What do you think of exploration age as an age

[Head_North]

Hi all,

Sorry if this have been brought up before but I havent read much about it. This is not a discussion regarding the age-system but rather about having the exploration age as one of the three ages.
I think I can come to terms with the agesystem and even civ switching, but exploration age I´m having a hard time appreciating.
My reasons for this i threefold.

1. It put constraints on how the map can look. I mean we cant have an archipelagal map where all islands are reachable with trireme, for example.
2. It really annoys me that I cant go exploring the distant lands when i so choose to. I mean that owas one of my strategies to quickly develop seafaring capability and then fast settle other lands i discovered.
3. I think, to me the exploration age is a bit eurocentric? Especially with the treasure fleet system.

So, as I said I havent read much about it, but rather more about the age system in total. What do you think about it? And if you would like to replace it with another age, then what would that be?

Well, I´d like to hear from you!

Best regards

 

[MutilationWave]

What is preventing you from exploring distant lands from the beginning of the age?

 

[stealth_nsk]

Commenting on your points:

1. We have Pangea map where only some small islands are considered distant lands. Similar setups could be added later for other types of the maps where all civilizations start in shared homelands, those homelands could be archipelago or continents
2. I think it's totally right to prevent beelining to seafaring tech. First, depending on your map setup this could be a game breaking strategy (like any beelining). Second, this prolongs fun part of the game.
3. Exploration is not unique to Europe. For example, China did pretty similar things. Although I agree that treasure fleet mechanics is too colonial.

Now when the maps are much better, I think the biggest problem of exploration is that 2 legacy paths require either aggressive settlement in distant lands or conquest. I understand the idea behind this and it really spices up the game, but it's still too map-dependent.

EDIT: lost a piece of a sentence

 

[TomSpren]

It's my least favorite age. The antiquity age is the best one and the modern age goes super fast. The exploration age tends to drag. I do like the religious aspect of it. I wish religion would cause more conflict than it currently does, like the real world. I'd prefer trading was how you get economics legacy points. I find the treasure resource aspect to be annoying. I also don't care for how the regular resources bonuses are mostly for distant cities.

 

[Head_North]

What is preventing you from exploring distant lands from the beginning of the age?

I was referring to be able to do it in the antiquity age. Now I realize that a counterargument would be that there are alot of techs in the exploration age that you cant beeline in antiquity. But its just something about putting constraints on exploration in civ that feals really off to me.

 

[vorlon_mi]

I was referring to be able to do it in the antiquity age. Now I realize that a counterargument would be that there are alot of techs in the exploration age that you cant beeline in antiquity. But its just something about putting constraints on exploration in civ that feals really off to me.

This aspect -- one of the 4X's, exploration -- across oceans has varied in different games in the franchise. In Civ3 (and perhaps Civ4, it's been too long since I played it), one could build an early boats intended for shallow/coastal exploration. If you used "go to" commands, the logic would not let you enter deep water. But you could *manually* send your early units into deep water, with a percentage chance they would sink. A risk/reward tradeoff that was available very early in the game.

In Civ6 (and I think Civ5), the first naval units would not enter deep water, not manually, not "go to". One could beeline the techs that unlocked the later ships, but that required getting to the Renaissance in Civ5 and Civ6. That's the same approximate timeframe as the Civ7 Exploration Age.

Yes, the Civ7 implementaiton feels limiting, especially when you can *see* the island, just one tile away in Antiquity. It's right there!
I've not taken the time to count the number of Civ6 techs required to get to Caravels, whether that's more or fewer than the number of Civ7 techs to get through Antiquity and into Exploration.

 

[Bactrian]

I wish the exploration age required more actual exploration and that it carried more risk.

At a bare minimum, I think they should make the size of oceans much, much bigger (and consequently drop the system that restricts early ships to one-tile movement on ocean tiles). It's better than it once was, but there should be much more risk involved in striking out for new lands, and it should require intentional and sustained investment. This probably means they'll need to rethink the economic legacy path, but that's a good thing, I think, as it's currently way too easy.

Additional ideas for making exploration cooler:
1) cities in biomes different from that of your home territory (defined as the capital) have a sizeable growth penalty to lightly simulate new diseases and other challenges. Reducible with tech and/or civics. Moving your capital can change your biome (possibly incentivizing a move at the start of the exploration age). The growth penalty can be offset by sending expensive supply fleets, which will be essentially the reverse of treasure fleets.
2) unless defined as your "home" biome, units in jungle, desert, and tundra should take attrition every turn. Reducible with tech and/or civics. This incentivizes hiring units (i.e. local allies) from independent powers in the New World.
3) the addition of privateers, for both other civs and independent powers. In addition, treasure and supply fleets should need to leave from specific settlements and arrive in specific settlements with facilities equipped to handle them. They should also move slower. Basically, anything to incentivize raiding will help make the system feel more interesting.

