Tune in November 7 for an Exploration Age livestream!

[Atlas627]

I really enjoyed the naval gameplay showed on the stream: with treasure fleets, piracy etc. However I feel like exploration age is decent at representing interactions with new world, but at the same time it abandons the continental aspect of medieval ages, especially due to the fact that legacy path literally forces you to explore terra incognito, and not your homeland. At least from what devs have shown to us.

For example such system would not cover the land spice trading which started within the Eurasia between India, Arabs and Europe, or medieval Silk Road across the Eurasia. And in this case I would like to see not only naval but also land treasure traders. Maybe they could be less efficient (To support naval expedition like Portugal did in this situation =D) but for sure beneficial in case you are not a naval empire. For the same reason I think that treasure resources spread should work similar way to civ 6, when you have a few contents on your homeland and each continent have it’s own set of unique resources, and you have to get ones far from you somehow. And same for distant lands. It would be symmetrical, so trading is equal for all players in all lands(would be especially important for MP, in case there are players that start on different lands), and it would allow to stay relevant in case you are land empire without huge naval power.

Same with military legacy path it again forces you to be a naval empire. Making mongol an exception isn’t the way, I think all civs should be able to progress this path through colonizing your own continent (example - Russian colonization of Siberia) or capturing the neighbors(same Mongols). For example all civs receive full points for distant land settlements and half on a homeland (except mongols for example that have full points for any towns or cities on their land).

Among other medieval aspects - Religion got simplified and I am not sure how I feel about it. It had a huge influence on medieval politics and culture. And each player having it’s own religion seems to be “just another set of bonuses for now”, and doesn’t contribute much to interactions between players, how it was in previous civs. Especially Civ IV for example: when civs with the same religion had better relationships, different religions affected trading, alliances and wars. Maybe stream didn’t show a full picture and it’s deeper, I don’t know.

Also culture highly relying on relics seems incomplete. Yes, the art was mostly religious, but it was more than some religious artifacts: paintings, sculptures, mosaics, architecture, texts - all of this is a big part of medieval culture on the humanity’s way to Renaissance . Probably it is now a part of civ-specific great people, than it is okay, I just didn’t see that from stream.

Overall I think that there are still plenty of work to do regarding this age, and I am sure it will be more complete on release or soon later, but for now it seems significantly less worked out than antiquity (which is already really good).

They hinted at the importance of the religious gameplay, but didn't show too much of it. I'm sure there's plenty to work with there. I definitely think you're jumping the gun with your concerns in that department.

It is possible that Civs can progress on the Military Legacy by conquering the Homeland and then trading the Settlements for Distant Lands ones in the peace deal. It is also possible that a perfectly valid strategic play is to do nothing for this legacy path, develop your Homeland, then progress to Modern Age with 1) a Civ that likes what you did instead and can push toward victory, 2) a Dark Age in Military that gives you a useful bonus, 3) full focus on the non-Distant Land Legacies, and 4) all the effort of Exploration spent working towards game-winning conditions that don't show up until Modern but can still be planned for and prepped.

 

[Krikkit1]

They hinted at the importance of the religious gameplay, but didn't show too much of it. I'm sure there's plenty to work with there. I definitely think you're jumping the gun with your concerns in that department.

It is possible that Civs can progress on the Military Legacy by conquering the Homeland and then trading the Settlements for Distant Lands ones in the peace deal. It is also possible that a perfectly valid strategic play is to do nothing for this legacy path, develop your Homeland, then progress to Modern Age with 1) a Civ that likes what you did instead and can push toward victory, 2) a Dark Age in Military that gives you a useful bonus, 3) full focus on the non-Distant Land Legacies, and 4) all the effort of Exploration spent working towards game-winning conditions that don't show up until Modern but can still be planned for and prepped.

Exactly…I think Mongolia is special because thematically it needs to go military but it needs to be home continent…so it gets modified victory mechanics

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Exactly…I think Mongolia is special because thematically it needs to go military but it needs to be home continent…so it gets modified victory mechanics

Incidentally, this demonstrates why the Khmer are hanging out in Antiquity. Their jam is growing populous cities, and that gives them several legacies they can work with in Antiquity, but it doesn't really help them much in Exploration beyond the obvious "5 tiles with 40 yields" thing.

 

[Krikkit1]

Incidentally, this demonstrates why the Khmer are hanging out in Antiquity. Their jam is growing populous cities, and that gives them several legacies they can work with in Antiquity, but it doesn't really help them much in Exploration beyond the obvious "5 tiles with 40 yields" thing.

