Tune in November 7 for an Exploration Age livestream!

[bite]

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).

Love a good book about maps, will need to give this one a look

 

[Andrew Johnson [FXS]]

Bite - this is THE book about maps!

Lonecat - I’m not sure. 6 ตุลา is about the Cold War, certainly, and the kind of spiral of lunacy that came after the US retreat from Vietnam, it is about changes in Thai demographics… it’s about a lot.

I’d recommend Ben Anderson’s Withdrawal Symptoms as well as Thongchai’s new book on it and on memory.

It’s hard to move it out of a time of mass media and world politics. But yes certainly it marked an end for a time to Thai democracy.

 

[bite]

Bite - this is THE book about maps!

Lonecat - I’m not sure. 6 ตุลา is about the Cold War, certainly, and the kind of spiral of lunacy that came after the US retreat from Vietnam, it is about changes in Thai demographics… it’s about a lot.

I’d recommend Ben Anderson’s Withdrawal Symptoms as well as Thongchai’s new book on it and on memory.

It’s hard to move it out of a time of mass media and world politics. But yes certainly it marked an end for a time to Thai democracy.

And purchased

 

[chaosprophet]

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 ages system should reduce the snowballing problem when it comes to things like yields that just keep getting better and the like, but can't really do much against things like losing a war or expanding very little because your neighbors filled all space around you quickly. Those can pretty much be a death sentence.

 

[Krikkit1]

The ages system should reduce the snowballing problem when it comes to things like yields that just keep getting better and the like, but can't really do much against things like losing a war or expanding very little because your neighbors filled all space around you quickly. Those can pretty much be a death sentence.

The crises should be solving that.

The crises even if the same for everyone should “target” the players that are “ahead”

pillage lots of replacable tiles, tace a small settlement or two.

At the end of the crisis, no civs should have more than about 1 or 2 more settlements than the one with the least…the extras should get lost to barbarians or disease and be IP city states for the next age.

 

[chaosprophet]

The problem with that solution, is that it would feel like all the effort you did before went to waste and will create weird strategies where you need to do well but keep an eye and stay behind the top AIs to get a weaker crisis.

The age system needs to strike a balance where it can make so the different civs can catch up and negate some of the snowballing without making the player feel like they are just being punished for doing well.

 

[j51]

The crises should be solving that.

The crises even if the same for everyone should “target” the players that are “ahead”

pillage lots of replacable tiles, tace a small settlement or two.

At the end of the crisis, no civs should have more than about 1 or 2 more settlements than the one with the least…the extras should get lost to barbarians or disease and be IP city states for the next age.

That would be super fun but there’s no way they’d build the base game like that. A game mode later on maybe.

 

[Krikkit1]

The problem with that solution, is that it would feel like all the effort you did before went to waste and will create weird strategies where you need to do well but keep an eye and stay behind the top AIs to get a weaker crisis.

The age system needs to strike a balance where it can make so the different civs can catch up and negate some of the snowballing without making the player feel like they are just being punished for doing well.

The issue is that wouldn’t be guaranteed, if you invested well in military / happiness you could get out ahead…. but then you gave up investing in getting the legacies

(and it shouldn’t just target the #1… the amount of attacks/ disease should be higher the bigger/more developed you were)

Then throw in the difficulty level modifier to that and you end up with a choice
1. invest in high legacy bonuses for the next age (but know you will lose some of the pops, buildings and land you used to get there)
2. invest in holding on to you pops, buildings and land (you will have less of it this age and less legacy bonuses… but you will have more pop, buildings and land in the next age…compared to everyone else)

 

[dagriggstar]

In civ 6 you just have your empire and you keep it as you snowball and eventually (probably) win the game.
In civ 7 you will (seemingly) just have your empire and you keep it and on top of that you have an entirely new set of bonuses in the form of the legacy points to help you snowball even more. Imagine in civ 6 if the winning player got an extra 6 wildcard slots when they reach the medieval era, but the losing player only got an extra 1.