 

[UWHabs]

I like the age as a whole, with some balance needed, because it helps delay some exploration in the game. It's not vastly different from civ 6 when you couldn't reach the far continent until Astronomy, and I like that it brings back the old "boats damaged on the high seas" from past games.

It does need some heavy balance - religion is a terrible system in the game now, and the way treasure fleets work it is hit or miss still. Science is too easy, especially for some civs that add in like a crazy adjacency (just played Vietnam and it's not hard to get a 6-adjacency culture building), which makes it frankly pretty trivial to get the 40 yields, especially since they boosted the base yields.

I wish the exploration age required more actual exploration and that it carried more risk.

At a bare minimum, I think they should make the size of oceans much, much bigger (and consequently drop the system that restricts early ships to one-tile movement on ocean tiles). It's better than it once was, but there should be much more risk involved in striking out for new lands, and it should require intentional and sustained investment. This probably means they'll need to rethink the economic legacy path, but that's a good thing, I think, as it's currently way too easy.

Additional ideas for making exploration cooler:
1) cities in biomes different from that of your home territory (defined as the capital) have a sizeable growth penalty to lightly simulate new diseases and other challenges. Reducible with tech and/or civics. Moving your capital can change your biome (possibly incentivizing a move at the start of the exploration age). The growth penalty can be offset by sending expensive supply fleets, which will be essentially the reverse of treasure fleets.
2) unless defined as your "home" biome, units in jungle, desert, and tundra should take attrition every turn. Reducible with tech and/or civics. This incentivizes hiring units (i.e. local allies) from independent powers in the New World.
3) the addition of privateers, for both other civs and independent powers. In addition, treasure and supply fleets should need to leave from specific settlements and arrive in specific settlements with facilities equipped to handle them. They should also move slower. Basically, anything to incentivize raiding will help make the system feel more interesting.

I like the one tile limit. And with the new map types, I think you can get some bigger oceans. I had some spots where I couldn't get my ships across, so lost a fleet en route. I wish there was more of that. It was some of the most fun back in the old civ 2 or so days where you would send your triremes out and see if they could make it across the gap.

I do agree that having settlements across the pond could feel a little more rugged and colonial. It's too easy to get your foothold. I wouldn't hate it if the first half of the era was even harsher on colonial settlements, but then perhaps that would flip and midway through then colonial settlements could get some new balance.

Although despite all that too, I would also like if there were some paths through the exploration age where you didn't have to hit the distant lands for the legacies. Even Mongolia still needs to find some treasure fleets if they want to complete that. I certainly wouldn't hate if they could figure a balance where the distant lands basically turned into like a very high risk/high reward play. If you can solidify your settlements there you can get some big gains. But you can still play your game on the homelands if you so desire.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yes, the Civ7 implementaiton feels limiting, especially when you can *see* the island, just one tile away in Antiquity. It's right there!

This is why Open Ocean should act like Mountains for visibility. (until Astronomy)

 

[kent77]

This is why Open Ocean should act like Mountains for visibility. (until Astronomy)

I like this idea, and it doesn't sound like it'd be too hard to implement either. Would create some more immersion and reduce opportunity to cheese the age transition by positioning units in optimal places.

 

[Krikkit1]

Additional ideas for making exploration cooler:
1) cities in biomes different from that of your home territory (defined as the capital) have a sizeable growth penalty to lightly simulate new diseases and other challenges. Reducible with tech and/or civics. Moving your capital can change your biome (possibly incentivizing a move at the start of the exploration age). The growth penalty can be offset by sending expensive supply fleets, which will be essentially the reverse of treasure fleets.
2) unless defined as your "home" biome, units in jungle, desert, and tundra should take attrition every turn. Reducible with tech and/or civics. This incentivizes hiring units (i.e. local allies) from independent powers in the New World.

In general I would like to see “Biome bonuses” that players would choose at Agriculture, Irrigation, and ??something in Exploration??

You could choose all your 3 bonuses for the same biome or spread it out, but all non friendly tiles would give some attrition that would be reduced by choosing those bonuses (that would also have other benefits)

 

[Leucarum]

For me exploration is hurt most by the legacy paths.

