What's your opinion on civ switching?

[UWHabs]

The era reset is at least as big. You get a major “last ten turns” problem where you know the axe is coming, so you start gaming it in all sorts of narrative butchering ways.

Unlike Age points in VI?

There is a much bigger gap in 7 what happens to the end of an age reset, vs what happens in the ages in 6. Sure, in 6 there's times where I might hold off a building or wonder by a turn or two to shift to the next era, but in 7 I do have the problem where I know there's only, say, 20 turns left in the age. Is it even worth it to build a hospital, knowing that very shortly thereafter it's going to lose basically all its value?

 

[Gorbles]

There is a much bigger gap in 7 what happens to the end of an age reset, vs what happens in the ages in 6. Sure, in 6 there's times where I might hold off a building or wonder by a turn or two to shift to the next era, but in 7 I do have the problem where I know there's only, say, 20 turns left in the age. Is it even worth it to build a hospital, knowing that very shortly thereafter it's going to lose basically all its value?

Is the mechanical impact different? Sure.

Do people gamify both because that's the optimal path? Yes.

 

[Siptah]

There is a much bigger gap in 7 what happens to the end of an age reset, vs what happens in the ages in 6. Sure, in 6 there's times where I might hold off a building or wonder by a turn or two to shift to the next era, but in 7 I do have the problem where I know there's only, say, 20 turns left in the age. Is it even worth it to build a hospital, knowing that very shortly thereafter it's going to lose basically all its value?

Which is made even more problematic in my eyes because there‘s often not much else to do at the end of the second age. You‘ve built all buildings that you wanted to build. Some actually have a use going forward (universities, sometimes walls). But what else to do? Projects aren‘t really thrilling. So, I think it really needs the crisis to push things and make the last turns more attractive. E.g., pestilence is very rough (much more than now) but it’s impact is reduced in cities with hospitals? Another crises interacts with banks?

 

[aieeegrunt]

Unlike Age points in VI?

Yes, that is correct

They are BOTH terrible mechanics

7 manages to be much worse, because of course it is.

 

[Gorbles]

Yes, that is correct

They are BOTH terrible mechanics

7 manages to be much worse, because of course it is.

Well, agree to disagree then. Adding the timer to VII seemed to get positive feedback.

 

[Siptah]

Well, agree to disagree then. Adding the timer to VII seemed to get positive feedback.

The timer is a really, really useful addition. as it allows to plan what to do in the last turns. Before, you never knew how many turns were left, and the age could often end too abruptly. The counter could have been very misleading if many era points were accumulated in a single turn. The 10 turn safety net makes the transition more fun imho.

 

[UWHabs]

The timer is a really, really useful addition. as it allows to plan what to do in the last turns. Before, you never knew how many turns were left, and the age could often end too abruptly. The counter could have been very misleading if many era points were accumulated in a single turn. The 10 turn safety net makes the transition more fun imho.

Yeah, I definitely had games where I hit the 70% mark, meaning there was up to 60 turns left or so, but then you finish like 3 of the paths on the same turn and it shoots over. I've definitely had games where my entire crisis period was 5 turns or less.

 

[GeneralZift]

There's also another big difference. The Civ6 age timer does not disrupt your plan the same way the Civ7 age timer does.
As others mentioned, if you have a structure in construction and the C7 Age timer goes up, then you may cancel that structure since you know the value is about to be diminished.
And the wars / diplomacy get disrupted, and your army might teleport, some of your units get replaced or deleted.

However, in Civ6, the structures do not lose value suddenly, even if the age timer elapses. Nothing happens to your army, and the ages elapse as you might expect, fluidly.

The Civ6 age timer can be inconsequential - ie the 'Normal Age' and you can play like normal and most of the time you do not have to engage with it.
You can't really ignore the Civ7 age system.

By the way, the Dark -> Gold becoming a Heroic age was a very smart detail from the developers to help pull losing players and AI (in theory) out of terrible situations.
It also got harder and harder to get a golden age if you've passed many already, and vice versa.
So yes, and most of the time, the Ages system in 6 supplemented your plan, not hindered it, even if you got a Dark age, you had those 'Dark Age Policies' that helped you climb out for a cost.