I guess it's just another step in the "the game is over as a competition in the first third of the game" direction.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

The ages system should reduce the snowballing problem when it comes to things like yields that just keep getting better and the like, but can't really do much against things like losing a war or expanding very little because your neighbors filled all space around you quickly. Those can pretty much be a death sentence.

Isn't that a tough decision the game dev imposed on player to choose either to 'Build Wide' or 'Build Tall' ? Same ol' 'One Project At A Time At One Settlement' means player has to either invest in expansion OR improves existing settlements. in previous games players tend to lag behind others both culturally and technologically due to intensive early expansions. to have player's capitol surrounded by outlying settlements so the capitol will not be so vulnerable. except seaside cities.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Bite - this is THE book about maps!

Lonecat - I’m not sure. 6 ตุลา is about the Cold War, certainly, and the kind of spiral of lunacy that came after the US retreat from Vietnam, it is about changes in Thai demographics… it’s about a lot.

I’d recommend Ben Anderson’s Withdrawal Symptoms as well as Thongchai’s new book on it and on memory.

It’s hard to move it out of a time of mass media and world politics. But yes certainly it marked an end for a time to Thai democracy.

There's a good reasons that the ruling elite at that time wanted this massacre. The biggest reason was actually Communist expansions. While some elites know what was really happening (Especially Kukrit Pramos already knew Sino-Soviet split at this point. and Khmer Rouge was a Chinese proxy, rather than Viets (and would later fight each other later on), and Communist Expansions would be halted by this split BEFORE Communist Revolutionary could win Thailand). Populace didn't. What National Propaganda at that time let out the messages is that 'All Communists are the same evil'. (and not the splits AT ALL).
Basically 'Red Scare' nonetheless.

While the massacre halted Thai Democracy for 2-3 decades, it left a lasting legacy even today.
First and Foremost, the Octoberians. any survivors who would meet to commemorate the incidents.. and passed the legacy (and grudge) onto the junior generations.
Second, Intensive Rural Developments as National Policy. Since 1973 'Upheavals'. (and even including after 6th October 1976 crackdown), Intensive Rural Developments were a real deal, because Communist Party of Thailand loves rural underclasses. At that time there ain't much developments outside city municipalities. not until Kukrit Pramos studied Mao Zedong's treatise (he's already fluent in Chinese Language afterall, even taught Princess Sirindhorn Chinese at C.U.) and learned the very concept, And his visit to China some years later not only to meet with Mao Zedong himself (and exploit the Split to save his nation in this talks.), and sightseeing Chinese Countrysides, thus he found the countermeasure within--win the heart of rural populaces before CPT could. This set the tones of Political Party Policy (or at least how representatives play out with thier political practices in Mid-Late 90s). Also in 1974, a man named Thaksin Shinawatra, who had since resigned from Police Force, begun his political career there, and without doubt Kukrit was also his mentor.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Also about ethnical variations in graphics. so far I only see land units diversified with ethnicities. Naval Units, were stil llimited diversity. Carracks and galleons were all the same. despite that Chinese only adopted Western style ship sails and riggings VERY LATE. (19th Century in fact). 'Asian' variants of carracks seen used by Ming was actually Late Warring States Japanese 'Datemaru'.

^ An Indian Art called 'Kalam Patua'. Showing a fleet of Portuguese Carracks.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

Imagine in civ 6 if the winning player got an extra 6 wildcard slots when they reach the medieval era, but the losing player only got an extra 1.

I guess it's just another step in the "the game is over as a competition in the first third of the game" direction.

On the other hand, all scientific and cultural progress is equalised, most buildings lose their adjacency yields, most cities become towns, all legacy paths are reset, all units are upgraded. It's a competitive strategy game; of course, you will never catch up if you let yourself be entirely dominated in the first Age. You can lose the game in Antiquity, as it should be. But if you keep yourself in contention, even if a little behind, then you should have much greater scope to disrupt and change the outcome than in VI, where it becomes impossible to catch up in science and culture and the gap continues to widen. I don't know if it will quite work out this way at launch, but the potential is definitely there in this new structure.

