What each era covers

[Thormodr]

As I understand it, each Age advances at 1 point per turn to a max of 200 points. You can add +5 points from each of 4 Legacies. Barring other bonuses they have't mentioned yet, then, each Age will therefore be between 180 and 200 turns and then you go into the Crisis Period of 3 stages. I don't believe they've said how long those Crisis Stages will last in turns, but given that they will probably not be Happy Times, I'd bet they will be short: probably no more than 15 - 20 turns for the entire Crisis Period,

Frankly, in Civ VI 95% or more of my games were decided long before 200 turns - frequently by the 100th turn - so even 180 turns/Age sounds like plenty to me - always depending, of course, on how the turns play in the new game.

Yes, I get that many people like to do speed runs (notably content creators) and finish their games in sub 200 turns. For me, I like to take the time and smell the roses. I rarely finish in under 200 turns. In fact, I'm probably around 250-300 turns. (Maybe I'm a freak?)

Will have to see what all goes into shortening the ages through in game action when the real gameplay videos come out.

On the other hand 160X3 turns = 480 turns potentially for a total game and that to me seems too long. I am slow but not that slow.

Could be tricky to balance. Will be Interested in further clarification from the devs.

 

[chaosprophet]

I predict they're doing both. The base game will ship with the 3rd age extending to modern times, but then a later DLC will add a 4th age that starts circa end of World War II. Climate change will be in the base game, but an expanded and more elaborate set of climate change rules will be released in the DLC. Third age civs that ship in the base game will be split up between age 3 and age 4 and supplemented with new civs in the DLC. Introducing lots of modern nations in the first big DLC expansion should drive lots of sales from large markets like Canada, Brazil, etc.

Introducing a new age between the base ages 1 and 2 or between 2 and 3 could also be possible, but adding a new age to the end of the base game seems like it would be a whole lot simpler. So that's another reason I expect the first large expansion to be Information Age oriented.

Also, why the heck am I speculating on DLCs when there's so little information about the base game known yet? Could Sept 12th hurry up and get here already so we have something more tangible to speculate about?

If they do a age 4 in a future expansion, I think it would work better to be a futuristic one, where there is a lot of interesting crisis possibilities to add at the end of modern if it is around year 2050. Things like, deadly global pandemics, climate crisis, fuel shortage crisis, economic breakdown, problems caused by use of too many atomic bombs, etc. They could even make it be like, depending of the type of crisis triggered, the gameplay on an age 4 is different. Like a fuel shortage one could mean an age 4 where oil and some other resources are completely lost so you need to focus on rebuilding power structures with renewable energy, etc.

 

[j51]

According to tech tree I don't think Age 2 ends at 1799. it might end at 1699 even! (it should.) according to weapons evolutions. also Big guns that uses wrought iron hoops disappeared in 16th Century as metallugury has since been developed to accept strong gunpowder gas pressures.

Yeah, the transition would appear to be 16th century based on the tech tree.

 

[Tanel]

As I understand it, each Age advances at 1 point per turn to a max of 200 points. You can add +5 points from each of 4 Legacies. Barring other bonuses they have't mentioned yet, then, each Age will therefore be between 180 and 200 turns and then you go into the Crisis Period of 3 stages. I don't believe they've said how long those Crisis Stages will last in turns, but given that they will probably not be Happy Times, I'd bet they will be short: probably no more than 15 - 20 turns for the entire Crisis Period,

Frankly, in Civ VI 95% or more of my games were decided long before 200 turns - frequently by the 100th turn - so even 180 turns/Age sounds like plenty to me - always depending, of course, on how the turns play in the new game.

Each Legacy path has 3 steps though and you get +5 era progress for each of them so +15 total per legacy which means -60 turns is possible.

 

[Tanel]

F__K! I don't like Antiquity begins at 4000 BC At ANY CIV Game! TOOOOOOOO LATE. Since all archaeological evidence suggested that. The oldest cities with walls surrounded were dated back to 6,000-8,000 BC.
Mine.. Antiquity should begin at 8,000 or 10,000 BC

According to tech tree I don't think Age 2 ends at 1799. it might end at 1699 even! (it should.) according to weapons evolutions. also Big guns that uses wrought iron hoops disappeared in 16th Century as metallugury has since been developed to accept strong gunpowder gas pressures.

Those previous civilizations all fell without having a direct successor in the era so they did not stand the test of time. I think 4000 BCE is chosen because that's the earliest known continuous civilization in one area.

