Tune in November 7 for an Exploration Age livestream!

[Olleus]

I'm not one of those people who is overly obsessed with Civ IV (it does some things well but I also prefer aspects of the later games), but I do think that is still the best implementation of religion in that a) you can choose your state religion, and b) the importance of this choice is primarily diplomatic, it's not about increasing yields or some kind of religious contest.

Well it was a contest in the sense that each city could only ever have 1 religion. And the religion branch of civics did convert religion into substantial yields (ie, +25% production for cities with the state religion) in a non-diplomatic way. Beyond that, the gold generated at the Holy City per city that followed the religion was huge! It could easily overcome every maintenance cost and let you run at 100% science for ever. There's a reason Great Prophets were called Great Profits lol. I think Civ5 improved things by having pantheons and then choosing beliefs which gave religions more character. It was the missionary spam and religious combat that went in the wrong direction IMO.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Well it was a contest in the sense that each city could only ever have 1 religion. And the religion branch of civics did convert religion into substantial yields (ie, +25% production for cities with the state religion) in a non-diplomatic way. Beyond that, the gold generated at the Holy City per city that followed the religion was huge! It could easily overcome every maintenance cost and let you run at 100% science for ever. There's a reason Great Prophets were called Great Profits lol. I think Civ5 improved things by having pantheons and then choosing beliefs which gave religions more character. It was the missionary spam and religious combat that went in the wrong direction IMO.

My memory of IV is clearly too hazy, I just remember religion being a big part of diplomatic relations, which I feel has been lost. Choosing beliefs is ok, but I didn't like in VI that a belief could only be chosen once. Why can't multiple religions have work ethic?

 

[Baudshaw]

Exploration Age Spain, but Greek Antiquity music still playing.

I like that actually, it won’t be repetitive other. Plus, it’s twice the amount of unique music by Exploration, and three times as much in Modern. So I don’t think there’s gonna be much repetitiveness

 

[Olleus]

My memory of IV is clearly too hazy, I just remember religion being a big part of diplomatic relations, which I feel has been lost. Choosing beliefs is ok, but I didn't like in VI that a belief could only be chosen once. Why can't multiple religions have work ethic?

For the same reason that your workers tear down their pyramids one second before they've finished building them if they hear that someone on the other side of the world got there first. Making something a race adds tension, provides an interaction between Civs outside of direct diplomacy / war, and forces the player to react and adapt on the fly.

 

[Siptah]

I'm not sure if they looked at it after they had met Confucius

Also those Legacies are not Competition... except for Wonders, me getting one doesn't slow down anyone else. (and they mentioned other civs from the Distant lands beating them at Antiquity wonders on that live stream

Because of that, I think you only know the ones you have contacted, but they are still doing the Legacy paths.

If not, then that is supremely disappointing..... they might as well just have shoved all 5 civs on the "homeland" and kept the "distant lands" full of IPs

If Confucius or Amina would be able to gain points for the legacy paths in the exploration age, they would create age progress for the militaristic legacy path - regardless of whether they‘ve been met or not. But the progress was at 0. It can be that they had less cities in the DL than required for the first progress (and no religion yet when the screens where shown). But to me it looks like DL civs don’t work well with the economic and militaristic path and will thus not create progress. Also, if they did „compete“ in generating progress points, the second age would be shorter than the first due to more players gaining points and accelerating the ending. That also doesn‘t sound right, somehow.

 

[MasterPaw]

Simplifying it would have been fine; giving everyone a religion and tying everything to religious competition is my problem. There are interesting ways religion could interact with victory conditions without requiring founding a religion.

I think everyone having ability to found a religion is better
It was so strong than missing it was quite frustrating

What I'm more annoyed with is that you can't convert holy city

 

[MasterPaw]

A little confused by this Q and A: "Are your home continent resources counted as treasure resources for people from distant lands" ANSWER: "Not true currently, but we're looking into potential ways into making something like that work".

So how does it currently work? Does the concept of distant land not exist for AI on that side of the map? Did I miss something (tuning in and out).

I find it a bit concerning

I'm curious to what might be the reason it's not in already, feels like it's something quite important

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm not one of those people who is overly obsessed with Civ IV (it does some things well but I also prefer aspects of the later games), but I do think that is still the best implementation of religion in that a) you can choose your state religion, and b) the importance of this choice is primarily diplomatic, it's not about increasing yields or some kind of religious contest.

