The Modern Age livestream is coming December 17th!

[thecrazyscot]

I wonder if @FXS_Sar or @B0RDERL1NE might be able to confirm if the Crisis mechanic is present in the Modern Age?

 

[Franks]

I'm actually looking forward to a 4th age beyond Modern. For me, Civ is also about shaping history and exploring 'what-ifs.' I don't find Modern nations uninteresting, they’re the culmination of their pasts, which makes them unique. Imagining what these nations could evolve into is even more interesting, at least to me. Gameplay wise, a 4th age could introduce mechanics like cyberwarfare, drones, cryptocurrencies, climate change, etc. My only concern is the inclusion of overly silly elements, like GDRs, I’m not a big fan of that.

 

[Jeppetto]

I suppose they can just let you keep your MA Civ but change their Ability a bit to fit into newer Age. Though at certain point one might say 'Yeah this doesn't feel like Mughal anymore, might've as well named it India'.

 

[CivKirk64]

My first reaction was "OH Fudge 4th age", but I'm thinking it may be better or most likely just an extension of the modern age.
If there is a 4th, I'd rather no new civs or leaders, either a continuation with your 3rd age, or some sort of fancy amalgamation of the 3 civs in your path. Perhaps there are general bonuses you can select based on the summation of your legacy points.

I could see a 3rd age crisis, tac the victory project on as the final legacy point for the modern age;
Transition to the next age where you abandon/soften your ideology, add atomic/information age techs and civics, allow for overbuilding again with upgrades to early modern age buildings, then a new set of victory conditions.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Yeah, the major sticking point I have for a 4th Age is the civs. Most major world players are roughly the same as 150 years ago. There are a few postcolonial nations I wouldn't mind seeing, but not enough to fill out a roster in a satisfying way.

If they just didn't have civ-swapping between 3rd and 4th, that would probably be okay.

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

Yeah, the major sticking point I have for a 4th Age is the civs. Most major world players are roughly the same as 150 years ago. There are a few postcolonial nations I wouldn't mind seeing, but not enough to fill out a roster in a satisfying way.

If they just didn't have civ-swapping between 3rd and 4th, that would probably be okay.

The theme for America is titled "Colonial America- Modern Civ Theme" in the video, which does make me a tad nervous.

 

[chaosprophet]

For me, the evidence in the livestream tells against a fourth age.

The things you mentioned seems to me more like evidence they made the game now to be just those three ages (and not just decided to cut on content they already had almost done if they wanted). I think the main reason people are thinking a 4th age is likely is this part: "(...) This is the fullest age we have. It's already set up sort of perfectly in terms of the way the history lays out and we're just going to say that's our third age that's perfect for the end of a civilization game. Now there's some content after that that players are familiar with. The Cold War kicks in. and obviously history has marched on to the present. That's not something you're going to see in civ7 at launch but we'll be talking about the plans for how that gets into the game when it's the right time."

So they basically mentioned they have plans to add more to the game tech wise, but with the age systems and mentions about how the modern age already is the fullest one, it would indicate they likely will add it as a fourth age.

 

[Siptah]

Yeah, the major sticking point I have for a 4th Age is the civs. Most major world players are roughly the same as 150 years ago. There are a few postcolonial nations I wouldn't mind seeing, but not enough to fill out a roster in a satisfying way.

If they just didn't have civ-swapping between 3rd and 4th, that would probably be okay.

I'm not in favor of a fourth age in general, and definitely not in favor of getting a whole new age-load of civs for an age in which I'm not terribly interested. But I think that if there is a fourth age, it should be a full one, i.e., have different mechanics and civs that capitalize on them. My take would be to start in 2050 and have civs à la Beyond Earth, but I guess most people want to play the current age.

But I think finding civs for the major players isn't difficult. I just don't necessarily want them to spend resources on that ;-)
Mughals -> India
Qing -> PRC
Colonial America -> America
Australia
Canada
Brazil
South Africa
Singapore
Switzerland
Pakistan
Turkey
etc.

 

[OzzyKP]

I agree. There are plenty of civs that only were created or came into their own in the 20th century or after decolonization. Add in Nigeria, Philippines, Kenya, Indonesia, you've got more than enough content for a 4th age.

Then, for those complaining that America is too industrial focused, the 4th age America can add various cultural and commercial bonuses.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Now there's some content after that that players are familiar with. The Cold War kicks in. and obviously history has marched on to the present. That's not something you're going to see in civ7 at launch but we'll be talking about the plans for how that gets into the game when it's the right time."

In that same quote (the earlier part of it was what I'd referenced) I hear no fourth age. I hear him saying "I get it that ending the game around 1950 is in one respect odd because there are a few things that have happened since then (i.e. since we all know that our game didn't end then)*; we'll find a way to get that content (things that happened IRL 1950-2025) in the game as well." But the big developments during that time--Internet, sequencing of human genome--don't make for as dramatic game-ending events.