I don't always want to play a colonial game. I'd go as far as saying I usually don't want to, and prefer to concentrate on developing my core empire. The distant land focus really needs to be optional, and there needs to be alternative legacy paths which don't focus on it. As it stands Songhai and Inca are the only exploration civs that might coax me to play a bit of the age.

Religion has never been done well in Civ. But at least in previous games it was ignorable if you weren't feeling massochistic. I don't expect the rework will be particularly enlightening. In previous Civs culture was interesting since you had multiple avenues to pursue. Civ7 forcing you to go down specific routes when only antiquity has a route that's actually fun is a really bad idea.

The snowball in exploration is just starting to roll so it does have the potential to at least start off interesting. But the legacy paths railroad you into specific playstyles and force you to interact with one of the worst systems in the game (religion). All that contrasts with antiquity which has much more fun legacy paths.

What's needed most for exploration are a selection of legacy paths that the player can choose from. I get that the devs want ages to feel distinct but distinct does not neccessarily mean good.

Admittedly the fact that you basically can't fail the exploration legacy paths besides economic is also a hig balance problem... Which is only going to get harder to solve if players have more agency... But at least letting players play the game their way would be fun.

 

[Xandinho]

It’s not worse than the Modern Age, but it still has serious problems: it’s too scripted, and some of its legacy paths are far too easy to achieve. Religion is terrible (it’s curious how, with every new iteration of the franchise, they somehow manage to make religion more and more boring. Just make it like it was in Civ V, that would already be great). The idea behind the scientific legacy path is good, but it’s extremely easy to complete. The economic legacy path forces you to play in a way you’re not always willing to.

Here are a few ideas for what they could do with alternative legacy paths for this era:

Cultural: something involving great works of art, sculpture, and writing.
Scientific: something related to discoveries and inventions.
Economic: something involving guilds and/or banks.
Military: something focused on naval combat without involving the capture of settlements.

 

[stealth_nsk]

For me exploration is hurt most by the legacy paths.

I don't always want to play a colonial game. I'd go as far as saying I usually don't want to, and prefer to concentrate on developing my core empire. The distant land focus really needs to be optional, and there needs to be alternative legacy paths which don't focus on it. As it stands Songhai and Inca are the only exploration civs that might coax me to play a bit of the age.

That's a conceptual question. Focusing exploration age on active expansion and conquest prolongs the most interesting part of the game, the settlement phase. If turtling is a viable strategy, peaceful players like myself usually turtle and stop having fun by the middle of the game, like I usually do with Civ5 or Civ6. Also, legacy paths are not mandatory, you could still ignore them, so the question really is - whether Civ7 pushes player too hard into settling distant lands or it's more or less ok? I'd probably prefer the ability to complete economic legacy path through trade too, but it would need a lot of careful balancing.

BTW, I understand that you're talking mostly about economic legacy path, but I'd add Mongolia to the list of civs which make staying on your homelands less punishing

Religion has never been done well in Civ. But at least in previous games it was ignorable if you weren't feeling massochistic. I don't expect the rework will be particularly enlightening. In previous Civs culture was interesting since you had multiple avenues to pursue. Civ7 forcing you to go down specific routes when only antiquity has a route that's actually fun is a really bad idea.

I like that the religion in Civ7 has "minimum" and "maximum" modes and anything in between. On minimum mode you pick the belief which gives relics for converting holy city at some point, build some missionaries and grab your relics for the legacy path, nothing more. On max you push your religion as hard as possible and keep its effects in modern.

In my last game I had a belief which grants +2 Influence from your religion in foreign cities, +1 in yours. I didn't spread it too far, but enough to make a difference in modern.

What's needed most for exploration are a selection of legacy paths that the player can choose from. I get that the devs want ages to feel distinct but distinct does not neccessarily mean good.

Selecting legacy paths sound like a good idea, but I'm not sure about the implementation. You often don't know what you could pursue until you explore significant part of the map. In my last game I was able to settle 7 settlements in distant lands with treasure resources and 2 more without just to fill space. In some other game all my shores led to the ocean too wide to reach any land at all. And I discovered this only after some turns into exploration.

Admittedly the fact that you basically can't fail the exploration legacy paths besides economic is also a hig balance problem... Which is only going to get harder to solve if players have more agency... But at least letting players play the game their way would be fun.

I was able to lose military with those nasty missionaries who could convert your settlements on the last turn of the age. But other than that it's a question of balance. Scientific is a weird one as it requires some focus, but if you do, it's reachable anytime. So, probably scientific legacy path could require some revisit.