I was just going to mention Civ 4. I prefer that implementation, though with one caveat. It got a little silly with the same civ being able to found so many religions (I know there is some real world examples of this, but for gameplay reasons it's not the best). I mainly want religion to be something for flavor, not as a victory condition. And I want it to impact diplomacy a decent amount.

We can already see having it as a victory modifier means the AI is quite aggressive at spreading theirs which can get annoying always having to move your own missionaries around to counter it.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

For the same reason that your workers tear down their pyramids one second before they've finished building them if they hear that someone on the other side of the world got there first. Making something a race adds tension, provides an interaction between Civs outside of direct diplomacy / war, and forces the player to react and adapt on the fly.

Isn't there more strategic depth to giving a player 5 interesting choices for their religion vs making it a race to get the "best" out of 5 choices?

The race for wonders is a bit different imo, in that there definitely should only be one of each. I think adding this race element to religion is a mistake, personally.

 

[Zaarin]

I think everyone having ability to found a religion is better

For me it's the absolute worst thing they've announced short of agendas returning. I generally don't think of non-flavor mods before a game is even out, but I'm already contemplating how thoroughly I can break the current Exploration Age design because they've taken one of the worst parts of Civ6 and put it on steroids...

I was just going to mention Civ 4. I prefer that implementation, though with one caveat. It got a little silly with the same civ being able to found so many religions (I know there is some real world examples of this, but for gameplay reasons it's not the best). I mainly want religion to be something for flavor, not as a victory condition. And I want it to impact diplomacy a decent amount.

100% this, though I'm also okay with there being minority religions if they do something interesting.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I was just going to mention Civ 4. I prefer that implementation, though with one caveat. It got a little silly with the same civ being able to found so many religions (I know there is some real world examples of this, but for gameplay reasons it's not the best). I mainly want religion to be something for flavor, not as a victory condition. And I want it to impact diplomacy a decent amount.

We can already see having it as a victory modifier means the AI is quite aggressive at spreading theirs which can get annoying always having to move your own missionaries around to counter it.

Yes, agree with that. Founding more than one religion was strange.

 

[Disgustipated]

So what's the consensus on the civs on the lands on the other continent? Are they competing for victories or not? Or are they just there for flavor/interaction? It seems if they can't get treasures fleets (but maybe they can capture them), then there is no way for them to work towards that victory.

 

[Olleus]

Isn't there more strategic depth to giving a player 5 interesting choices for their religion vs making it a race to get the "best" out of 5 choices?

Well the choices should probably be balanced anyway and circumstantial, so your first choice might not be someone else's. But competition is fun! Uncertainty about whether you can have things go your way is surely the fundamental point of a strategy game? Besides, if not everyone can found a religion, why should everyone be able to have the beliefs they want? Of course they've removed that in Civ7 but that's a step in the wrong direction....

 

[HanNorwood]

So what's the consensus on the civs on the lands on the other continent? Are they competing for victories or not? Or are they just there for flavor/interaction? It seems if they can't get treasures fleets (but maybe they can capture them), then there is no way for them to work towards that victory.

I hope they are the former. I’d much prefer competing entities.

If they are primarily in the game to serve as an obstacle in the colonization of the New World, I hope decolonization is an element introduced into the Modern Age, perhaps beginning as a crisis at the end of the Exploration.

 

[Nikolai II]

@ Civ7 mods, could you please see what other screenshots from https://forums.civfanatics.com/media/categories/civ7-developer-livestream-november-7-2024.87/ need organizing in some way? Please check if any current threads need to be updated (incl. the ones I just created).

Events and crisis could possibly be moved to separate threads for discussion?

EDIT: On it.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

I'm not against asymmetrical gameplay (on the contrary, it's IMO one way to have dynamic difficulty with current AI), but I feel that's a bigger core concept change in the series than civ switching, if this interpretation is correct.

I don't think it's intentional asymmetrical. This might be the reason multiplayer is listed as being limited to 5 players. Everyone must start on the same homeland to make treasure resources work.