One of my big critiques of that system was just that the points were added up superficially, like if you just build a unique unit, or do XYZ random stuff to get some random points.
It doesn't strictly measure how well you're doing.

 

[Gorbles]

The Civ6 age timer can be inconsequential - ie the 'Normal Age' and you can play like normal and most of the time you do not have to engage with it.
You can't really ignore the Civ7 age system.

Yes, and it was at times criticised for being so ineffective. The Dramatic Ages option was popular for this exact reason.

We're seeing a similar situation play out here, just a bit in reverse (too effective at interrupting a demographic of players, leading to the Continuity option and presumably more changes in the future).

 

[aieeegrunt]

There's also another big difference. The Civ6 age timer does not disrupt your plan the same way the Civ7 age timer does.
As others mentioned, if you have a structure in construction and the C7 Age timer goes up, then you may cancel that structure since you know the value is about to be diminished.
And the wars / diplomacy get disrupted, and your army might teleport, some of your units get replaced or deleted.

However, in Civ6, the structures do not lose value suddenly, even if the age timer elapses. Nothing happens to your army, and the ages elapse as you might expect, fluidly.

The Civ6 age timer can be inconsequential - ie the 'Normal Age' and you can play like normal and most of the time you do not have to engage with it.
You can't really ignore the Civ7 age system.

By the way, the Dark -> Gold becoming a Heroic age was a very smart detail from the developers to help pull losing players and AI (in theory) out of terrible situations.
It also got harder and harder to get a golden age if you've passed many already, and vice versa.
So yes, and most of the time, the Ages system in 6 supplemented your plan, not hindered it, even if you got a Dark age, you had those 'Dark Age Policies' that helped you climb out for a cost.

One of my big critiques of that system was just that the points were added up superficially, like if you just build a unique unit, or do XYZ random stuff to get some random points.
It doesn't strictly measure how well you're doing.

And this is why trying to defend the era reset in Civ7 by saying “But 6 had Ages” is garbage on multiple levels.

It’s like saying a gangrenous foot is OK because the other guy has an ingrown toenail.

Not only is your foot still full of gangrene, but the ingrown tonail is not even close to being as bad.

 

[Leucarum]

Dramatic Ages option was popular for this exact reason.

Dramatic Ages was popular? I don't think I ever heard of anyone using it except the brief window after it was released. Maybe I'm wrong but it never seemed like an option which anyone ever mentioned using.

 

[aieeegrunt]

Dramatic Ages was popular? I don't think I ever heard of anyone using it except the brief window after it was released. Maybe I'm wrong but it never seemed like an option which anyone ever mentioned using.

I have no idea. I would turn it on now and then to shake things up.

 

[GeneralZift]

Yes, and it was at times criticised for being so ineffective. The Dramatic Ages option was popular for this exact reason.

We're seeing a similar situation play out here, just a bit in reverse (too effective at interrupting a demographic of players, leading to the Continuity option and presumably more changes in the future).

I've never heard anyone say dramatic ages was popular. But even if the mechanic was ineffective it's better than being 'too effective'.

If the Civ6 ages system did nothing at its best and Civ7 ages system always interrupted your gameplay, then you'd probably prefer the system that was less interruptive.

Even dramatic ages doesn't interrupt you as much.

But you know, dramatic ages, era stars and the Civ7 ages all have one thing in common, and that is, forcing the player to play a particular way to avoid falling behind.

You know it's not exactly the same but Espionage is a system people don't always enjoy in Civ games for the last 3 entries.
But we appreciate it because it's occasionally useful and sometimes enjoyable.
If the game forced you to use Espionage or you will lose, then the game would be irritating and get in your way.

 

[Gorbles]

Dramatic Ages was popular? I don't think I ever heard of anyone using it except the brief window after it was released. Maybe I'm wrong but it never seemed like an option which anyone ever mentioned using.

I've only ever seen it praised on here, though I'm not really active in the VI subforum anymore.

Doesn't really change the fact Golden / Dark Ages were criticised for being ineffective. To follow on:

But even if the mechanic was ineffective it's better than being 'too effective'.

If the Civ6 ages system did nothing at its best and Civ7 ages system always interrupted your gameplay, then you'd probably prefer the system that was less interruptive.

I think that's very much preferential.

We have players that think both were bad, both were good, one was good and one wasn't (and within that, good and bad for different reasons). This isn't to say these demographics are equal in size, but they're all a part of the existing playerbase.