 

[UWHabs]

That's a conceptual question. Focusing exploration age on active expansion and conquest prolongs the most interesting part of the game, the settlement phase. If turtling is a viable strategy, peaceful players like myself usually turtle and stop having fun by the middle of the game, like I usually do with Civ5 or Civ6. Also, legacy paths are not mandatory, you could still ignore them, so the question really is - whether Civ7 pushes player too hard into settling distant lands or it's more or less ok? I'd probably prefer the ability to complete economic legacy path through trade too, but it would need a lot of careful balancing.

BTW, I understand that you're talking mostly about economic legacy path, but I'd add Mongolia to the list of civs which make staying on your homelands less punishing


I like that the religion in Civ7 has "minimum" and "maximum" modes and anything in between. On minimum mode you pick the belief which gives relics for converting holy city at some point, build some missionaries and grab your relics for the legacy path, nothing more. On max you push your religion as hard as possible and keep its effects in modern.

In my last game I had a belief which grants +2 Influence from your religion in foreign cities, +1 in yours. I didn't spread it too far, but enough to make a difference in modern.


Selecting legacy paths sound like a good idea, but I'm not sure about the implementation. You often don't know what you could pursue until you explore significant part of the map. In my last game I was able to settle 7 settlements in distant lands with treasure resources and 2 more without just to fill space. In some other game all my shores led to the ocean too wide to reach any land at all. And I discovered this only after some turns into exploration.


I was able to lose military with those nasty missionaries who could convert your settlements on the last turn of the age. But other than that it's a question of balance. Scientific is a weird one as it requires some focus, but if you do, it's reachable anytime. So, probably scientific legacy path could require some revisit.

Even the civs that get homeland bonuses (Mongolia, Inca, Songhai) still need to go to the distant lands if you want to succeed all the legacies (Mongolia for treasure, the others for the military). Now, obviously, you are more flexible - Mongolia could probably get away with maybe 2 settlements that get treasure resources if you get multiple of them, and the others are more free to ignore the treasure and pick up other bonuses.

Religion is nice in that you can forget it and not really be penalized. But it definitely needs balance. Like my last game just now, I ended up with like 35 relics, just a touch more than the required number. Science too - you need 5 tiles above 40, I usually seem to have like 15 or more. It's a touch harder now that you're converting less settlements to cities, but you really only need 1 or 2 tiles per city with a good adjacency, and you don't even have to get that deep into the tree to unlock a high enough specialist limit to hit the number. I think even with T1 buildings and +3 adjacency, you're very close on hitting 40 with 2 specialists. I wonder if a better balance to make it a true science legacy might be to have the required amount something crazy like 60 yield on a tile, but then late in the tech tree, maybe instead of future tech giving you all its bonuses, you had like 6 repeatable techs to choose from, where each gives you like +2 to a certain building type.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Even the civs that get homeland bonuses (Mongolia, Inca, Songhai) still need to go to the distant lands if you want to succeed all the legacies (Mongolia for treasure, the others for the military). Now, obviously, you are more flexible - Mongolia could probably get away with maybe 2 settlements that get treasure resources if you get multiple of them, and the others are more free to ignore the treasure and pick up other bonuses.

The big "if" here is in "if you want to succeed all the legacies". If we look at legacy paths not as mandatory requirements, but as a reward for expansion, they look much better.

Religion is nice in that you can forget it and not really be penalized. But it definitely needs balance. Like my last game just now, I ended up with like 35 relics, just a touch more than the required number.

Do you play huge maps? I believe on standard you need much less relics.

Science too - you need 5 tiles above 40, I usually seem to have like 15 or more. It's a touch harder now that you're converting less settlements to cities, but you really only need 1 or 2 tiles per city with a good adjacency, and you don't even have to get that deep into the tree to unlock a high enough specialist limit to hit the number.

With the current balance you could finish antiquity with only 1 city unless you have unique quarters civ, but for exploration's scientific path you need at least 3 (ironically, probably more if you play Inca, because you want to place your citizens to work mountains), which makes pursuing scientific legacy path cost more. In my last game where I completed all 4 paths, I had like 7 fitting tiles. On other legacy paths my lead was much more convincing.

I think even with T1 buildings and +3 adjacency, you're very close on hitting 40 with 2 specialists. I wonder if a better balance to make it a true science legacy might be to have the required amount something crazy like 60 yield on a tile, but then late in the tech tree, maybe instead of future tech giving you all its bonuses, you had like 6 repeatable techs to choose from, where each gives you like +2 to a certain building type.

Sure, that's one of the many areas which will need balance, but I'm not sure if it's highest priority. The last patch map generation and changes in town/city meta already flipped the situation with exploration age legacy paths in several directions. Coming changes could cause it too.