 

[chaosprophet]

If Confucius or Amina would be able to gain points for the legacy paths in the exploration age, they would create age progress for the militaristic legacy path - regardless of whether they‘ve been met or not. But the progress was at 0. It can be that they had less cities in the DL than required for the first progress (and no religion yet when the screens where shown). But to me it looks like DL civs don’t work well with the economic and militaristic path and will thus not create progress. Also, if they did „compete“ in generating progress points, the second age would be shorter than the first due to more players gaining points and accelerating the ending. That also doesn‘t sound right, somehow.

But then remember they exist in Antiquity age even if you can't reach them because of the ocean tiles. That mean they would have the same effect on legacies and turn count for exploration as they did for Antiquity.

I still think Ed may have meant / interpreted the question as it being for the players instead of AI's. If not reversed then you either have them not being able to do those legacies at all as distant world not exist for them, or they would have a much easier time as being able to make treasure ships in their homeland and cash on them immediately. But who knows, maybe the distant lands civs are meant to be overall weaker, to be more like a flavor to the region but one the player wouldn't have as much difficulty to conquer / fight against.

Legacies aside, I wonder how the civ/leader abilities interacts for them. For example, if Spain is a civ that appeared in the distant land, would then Siglo de Oro and other distant lands only abilities for them work on their initial land?

 

[thecrazyscot]

Some thoughts after watching the stream.

-------

There are some really cool ideas for the Exploration Age, but I'm still a bit unsure if they will stick the landing with the Distant vs Homelands distinction. There's a fine line between railroading players down certain play styles when you essentially theme an entire Age around a single primary mechanic.

For me, the question is how flexible is the Exploration Age sandbox? The Antiquity Age looks near-perfect to me as a sandbox without excessive complexity. What if I don't want to go to the Distant Lands? There seems to be a serious opportunity cost in not participating in this mechanic, and thus most players may feel like they have to follow a similar arc in every Exploration Age.

I know some bones are thrown to staying in the Homelands with civs like Mongolia, but Treasure Fleets seem really strong and a lot of items seem to synergize with Distant Land exploitation.

Of course, with a specialized civ like Spain being demoed it might have inflated the benefits and a more generalist civ might have some more balanced choices to make.

I'm already wondering if a pure pirate strategy would be doable to simply steal Treasure Fleets without actually ever having to settle the Distant Lands. I can also see it being very strong to focus on settling as many islands around the Homelands as possible to position yourself for either launching colonists or positioning blockades to loot the returning wealth.

------

I was hoping that each Age would have several different Legacy Paths for each category so that they were a bit different each time, but I suspect the AI is being coded to specifically pursue the Legacy Paths and multiple options might be too much effort.

------

Religion...ehhh. I found it fun at first in Civ 6 but it rapidly became tedious, so I'm glad it is less complicated. However, it looks like unless you actively pursue it the opportunity cost is abdicating progress on 2? of the Legacy Paths. I suppose you could simply take Relics by force, though...

Overall, it does look like you could choose to essentially ignore it if you want and just focus on different paths.

------

Holy yields, Batman. It's too much. I might have to put together a "yield squish" mod to make everything less crazy and make each yield more meaningful.

 

[Krikkit1]

If Confucius or Amina would be able to gain points for the legacy paths in the exploration age, they would create age progress for the militaristic legacy path - regardless of whether they‘ve been met or not. But the progress was at 0. It can be that they had less cities in the DL than required for the first progress (and no religion yet when the screens where shown). But to me it looks like DL civs don’t work well with the economic and militaristic path and will thus not create progress. Also, if they did „compete“ in generating progress points, the second age would be shorter than the first due to more players gaining points and accelerating the ending. That also doesn‘t sound right, somehow.

But Confucius didn’t have settlements in his Distant Lands, he only had cities in his Homelands.

And you wouldn’t see his Legacy progress if you hadn’t met him yet.

Also the Acceleration of the Age is only by the First player to hit a Legacy point, so the number of players doesn’t affect how fast the age ends (except a little bit as more players means more different paths get hit)

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

End of an era title card. The year showing up here is actually Bronze Age Collapse

And Mexico is confirmed

^ Heavy Archer. What made this unit superior to generic archer? better armor? better shot or what? in Civ6 it is 'mod unit' to me.