To stand the test of time - or a little argumentative essay on why civ7 should allow retention of the old civs in the new eras

[Leucarum]

Agreed that Humankind didn't really provide much of an incentive to transcend... Another feature you probably don't want to copy.

I will say though, if your goal was to let civs "transcend" and be workable in multiple eras, one of the main reasons firaxis gave for wanting different ages was so that they could each interact with the specific features of that age, but most of the civ traits look solidly functional in both antiquity and exploration so far. The exception is UUs, and a handful.of exploration civs with ways to score VPs I guess... Maybe modern will be different, and the base game civs are likely to be the least "out-there"

 

[Emotional Husky]

I'm fine with changing civs as an option. But I don't like being forced to do it. I think if you want to continue as an ancient era civ, you should be allowed. If you want to play as a modern era civ from the ancient era, you should be allowed. CIV was never meant to mirror literal history. Discussed in part here:

 

[I was NC]

I'm fine with changing civs as an option. But I don't like being forced to do it. I think if you want to continue as an ancient era civ, you should be allowed. If you want to play as a modern era civ from the ancient era, you should be allowed. CIV was never meant to mirror literal history.

I'll add my full acceptance of this approach even if the civ's unique abilities/buildings/etc. are not available at all outside its era. In two of the three it's just vanilla. Could even make the forced/mandatory/play-it-our-way change be a new leader instead.

The main reason why is making TSL games better, or even possible (a subject well covered on a couple of other threads). For the small percent of us who play that way, it's a huge deal.