 

[Leucarum]

That's a conceptual question. Focusing exploration age on active expansion and conquest prolongs the most interesting part of the game, the settlement phase. If turtling is a viable strategy, peaceful players like myself usually turtle and stop having fun by the middle of the game, like I usually do with Civ5 or Civ6. Also, legacy paths are not mandatory, you could still ignore them, so the question really is - whether Civ7 pushes player too hard into settling distant lands or it's more or less ok? I'd probably prefer the ability to complete economic legacy path through trade too, but it would need a lot of careful balancing.

BTW, I understand that you're talking mostly about economic legacy path, but I'd add Mongolia to the list of civs which make staying on your homelands less punishing

Well, this is why I'd like to see choices of legacy paths. For players who do want an exploration gameplay style similar to the present it shouldn't be lost.

And I don't like the idea of saying "ignore the legacy paths" - that is the win condition for the age, I think it's a bit awkward to say you should ignore the game's mechanics in order to have fun.

I like that the religion in Civ7 has "minimum" and "maximum" modes and anything in between. On minimum mode you pick the belief which gives relics for converting holy city at some point, build some missionaries and grab your relics for the legacy path, nothing more. On max you push your religion as hard as possible and keep its effects in modern.

In my last game I had a belief which grants +2 Influence from your religion in foreign cities, +1 in yours. I didn't spread it too far, but enough to make a difference in modern.

My worry is that a religion rework would make it unignorable and still bad. The mimumum effort mode is at least over quickly for those of us who dislike religious gameplay.

I was able to lose military with those nasty missionaries who could convert your settlements on the last turn of the age.

Once you've locked in a golden age you get it even if your cities get reconverted I believe.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

Even the civs that get homeland bonuses (Mongolia, Inca, Songhai) still need to go to the distant lands if you want to succeed all the legacies (Mongolia for treasure, the others for the military). Now, obviously, you are more flexible - Mongolia could probably get away with maybe 2 settlements that get treasure resources if you get multiple of them, and the others are more free to ignore the treasure and pick up other bonuses.

This is one instance where I think a separate Medieval Age would have worked for civs like Mongolia and Inca, so they wouldn't be required to achieve legacy points by going to distant lands.

 

[stealth_nsk]

And I don't like the idea of saying "ignore the legacy paths" - that is the win condition for the age,

It's not. For the last age you need only one legacy path to unlock victory conditions and for non-last ages (including exploration) it's just a source of some bonuses.

I think it's a bit awkward to say you should ignore the game's mechanics in order to have fun.

You shouldn't ignore, but you totally could if it doesn't fit your playstyle. For example, Civ7 has huge set of mechanics around war, but I often play my games without waging a single war. I think it's the same. Settling further in exploration is an intended part of the game, but you could totally ignore it at the cost of losing a couple of bonuses for modern (other than direct bonuses from those new settlements, of course).

My worry is that a religion rework would make it unignorable and still bad. The mimumum effort mode is at least over quickly for those of us who dislike religious gameplay.

Yes, I think religion is generally fine as it is. I dislike that it participates in military path, because that part creates some repetitive boring actions. But the rest is ok for now.

Once you've locked in a golden age you get it even if your cities get reconverted I believe.

It's surely deducted from final statistics, but I think you're right, unlocks persist.

 

[Leucarum]

It's not. For the last age you need only one legacy path to unlock victory conditions and for non-last ages (including exploration) it's just a source of some bonuses.


You shouldn't ignore, but you totally could if it doesn't fit your playstyle. For example, Civ7 has huge set of mechanics around war, but I often play my games without waging a single war. I think it's the same. Settling further in exploration is an intended part of the game, but you could totally ignore it at the cost of losing a couple of bonuses for modern (other than direct bonuses from those new settlements, of course).

If you can play in that way I'm happy for you. I think for anyone with a more competitive mindset this approach won't fly.

Yes, I think religion is generally fine as it is. I dislike that it participates in military path, because that part creates some repetitive boring actions. But the rest is ok for now.

Religion is too micromanagement heavy, repetitive and dull for me liking - and it hasn't been implemented well in a Civ game yet. Culture is the worst offender for legacy paths which are repetitive, boring minigames.

Honestly, overall I think that a large part of Civ7's problems stem from trying to lock too many mechanics to ages. It's reduced the variety of how you can play through ages, creates a feeling of railroading and has reduced replayability for me - outside of Antiquity which basically has "play the core Civilization mechanics" as its legacy paths.

I think if 7 is to be healed, then legacy paths are going to have to become a lot more customizable, interchangeable, maybe even generic...