Which appears to be the Abbasid goal as well
Them,Inca and Mongolia are the only nonNaval Exploration Age civs.
(Ming had some big fleets)

Abbasid pursuing Relics or Big cities makes thematic sense

Not sure for Inca

 

[Zaarin]

Not sure for Inca

Surely the perfect Terrace Farm will be worth 40 yields.

 

[Siptah]

The live stream might have revealed which resources become obsolete in the exploration age, and which don’t. Did anyone pay attention to this and made a list/post somewhere?

 

[Potworny]

The live stream might have revealed which resources become obsolete in the exploration age, and which don’t. Did anyone pay attention to this and made a list/post somewhere?

At a glance, the ones dissapearing are Wool, Dyes?, some blue one? and the ones staying Gold, Silk, Gypsum, Marble, Wine, Ivory, Kaolin, Iron, Silver, Horses, so most of them I guess. Here's an age transition before and after, but keep in mind that the trade routes probably have dissapeared.

Spoiler Before and after :

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

We can at least say for sure that Niter appeared at the Age transition and therefore is not available in Antiquity. Not that anyone is surprised by that.

 

[Siptah]

Thanks @Potworny

I think we saw dyes on the islands on the way to the distant lands though, so maybe it's just trade routes/becoming obsolete in the homeland. Ivory seems to change from empire wide to settlement resource.

 

[Bonyduck Campersang]

does Columbus make sense as a Conquistador?

no, but neither do most of the Alim choices for the Abbasids make sense as Alims

 

[Evolena]

I think we saw dyes on the islands on the way to the distant lands though, so maybe it's just trade routes/becoming obsolete in the homeland. Ivory seems to change from empire wide to settlement resource.

I've seen that, and I think trade agreement ends as well a wars. Ivory becomes indeed a bonus resources, and some effects change (Gypsum at least)

 

[dagriggstar]

After finally watching the stream my overall takeaway is that we go to this new ages system to shake up the game but the game is actually just the same as it's always been.
They spend a bit of time talking about how Xerxes is going to be weak and the other two AI's might be strong. I thought part of the point of the age reset was to allow for "comebacks" and more dynamic gameplay in general. Further to this point - great cities in Antiquity will remain great cities across the entire game, as science/culture etc adjacencies from basic buildings do not change. There's no say, flood plains are really good for antiquity but you can't build farms on them due to being flooded all the time so by exploration they aren't good tiles or like the best spot for a market is different to the best spot for a bazaar.
The world advances like 1,000 years between antiquity and exploration (or something approximately) and yet the world looks basically exactly the same like there was not even a crisis ? Humanity just sat around for 1000 years ? Also, related, we are skipping stuff like the crusades ?
It feels weird to be talking about the Ming treasure ships getting distant exotic luxuries but there's no way to role play say "On my side of my homeland I'm going to the Americas and on their side they're going to Africa". There's no sense of anything other than my homeland (feels like Europe if it was an island) and the distant lands (feels like the Americas). It lacks gravitas.
I'm actually not sure what the point of fully fledged extra civilizations in the distant lands adds to the game. Like, I don't think it's adding anything interesting that independent powers can't add.

 

[stealth_nsk]

After finally watching the stream my overall takeaway is that we go to this new ages system to shake up the game but the game is actually just the same as it's always been.

Yes, it still feels like Civilization, not Humankind 2 or anything. I don't think it's bad, actually.

They spend a bit of time talking about how Xerxes is going to be weak and the other two AI's might be strong. I thought part of the point of the age reset was to allow for "comebacks" and more dynamic gameplay in general.

Yes, it's part of the reasoning, but it would be weird to have total power reset - previous age gameplay should mean something in the later ones. So, again, it's a matter of balance. And it sounds right for weaker civs to do some catching up on age transition, but not being able to fully close the gap.

Also, related, we are skipping stuff like the crusades ?

Religious wars are quite complicated topic - both from gameplay point of view (real world things shouldn't be brought into strategic games unless they bring real value for gameplay) and from real-world issues. We haven't seen crusade / jihad for some time in civ games and I don't think we'll see them in Civ7. Probably the closest thing will be some exploration age civ, which could spread religion through wars (like Spain in Civ6).

 

[Siptah]

I think the Crusades would be best included as a scenario. And, oh boy, does civ 7 with it's age goals and more flexible rules and mechanics have potential for scenarios, if some dev time is invested in them.

