Was the Age of Exploration Livestream Cause for Optimism, or Skepticism?

[Emotional Husky]

I made a video all about what we saw (or didn't see ) in the developer livestream. Check it out:

And let me (us) know what you think.

 

[evonannoredars]

Wrt the 36 unique games section: I don't think number of opponent combinations is a good measure of how repetitive a game might become, I doubt I'd remember if I had the same exact set of other civs in a game, rather how often you'll encounter the same civs is. I do notice if I encounter the same individual civs often across multiple games, which will likely be the case in Civ 7. However, with the increased emphasis on leaders being the face of a civ and the fact we'll likely have at least 20 leaders (not counting personas), I don't think the risk of it becoming repetitive is too high, at least not before DLCs are released.

 

[Ronaldo_]

I made a video all about what we saw (or didn't see ) in the developer livestream. Check it out:

And let me (us) know what you think.

Great video!

 

[queenpea]

Very nice video with interesting commentary -- I share a lot of the same concerns that you do but am looking forward to playign the game for myself. I may need to go back and rewatch portions of the deep dive livestream now.

 

[Vennlig]

I didn't agree with everything but well made and interesting video! Hard for me to understand why the jump in years between ages is such a big issue though, yes agree it might be a bit clunky but it would be way down near the bottom of my priority list of potential issues compared to features that actually affect gameplay. If there was no gap at all then the gameplay experience would be identical to the current experience with a jump but people would complain about how unrealistic it is that entire civilizations and city states were replaced over the course of single turn. If you want to play during the gap between the ages then there wouldn't be ages! Of course you could argue that the whole year jump wouldn't be necessary if it wasn't for ages if you don't like the feature But for me it is much more important to have an interesting late game and that requires fundamental changes and some small sacrifices IMO

 

[Emotional Husky]

Hey, fair shout, I guess. My whole beef I guess stems from none of it being necessary. I maintain: crises = fine. Evolving civs = fine. Cities changing names = fine. Leaders of civs they were never a part of in real history = also, totally fine. What I don't like is it being forced on players and scheduled into the game. But yeah, great late game and maybe all will be forgiven. I guess we'll find out on the 17th.

 

[Bast]

I made a video all about what we saw (or didn't see ) in the developer livestream. Check it out:

And let me (us) know what you think.

You have a nice voice.

 

[Emotional Husky]

You have a nice voice.

Not the feedback I expected. But I'll take it!

 

[Isengardtom]

Nice vid

Agree with you on the religion.

Disagree with you on your (minor) point of the independent powers

Often those independent powers were only relevant or even existing in a certain age. Eg Babylon wasn’t relevant beyond Antiquity. Venice was not very relevant until after Antiquity.

Are we even sure they new Age independent powers are in the exact same locations as their previous age siblings after you advance?

 

[Gori the Grey]

Their own phrase is Age of Exploration, not Discovery, if that matters to you--like maybe getting your video to turn up on people's searches.

You do math at one point based on the number of combinations of opposing civs, and you say that if there are (at launch) ten civs per age and you're playing against 7 of them, then you're going to feel like you're always meeting the same opponents.

But those calculations factor out the leaders and their detachment from civs. You may have played against, say, the Normans in a previous Exploration Age, but not necessarily against the Normans headed by Ben Franklin.

In that way you might feel as though you have kaleidoscopically* more opponents than in any previous version.

*that's an order of magnitude in between exponentially and factorially, known better to English majors than to math folks.

 

[Emotional Husky]

Nice vid

Agree with you on the religion.

Disagree with you on your (minor) point of the independent powers

Often those independent powers were only relevant or even existing in a certain age. Eg Babylon wasn’t relevant beyond Antiquity. Venice was not very relevant until after Antiquity.

Are we even sure they new Age independent powers are in the exact same locations as their previous age siblings after you advance?

It's kind of my main point that I don't like seeing things just disappear in the game because they disappeared in real history. I think Hattusa or Nan Madol persisting to the modern age is awesome.

 

[Emotional Husky]

Their own phrase is Age of Exploration, not Discovery, if that matters to you--like maybe getting your video to turn up on people's searches.

You do math at one point based on the number of combinations of opposing civs, and you say that if there are (at launch) ten civs per age and you're playing against 7 of them, then you're going to feel like you're always meeting the same opponents.

But those calculations factor out the leaders and their detachment from civs. You may have played against, say, the Normans in a previous Exploration Age, but not necessarily against the Normans headed by Ben Franklin.

In that way you might feel as though you have kaleidoscopically* more opponents than in any previous version.

*that's an order of magnitude in between exponentially and factorially, known better to English majors than to math folks.

Oh, Damn! You're right! It is the Exploration Age. Don't know why my brain switched over to Age of Discovery. I do also mention that a greater emphasis has been put on leaders over civs like never before. I have always said that I am fine with CIVs evolving and swapping leaders with CIVs. But I am not a fan of a civ being pigeonholed into one age because that's where they were in real history. I think if people want to found the USA in 4000 BC, led by Tutankhamun, go for it! I think Egypt and Greece should be allowed to persist to the modern age. They do, after all, still exist today.