It's a difficult needle for the developers to thread.

 

[EpicWestern]

Is it even worth it to build a hospital, knowing that very shortly thereafter it's going to lose basically all its value?

If you can get the plague hospital from the crises then yes. But yeah your point is far, and despite me loving the age system in theory (and after getting used to it) buildings at the late stages of the ages are still severely underpowered and need buffs. Make lighthouses ageless (its not like real-world lighthouses suddenly became obsolete in the actual exploration age). Shift arena, and blacksmith to be much earlier in tech tree. Pretty much half the buildings in the modern age are severely underpowered and need to be shifted up the tech tree and reduced in production cost. I think the age countdown timer was a positive fix, but doing the math for every city to figure out what buildings will actually finish in time is a bit unpleasant. Why are we even allowed to build anything at all in the last turn? Some sort of building or project needs to be introduced where production carries over into the next age.

 

[GeneralZift]

We have players that think both were bad, both were good, one was good and one wasn't (and within that, good and bad for different reasons). This isn't to say these demographics are equal in size, but they're all a part of the existing playerbase.

It's a difficult needle for the developers to thread.

Perhaps you are right about that. But that is exactly why the choice was available in the first place in Civ6.
You could choose to play the regular game where the Ages system was conservative and bland or you could have chosen to play the dramatic mode, where the game is perhaps more challenging.

The point is, the way to play was available for the player to choose. The C6 Ages system is Modular. You could live without it and the game would make sense.

The C7 Ages are very much so baked into the game, that it's quite tough to imagine what Civ7 would look like without it.
That's why many people say a classic mode is infeasible even though a classic mode is what people want.

I think it wasn't a bad idea for them to experiment.
I just think it was a bad idea for them to assume (maybe based on their own market research or something) that the way they designed the game is the way everybody plays.
And they went with a rather unpopular way to play, as it turns out (that's my opinion based on stats).

From the start they should have embraced a 'play it your way' type of game.
Like Smash, where you choose to play with or without items, on whatever stages with whoever you want. It would be quite unpopular for Nintendo to force you to play with Items. The same is true here.
I understand many mechanics are integral to how a game is played, and so you can't design a game where everything is optional.

So to be honest, they need to make sure that they only put in the base game what is certain to be their least divisive mechanics, and try to design something with broad appeal in the base mechanics, and work their way outwards from there.

 

[Crashdummy]

Yes, and it was at times criticised for being so ineffective. The Dramatic Ages option was popular for this exact reason.

We're seeing a similar situation play out here, just a bit in reverse (too effective at interrupting a demographic of players, leading to the Continuity option and presumably more changes in the future).

The main difference is that it was an OPTION. I played a single game with Dramatic Ages, understood its not for me, and disabled it. It didnt affect my gameplay that the OPTION was present for others and others were enjoying it

If we had a Classic Mode in Civ 7, then Ages and Civ switching wouldnt be an issue, because others playing with them doesnt affect my gameplay

It's a difficult needle for the developers to thread.

Its not, that is why options exist. Thats what the Advanced Options section should be about

 

[Gorbles]

The main difference is that it was an OPTION. I played a single game with Dramatic Ages, understood its not for me, and disabled it. It didnt affect my gameplay that the OPTION was present for others and others were enjoying it

Not everything in a game can be optional. The base game itself has to be a game that people play.

You dislike the base game in VII. That doesn't mean that because things in it aren't optional, that they're therefore bad. Things are bad when they break your immersion, or you find them boring.

Do we petition the devs to remove boring win conditions? No, we petition them to make them better.

 

[AD1730]

If we had a Classic Mode in Civ 7, then Ages and Civ switching wouldnt be an issue, because others playing with them doesnt affect my gameplay

I just don't see how a fully functioning classic mode will be implemented alongside a fully functioning civ switching/ages mode. The number of mechanics that must be changed and supported over the years is orders of magnitude larger than Dramatic Ages.

 

[aieeegrunt]

I just don't see how a fully functioning classic mode will be implemented alongside a fully functioning civ switching/ages mode. The number of mechanics that must be changed and supported over the years is orders of magnitude larger than Dramatic Ages.

Well you better hope they figure it out or this game has no future