 

[brainwashh]

The modern era starts in 1500. This will put most European colonial empires in the modern age, even the Dutch.

 

[Lonecat Nekophrodite]

Those previous civilizations all fell without having a direct successor in the era so they did not stand the test of time. I think 4000 BCE is chosen because that's the earliest known continuous civilization in one area.

But these chaps didn't build city walls immediately because as per game rules. everyone has to research masonry manually which the first city walls for those guys could be built at 2000 BC at the earliest. Also Uruk shows up at 4000 BC and should have walls within that timeframe...

Uruk - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Jericho for example DID Stood by the time Joshua shown up.

Jericho - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What will @Boris Gudenuf have a thing o two to say about this? but since i've 'known' him for about five years or more i'd say he disagree with you on your reasons saying that F'Xis is always right about 4000 BC is when game begins.
Mine should be either 5000 or 6000 . if Bronze Age should be beginning of human civilization as we known.

 

[Krikkit1]

The modern era starts in 1500. This will put most European colonial empires in the modern age, even the Dutch.

no evidence for 1500, 1700 (Mughal peak) sure…1600s (maybe)
but they talk about steam power and French snd American Revolutions) so 17-1800 seems the target

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Yes, I get that many people like to do speed runs (notably content creators) and finish their games in sub 200 turns. For me, I like to take the time and smell the roses. I rarely finish in under 200 turns. In fact, I'm probably around 250-300 turns. (Maybe I'm a freak?)

Not at all. As I said, my games are largely Decided between 100 - 150 turns, not necessarily Ended. If I have a resounded Science lead and have eliminated 5 out of 10 opponents by Turn 110, grinding out the rest of a Domination win is just a chore - the game is decided as far as I'm concerned.

Which is why I am very optimistic about the potential for a Crisis Reset that keeps me from looking forward to a long, drawn-out Slog To Victory for the last half of the game, which was typical of Civs V and VI.

 

[Leyrann]

Not at all. As I said, my games are largely Decided between 100 - 150 turns, not necessarily Ended. If I have a resounded Science lead and have eliminated 5 out of 10 opponents by Turn 110, grinding out the rest of a Domination win is just a chore - the game is decided as far as I'm concerned.

Challenge: Win a Domination victory with standard settings (map size, starting era, number of civs, etc) in under 100 turns.

(my strategy:

Spoiler :

Difficulty level Settler, and map type Pangea. You can't do it with the latter, and I would prefer not to have to try this on a higher difficulty. Spam (maintenance-free!) Eagle Warriors, send them everywhere, attack every AI you see immediately. Kill their units, take their cities, and turn them into yet more Eagle Warrior factories. Repeat until everyone is dead. Oh yeah and improve your luxuries so that your Eagle Warriors remain gods among men!

)

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Each Legacy path has 3 steps though and you get +5 era progress for each of them so +15 total per legacy which means -60 turns is possible.

The term used was 'Milestones' on each of the 4 Legacy paths. Since we (as yet) have no idea what Milestones means, I assumed 1 per Path, but as you indicate, it could be more.

One indicator that it may be as few as possible is that I do not foresee the Crisis Turns as being very much fun to play: you will be trying to maintain a steadily-declining and unraveling Civ with the only guarantee being that you are Doomed to Fail by the end of the Crisis Period. Unless there's something Positive in the Crisis Period they haven't mentioned yet, I think that is going to be a Hard Sell for many gamers, and they will want to keep it as short as possible.

Hopefully, we'll get some more answers/indications on Thursday . . .

 

[CrackerJack45]

One indicator that it may be as few as possible is that I do not foresee the Crisis Turns as being very much fun to play: you will be trying to maintain a steadily-declining and unraveling Civ with the only guarantee being that you are Doomed to Fail by the end of the Crisis Period. Unless there's something Positive in the Crisis Period they haven't mentioned yet, I think that is going to be a Hard Sell for many gamers, and they will want to keep it as short as possible.

No clue where this idea that you are "failing" at every crisis came from. Like, you continue on to the next era, that means you managed to get through it. If you failed it means that you are done, game over.

I'm surprised that the people who don't stop talking about "immersion" are so uncreative with how they think this crisis will play out. Like its pretty easy to just go; my Babylon got hit with a plague and during this epidemic a leadership change had to happen and now we're the Abassids and my science legacy path bonuses are representative of the scientific breakthroughs we had trying to solve this crisis, my failure to reach the economic milestone means a number of my cities become towns and is therefore representative of the population loss from the plague.