 

[Krikkit1]

After finally watching the stream my overall takeaway is that we go to this new ages system to shake up the game but the game is actually just the same as it's always been.
They spend a bit of time talking about how Xerxes is going to be weak and the other two AI's might be strong. I thought part of the point of the age reset was to allow for "comebacks" and more dynamic gameplay in general. Further to this point - great cities in Antiquity will remain great cities across the entire game, as science/culture etc adjacencies from basic buildings do not change. There's no say, flood plains are really good for antiquity but you can't build farms on them due to being flooded all the time so by exploration they aren't good tiles or like the best spot for a market is different to the best spot for a bazaar.
The world advances like 1,000 years between antiquity and exploration (or something approximately) and yet the world looks basically exactly the same like there was not even a crisis ? Humanity just sat around for 1000 years ? Also, related, we are skipping stuff like the crusades ?
It feels weird to be talking about the Ming treasure ships getting distant exotic luxuries but there's no way to role play say "On my side of my homeland I'm going to the Americas and on their side they're going to Africa". There's no sense of anything other than my homeland (feels like Europe if it was an island) and the distant lands (feels like the Americas). It lacks gravitas.
I'm actually not sure what the point of fully fledged extra civilizations in the distant lands adds to the game. Like, I don't think it's adding anything interesting that independent powers can't add.

The crusades are there..see the relics that’s probably a way to get some.

I agree the crisis needs to be Much more severe for the winners

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Also the first quote by a Thai academic. Spoken by Dr. Thongchai Winichakun (I'm not sure if he's Thammasart Lecturer now. but he's ardent supporter of Orange Movement here. something I was once a proponent of (As an anathema to Far Right Dictatorship). Now with that Ultra Royalist movement diminished, and the return of Thaksin Shinawatra. (with his daughter is firmly his successor) I went against Orange Movements (this due to their political blunders from time to time. especially their failure in a post-election race to form a govenrment and almost permitted Prawit Wongsuwan an office of Prime Ministry.

Thongchai is best known for his role at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He was an undergraduate at Thammasat in the time of the 6th October massacre, and went on to do his degree at Australia National University.

What he's famous for is his book Siam Mapped, a brilliant analysis of mapmaking and border-making in early modern Siam, and which shows the way that the idea of a bordered nation (e.g. prathet) becomes introduced and internalized in Siam until in the later 20th century it is taken as being something that has always existed. Benedict Anderson draws heavily from Thongchai in Imagined Communities (the 1990 version).

 

[Prester John 2]

I think the Crusades would be best included as a scenario. And, oh boy, does civ 7 with it's age goals and more flexible rules and mechanics have potential for scenarios, if some dev time is invested in them.

Yes, please! But not focused on one side only, but with several factions playable (Normans, Byzantines, Abbasids, even Mongols).

 

[bbbt]

I think the Crusades would be best included as a scenario. And, oh boy, does civ 7 with it's age goals and more flexible rules and mechanics have potential for scenarios, if some dev time is invested in them.

I don't know if we are getting full scenarios again. My impression is they didn't get a lot of play. With what they've done with 6, I'd assume we'll be getting game modes and potentially "monthly challenges".

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Thongchai is best known for his role at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He was an undergraduate at Thammasat in the time of the 6th October massacre, and went on to do his degree at Australia National University.

What he's famous for is his book Siam Mapped, a brilliant analysis of mapmaking and border-making in early modern Siam, and which shows the way that the idea of a bordered nation (e.g. prathet) becomes introduced and internalized in Siam until in the later 20th century it is taken as being something that has always existed. Benedict Anderson draws heavily from Thongchai in Imagined Communities (the 1990 version).

Can you compare 6th October Massacre with St. Batholomeu Day's Massacre in France or even Siege of La Rochelle in 17th Century? where Right Wing Tyrants trumpts and suppressed all Left Wing movements for decades or centuries until another wave of revolution erupts several decades later?

 

[Disgustipated]

It would be a shame to have no scenarios since this gameplay mechanic just lends itself to good possible scenarios.

To add on to the above point that not much changes with the transition, I also think the civ switching mechanic is going to be weird no matter what. It is somewhat jarring that a somewhat small empire like Greece was in that game is now becoming Spain. It would make more sense if far away cities from the capital broke off to form Spain rather than the core cities becoming Spain but with Greek city names (other than Madrid as we saw in the video). If anything the player should be forced to take control of the far away cities and lose the original core cities. But of course that would never happen. What would be the point in spending time developing your core cities if you are just going to lose them at the end of the age. My worry is they are going to half- *word I can't say here on Civ fanatics* it. They don't want to punish the player for being successful, so all those things will carry over. And I get that. It would be incredibly frustrating if you work hard to develop your empire for you to lose so much. Maybe something that could be developed into a scenario as I mentioned above.

And yes as we saw, there wasn't much change of Xerxes getting out of the hole he found himself in. I honestly think a big reason for the age mechanic is just forcing behind AI's to upgrade their units, something they were incapable of in Civ 6. It was embarrassing for the game to see archers in the modern or information ages in Civ 6. The biggest thing this mechanic does is keep behind civs from falling too far behind. I don't see it doing much else.