well known leaders softens the blow of these three things to casual civ players since it's a large departure from the original leader civ formula
1. Leaders and Civs are divorced
2. Leaders lead 3 different civs in a game
3. Leaders are not strictly heads of state anymore (ok there were exceptions before but now it's not as rare)
Going with more well known leaders softens the blow of these three things to casual civ players since it's a large departure from the original leader civ formula
Similar threads