That said, is it really true that the other two ages end with something that presses the players to "a big, dramatic conflict, where they're really fighting it out"? That description doesn't quite fit the the Crises, to my way of thinking. Is there something else that happens toward the end of each age that fits that description? Just nearing your in-age victory conditions, maybe?

*or did it? Maybe our game ended with the Moon landing, and America has just been playing a few extra turns since then. Would explain a lot, if you think about it.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

But I think finding civs for the major players isn't difficult. I just don't necessarily want them to spend resources on that ;-)
Mughals -> India
Qing -> PRC
Colonial America -> America
Australia
Canada
Brazil
South Africa
Singapore
Switzerland
Pakistan
Turkey
etc.

You can't forget Russia>Soviets.
Yeah a list is easy to make, it's just how many people would want the list to begin with?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

I'm not in favor of a fourth age in general, and definitely not in favor of getting a whole new age-load of civs for an age in which I'm not terribly interested. But I think that if there is a fourth age, it should be a full one, i.e., have different mechanics and civs that capitalize on them. My take would be to start in 2050 and have civs à la Beyond Earth, but I guess most people want to play the current age.

I'm pretty sure you mean Alpha Centauri.

We were Russia, but now we're in space and call ourselves The University of Planet, also I wear these weird 3D glasses-looking things . . .

 

[FXS_Sar]

I wonder if @FXS_Sar or @B0RDERL1NE might be able to confirm if the Crisis mechanic is present in the Modern Age?

Victories replace crises in the Modern Age. So, still something you'll be working toward at the close of the Age, but instead of a test of survival, you'll be going after whichever final end goal you choose for your playthrough!

 

[Zaarin]

Just Human can be ambiguous, imo. Even if there is no human inside, sending an unmanned rocket to space would count as humans who made the rocket and sent it.

That's an extremely pedantic reading, even by CivFanatics standards. To most people, "human space flight" means "space flight with a human inside."

Gameplay wise, a 4th age could introduce mechanics like cyberwarfare, drones, cryptocurrencies, climate change, etc.

This is right up there with my lack of interest in current events for why I don't want a 4th age. While the grittier bits of history can definitely be found there, Civ as a franchise has always had a generally optimistic, upbeat take on history (except during Civ5's dreadfully serious goth phase). History has been decreasingly optimistic since Hiroshima, and I've watched optimism pretty much die over the course of the last few decades. I really don't want postmodern cynicism dragged into Civ.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Victories replace crises in the Modern Age. So, still something you'll be working toward at the close of the Age, but instead of a test of survival, you'll be going after whichever final end goal you choose for your playthrough!

Thank you for clarifying!

 

[chaosprophet]

Victories replace crises in the Modern Age. So, still something you'll be working toward at the close of the Age, but instead of a test of survival, you'll be going after whichever final end goal you choose for your playthrough!

Thanks a lot for that info. I expected that to be the case and makes more sense, but the crisis short gave me a different impression so good to know.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm still not sure how I feel about military victory though. Maybe we eventually need separate threads on the victory types. Maybe it seems too easy? Or not "grand" enough. And every once in a while I do like to just conquer the world. Not often, but it happens. Not sure if that's even possible in this game. I think you'd hit victory before that happens. I also wonder what happens if you conquer everyone in the exploration age. Does the game just end?

 

[TheGhostEnthusiast]

I'm still not sure how I feel about military victory though. Maybe we eventually need separate threads on the victory types. Maybe it seems too easy? Or not "grand" enough. And every once in a while I do like to just conquer the world. Not often, but it happens. Not sure if that's even possible in this game. I think you'd hit victory before that happens.

You do have to complete Operation Ivy in order to get the actual victory, so you can just keep conquering instead of investing production into winning.

 

[Black Gate]

I'm still not sure how I feel about military victory though. Maybe we eventually need separate threads on the victory types. Maybe it seems too easy? Or not "grand" enough. And every once in a while I do like to just conquer the world. Not often, but it happens. Not sure if that's even possible in this game. I think you'd hit victory before that happens. I also wonder what happens if you conquer everyone in the exploration age. Does the game just end?

It's better. Conquest has now claimed its rightful role as the best way to win any victory. Build a stronger base, weaken your enemies - but if you want to properly win you have to actively produce the victory project.

 

[CivKirk64]

I also wonder what happens if you conquer everyone in the exploration age. Does the game just end?

Game over screen:

"Victory" Quote un quote!​

"Congratulations" - Sarcastically - There are no more lands to conquer , you win I guess with a score of idk... whatever.. 4..

Play the game right next time! I mean, c'mon ,we gave you ships with brimming with gold to plunder and you just ignored them and went straight for all the cities, and you never got to use railroads or see any aero-planes flying around.

Hope you had fun.
The End​