 

[chaosprophet]

Isn't that a tough decision the game dev imposed on player to choose either to 'Build Wide' or 'Build Tall' ? Same ol' 'One Project At A Time At One Settlement' means player has to either invest in expansion OR improves existing settlements. in previous games players tend to lag behind others both culturally and technologically due to intensive early expansions. to have player's capitol surrounded by outlying settlements so the capitol will not be so vulnerable. except seaside cities.

Actually, what they made is that in this game tall and wide both need you to cover territory and have more settlements, but wide is having more cities and not as many towns, while tall is having more towns and only a few cities.

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

It's still Civ, the early game really hasn't changed that much, it remains incredibly important to get off to a good start, but there is now less pressure to get off to the best start. Establishing good land in Antiquity is going to be just as important as previous Civ games, because that is the platform from which you can build and compete later in the game. If you're boxed in and can't overcome that, it's going to be difficult, nothing new there!

 

[stealth_nsk]

In civ 6 you just have your empire and you keep it as you snowball and eventually (probably) win the game.
In civ 7 you will (seemingly) just have your empire and you keep it and on top of that you have an entirely new set of bonuses in the form of the legacy points to help you snowball even more. Imagine in civ 6 if the winning player got an extra 6 wildcard slots when they reach the medieval era, but the losing player only got an extra 1.

I guess it's just another step in the "the game is over as a competition in the first third of the game" direction.

There are some powerful restraints on age transition, like:
1. All civs starting from the same point in tech
2. All units are upgraded to their basic upgrade of the next era
3. All cities except capital are reverted back to be towns (if I understand this part right)
4. A lot of buildings losing their adjacency bonuses and require rebuilding
etc.

All those things really restrain snowballing. The more advanced your empire is, the more you lose and the less you gain. So, I really expect Civ7 striking better balance here with early game still meaningful, but not extremely so.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

There are some powerful restraints on age transition, like:
1. All civs starting from the same point in tech
2. All units are upgraded to their basic upgrade of the next era
3. All cities except capital are reverted back to be towns (if I understand this part right)
4. A lot of buildings losing their adjacency bonuses and require rebuilding
etc.

All those things really restrain snowballing. The more advanced your empire is, the more you lose and the less you gain. So, I really expect Civ7 striking better balance here with early game still meaningful, but not extremely so.

#3 or #4 can be overcome through achieving legacy Golden Age bonuses. Although, you can apparently only choose one.

 

[LastSword]

Unfortunately the age conversion seems to be in that bad spot where it is neither a significant anti-snowball nor a fluent change where players keep their civilization.
In fact I fear that legacies and thinking ahead of it will be a devastating blow to an AI. Maybe AI will receive some extra handicap each age.
Well, at least science might be dethroned.

 

[Atlas627]

I think people really underestimate what the difference between "winning" an Age and winning the game might be. When there were no Ages, you always should do whatever made you win the game itself harder/faster. Now there's multiple strategies for doing so: focus on winning this Age's unique conditions (which may not be relevant to winning the game) so that you can get bigger bonuses to the next Age, or start planning ahead for things that will win the game in the long run, or somewhere inbetween. Players who are "ahead" get more bonuses for the next Age, but they were ahead in areas that may not normally translate to winning the game. The things that usually translate to winning the game (science and culture progress, general infrastructure) are getting soft reset each Age, which is exactly the type of slingshot mechanic we actually need here.

 

[dagriggstar]

Antiquity cities being downgraded to exploration towns might be sneaky good as it likely puts you under the settlement cap, so you can found more towns basically straight away. You also probably want to concentrate production on one city at a time to start the new age to rebuild buildings faster.

I don’t think starting from the same point in the tech tree is going to matter because if you were ahead in the previous era, your empire will still produce more science per turn than your rivals, that’s before applying any legacy bonuses on top of that. You likely still have the best adjacency spots for buildings since those don’t really change too.

If you’re already winning the game after 60 turns, I don’t see anything that can hinder you in a meaningful way.