Unless they go on to prove me wrong with more footage but it seems like Firaxis has left a ton of room for people to create their own naratives with this stuff. Saying "oh I just lose because my empire hits a low point" is very strange to me, considering it's very clearly supposed to be you triumphing over adversity and evolving from the experience.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

No clue where this idea that you are "failing" at every crisis came from. Like, you continue on to the next era, that means you managed to get through it. If you failed it means that you are done, game over.

I'm surprised that the people who don't stop talking about "immersion" are so uncreative with how they think this crisis will play out. Like its pretty easy to just go; my Babylon got hit with a plague and during this epidemic a leadership change had to happen and now we're the Abassids and my science legacy path bonuses are representative of the scientific breakthroughs we had trying to solve this crisis, my failure to reach the economic milestone means a number of my cities become towns and is therefore representative of the population loss from the plague.

Unless they go on to prove me wrong with more footage but it seems like Firaxis has left a ton of room for people to create their own naratives with this stuff. Saying "oh I just lose because my empire hits a low point" is very strange to me, considering it's very clearly supposed to be you triumphing over adversity and evolving from the experience.

I am personally looking forward to the Crisis Periods in the game, but then I've been studying Civilizations in Crisis for most of my life. It's called History, and has been so different from any 4X game experience that it has bothered me for decades.

That is what still bothers me about the mechanic. Civ has always (at least, since Civ 2, the first rendition that I played) been about relentless Upward Progress from Turn One. That makes me very nervous about how gamers will accept a system built in to the game and virtually inevitable in every game in which Upward Progress becomes (apparently, from what little they have told us) Holding On By Your Fingernails.

After studying what happened to Alexander the Great's army in the Gedrosian Desert or the German Wehrmacht in front of Moscow in 1941, nothing as described so far in the Crisis Periods will seem that bad to me, but I am not so confident about the reaction of the majority of gamers.

 

[CrackerJack45]

but I am not so confident about the reaction of the majority of gamers.

I do see that being an issue for people. It brings to mind issues in other game genres like fps games where people decry skill based matchmaking because all they want to do is stomp on children and not actually put in any effort.

Personally I think of the crisis mechanic as an evolution of the dark age/golden age mechanics from VI except in this one you cant just avoid it altogether by being "too good" to ever get a dark age.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Personally I think of the crisis mechanic as an evolution of the dark age/golden age mechanics from VI except in this one you cant just avoid it altogether by being "too good" to ever get a dark age.

Exactly. The Dark/Golden Age mechanic in Civ VI was a first step in the right direction, IMHO, but it was absurdly easy to avoid Dark Ages or 'manipulate' the game to get a Dark/Golden/Heroic Age as desired.

I expect that when fully revealed the Crisis Periods will have much more nuance than being merely a steady slide towards collapse. They have hinted without specifics that decisions made in the Crisis will affect the starting condition and structure of your Civ in the next Age, which would, I think, go a long, long way towards making the entire mechanic palatable to the gaming community.

 

[Lebo44]

That is what still bothers me about the mechanic. Civ has always (at least, since Civ 2, the first rendition that I played) been about relentless Upward Progress from Turn One. That makes me very nervous about how gamers will accept a system built in to the game and virtually inevitable in every game in which Upward Progress becomes (apparently, from what little they have told us) Holding On By Your Fingernails.

It is worth to mention that idea of a crisis mechanic is not new for Sid Meier. In Civilization 1 (!) he planned to include that but finally abandoned.

Here's what AI has to say on that topic:

Yes, Sid Meier did consider including the concept of the “fall of an empire” in the original Civilization game, but ultimately decided against it. The idea was that empires could collapse due to internal strife, corruption, or other factors, reflecting historical events like the fall of the Roman Empire. However, Meier felt that this mechanic would be too punishing and frustrating for players, as it could lead to sudden and irreversible losses1.

Instead, the game focused on building and expanding civilizations, allowing players to recover from setbacks and continue progressing. This decision helped make Civilization more enjoyable and accessible, contributing to its lasting popularity1.

Still Civilization 1 had a kind of crisis mechanic implemented: when an empire's capital was captured by the enemy, the empire could split in half and one of the defeated civilization reappeared owning the cities that revolted.