 

[UWHabs]

Their own phrase is Age of Exploration, not Discovery, if that matters to you--like maybe getting your video to turn up on people's searches.

You do math at one point based on the number of combinations of opposing civs, and you say that if there are (at launch) ten civs per age and you're playing against 7 of them, then you're going to feel like you're always meeting the same opponents.

But those calculations factor out the leaders and their detachment from civs. You may have played against, say, the Normans in a previous Exploration Age, but not necessarily against the Normans headed by Ben Franklin.

In that way you might feel as though you have kaleidoscopically* more opponents than in any previous version.

*that's an order of magnitude in between exponentially and factorially, known better to English majors than to math folks.

I'm still a little curious on the AI progressions. Like, they've said the AI will always gear towards their historical paths, I wonder if that means Ben Franklin will always play Mississippi->Hawaii->America, or will we see Greece->Spain->America with him? Or will he be allowed to play Greece->Spain->Mexico?

If they gear the leaders too much to force them into their historical paths, then we'll likely never see Franklin lead Maurya, since he'll always default to one of the paths that leads to America.

In either case, it definitely seems like the game is at least initially intended on a smaller map than in the past. Even in 6, the default map size is "small", I'm expected VII will be similar, where the game is balanced mostly around having 6 players on a map, not 8. For those reasons, to not always have the same view each game, I'll probably stick to that until at least the first rounds of DLC are out and we're up to 13 civs per era.

 

[Evolena]

I think Egypt and Greece should be allowed to persist to the modern age. They do, after all, still exist today.

We only give them the same name, they are absolutely not the same civilization as in Antiquity.

I'm still a little curious on the AI progressions. Like, they've said the AI will always gear towards their historical paths, I wonder if that means Ben Franklin will always play Mississippi->Hawaii->America, or will we see Greece->Spain->America with him? Or will he be allowed to play Greece->Spain->Mexico?

If they gear the leaders too much to force them into their historical paths, then we'll likely never see Franklin lead Maurya, since he'll always default to one of the paths that leads to America.

I think Benjamin Franklin will have Greece as a "historical choice" and probably Rome too, opening these paths. Maurya I don't think so, unless there are game settings allowing that.

 

[Glassmage]

you are a cute doggo but your opinion on civ5 is trash

 

[Emotional Husky]

We only give them the same name, they are absolutely not the same civilization as in Antiquity.

I would still argue that Modern Greece is more closely related to Ancient Greece than 15th century Spain. Don't test me. I'll die on this hill.

you are a cute doggo but your opinion on civ5 is trash

thank you... and that kinda proves my point.

 

[queenpea]

We only give them the same name, they are absolutely not the same civilization as in Antiquity.

Yeah, this is kind of the central tension with Civ switching.

In VI, you are absolutely not leading the same Egypt at the end of the game that you were leading at the start. You have new tech, new buildings, new wonders, new religion possibly, new civics, new units, new government etc. But yes, you are still called “Egypt,” and you still receive the same bonuses from flooded tiles and sphinx tile improvements, etc.

In VI, the evolving national identity is baked subtly into the game. In VII, it’s an abrupt cultural revolution after each Age.

 

[bahamut19]

Yeah, this is kind of the central tension with Civ switching.

In VI, you are absolutely not leading the same Egypt at the end of the game that you were leading at the start. You have new tech, new buildings, new wonders, new religion possibly, new civics, new units, new government etc. But yes, you are still called “Egypt,” and you still receive the same bonuses from flooded tiles and sphinx tile improvements, etc.

In VI, the evolving national identity is baked subtly into the game. In VII, it’s an abrupt cultural revolution after each Age.

Unless you are India or China, which will endure through the ages. I also feel Ethiopia will end up with 3 representations throughout the ages. These are examples of actual civilizations which have endured through history and are represented as such in Civ VII. Most of the disagreement to the mechanics of Civ VII almost entirely argue from a Western European perspective, but it is also true Western European civilizations tend to exist for shorter periods of time than in other geographies. Open-mindedness can go a long way in understanding there are various and nuanced ways to simulate history in a fun and alternative ways.

 

[Emotional Husky]

In VI, you are absolutely not leading the same Egypt at the end of the game that you were leading at the start. You have new tech, new buildings, new wonders, new religion possibly, new civics, new units, new government etc. But yes, you are still called “Egypt,” and you still receive the same bonuses from flooded tiles and sphinx tile improvements, etc.

100%

 

[Krikkit1]

We only give them the same name, they are absolutely not the same civilization as in Antiquity.

I think Benjamin Franklin will have Greece as a "historical choice" and probably Rome too, opening these paths. Maurya I don't think so, unless there are game settings allowing that.

You might find Franklin of the Maurya if he was the last AI player in a Augustus, Isabella, Tecumseh, Pachahuti, Trung Trac game.

They probably will also have some setting where the AI Leaders pick randomly from what’s available to them (unless it is their personal leader unlock)