Sid Meier's Colonization had a crisis mechanic at the end of the game - I really think that wars of independence is such a crisis that could be implemented at the end of Exploration Age/Era. It would really be historical/organic/natural way of introducing new countries in the next, modern Era (Brazil, Mexico etc).

In other games like Master of Orion (2nd iteration) there was an old race appearing from nowhere in the middle of the game and causing havoc on its way (kind of a space Mongols/Huns). It could be a devastating for you empire as they were super hard to defeat. There are few other turn based strategic titles that have some anti-blobbing mechanics in form of serious crises and I didn't notice players complaining about them at all.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It is worth to mention that idea of a crisis mechanic is not new for Sid Meier. In Civilization 1 (!) he planned to include that but finally abandoned.

Here's what AI has to say on that topic:



Still Civilization 1 had a kind of crisis mechanic implemented: when an empire's capital was captured by the enemy, the empire could split in half and one of the defeated civilization reappeared owning the cities that revolted.

Sid Meier's Colonization had a crisis mechanic at the end of the game - I really think that wars of independence is such a crisis that could be implemented at the end of Exploration Age/Era. It would really be historical/organic/natural way of introducing new countries in the next, modern Era (Brazil, Mexico etc).

In other games like Master of Orion (2nd iteration) there was an old race appearing from nowhere in the middle of the game and causing havoc on its way (kind of a space Mongols/Huns). It could be a devastating for you empire as they were super hard to defeat. There are few other turn based strategic titles that have some anti-blobbing mechanics in form of serious crises and I didn't notice players complaining about them at all.

There are numerous examples just in computer games, both Sid-related and otherwise.
The old Birth of the Federation game had Random Events that were largely based on the Star Trek TV episodes, so they were almost all some form of 'Crisis' - a Master Race guarding a solar system that wiped out any ship that entered, etc. The worst was a Borg Cube that could appear, cross the map, massacre every ship and fleet you had, and then leave: as close to a complete Reset of the game as you could imagine.

There have been several Mods for Civ games that tried to simulate Crisis in the Civs. My favorite was a Mod for China in which every time you lost your capital (this was in Civ V, I believe, so that was not a game-ending event) you changed Dynasties, and the new Dynasty had a whole new set of Uniques and attributes. Except for the little matter of the animated voice-acted Eternal Leader, I thought that was the best simulation of the Dynastic Effect ever implemented.

However, the fact remains that mainstream Civ games have been oriented towards relentless Progress, so that any negative event has been largely seen as a Game-Ending Disaster. It will be very interesting to see how the substantially-negative Crisis Periods are handled in Civ VII to counter that perception.

 

[j51]

There have been several Mods for Civ games that tried to simulate Crisis in the Civs. My favorite was a Mod for China in which every time you lost your capital (this was in Civ V, I believe, so that was not a game-ending event) you changed Dynasties, and the new Dynasty had a whole new set of Uniques and attributes. Except for the little matter of the animated voice-acted Eternal Leader, I thought that was the best simulation of the Dynastic Effect ever implemented.

That mod was so cool! And I think it was for Civ V and was The Erilitou culture. I wish I could remember who made it.

 

[Ornen]

Yeah, the transition would appear to be 16th century based on the tech tree.

Do we have shots of the end of Exploration tech tree, or the start of Modern? I haven't seen these (but in general, I would agree it looks like the cutoff is roughly 1700)

It is worth to mention that idea of a crisis mechanic is not new for Sid Meier. In Civilization 1 (!) he planned to include that but finally abandoned.

Here's what AI has to say on that topic:

Do you have a source on this other than "AI said"? It's something I would be very interested in reading about. But AI is prone to make things up in my experience, so I don't consider it a reliable source without other references.

 

[Trengilly]

Do we have shots of the end of Exploration tech tree, or the start of Modern? I haven't seen these (but in general, I would agree it looks like the cutoff is roughly 1700)


Do you have a source on this other than "AI said"? It's something I would be very interested in reading about. But AI is prone to make things up in my experience, so I don't consider it a reliable source without other references.

Yes we have the Exploration tech tree (but perhaps not all of it). Its here on the Civ 7 wiki section

Civilization VII – The tech tree - CivFanatics

In Civilization 7, each of the three eras (antiquity, age of exploration, modern age) will have a separate tech tree.Each technology can be resarched multiple times, called "mastery", probably giving better bonuses. You can discuss the tech tree with us here. Currently we have seen only the tech...

www.civfanatics.com

It is surprisingly early oriented with 'gunpowder' of all things coming at the end