Why era change is so much controversial

[MutilationWave]

Somebody did a turn 3 military victory because Bulgaria + Buganda is a broken combination.

I'm not a super hardcore player but my personal records after patch 1.1.1 for each victory (including the final project) are turn 27 Military, turn 35 Science, turn 44 Culture and turn 48 Economic. That's on Deity Standard size map.

That's some good playing on your part, I'd call it hardcore.

I abandoned my 300% pillage run because I couldn't get it done before 1.2 came out. Eventually I'll load it back up and see single turn world's fair, etc.

Even going Bulgaria into Prussia with no mausoleum I was getting wonders in one turn with the commander promotion and the Bulgarian traditions. I can't remember where I got the last 50% but that was 150% pillage.

 

[Niallism]

Somebody did a turn 3 military victory because Bulgaria + Buganda is a broken combination.

I'm not a super hardcore player but my personal records after patch 1.1.1 for each victory (including the final project) are turn 27 Military, turn 35 Science, turn 44 Culture and turn 48 Economic. That's on Deity Standard size map.

I mean, you kind of are hardcore, if you're counting minimum times for each victory type.

 

[protocol7]

Maybe I’m misremembering, but doesn’t it show the turn number in game and on your save? You don’t have to be hardcore to figure it out afaik.

 

[McSpank01]

I completely disagree. 15 turns before transition I'm thinking what can I push out in this time to make me better in the next era? Commanders no doubt. Maybe focus a bunch of your cities on culture or science to get a future tech/civic which give you super valuable wildcard points in the next age. Army devastated by war? Spam units up to commander cap.

Even though it's somewhat randomized, if you've been playing a ranged heavy civ and are going into one with a cavalry UU, you can delete your ranged units and produce cavalry to the cap to influence what you'll get on transition. Or you can just delete useless infantry you have for whatever reason, down to the commander cap, so you'll start with more ranged and cavalry. Exception for this if you're going into Shawnee. Their infantry is absurdly good. I assume other civs have good infantry but I haven't played them yet.

I found out through this scramble that if you are one turn from getting a future tech/civic at age transition, you will still get the bonus next age. I assume this works for commanders, wonders, etc as well but I haven't tested that.

This is true, there are a set of things you start doing as the Era comes to a close. The problem with it however is that it feels incredibly gamey and immersion breaking. There is a sense that you need to just interrupt your plans to try and build up your civilisation in a coherent way and carry on the game you were play, in order to cheese out some optimal strategy for the next phase.

I also always get this feeling of 'why should I really bother doing anything more' towards the end of an age, as there is a level where everything you do feels a little bit pointless. Why build the building you were going to go for if it loses it's adjacency? Why try for a Wonder if you know there is no time, why pump out a settler if it won't get there in time? So instead you just start doing gamey stuff, or you do nothing. Its not a good gameplay loop.

 

[Tanel]

I mean, you kind of are hardcore, if you're counting minimum times for each victory type.

Well I'm certain that there are players who are a lot better players out there. Since winning itself is not a challenge for me I just try to see how fast I can win to make it interesting. Like I have a broad plan and key steps necessary to achieve a victory faster but I have not optimized it down to every little detail.

 

[MutilationWave]

Well I'm certain that there are players who are a lot better players out there. Since winning itself is not a challenge for me I just try to see how fast I can win to make it interesting. Like I have a broad plan and key steps necessary to achieve a victory faster but I have not optimized it down to every little detail.

Face it, you're hardcore

 

[Niallism]

Maybe I’m misremembering, but doesn’t it show the turn number in game and on your save? You don’t have to be hardcore to figure it out afaik.

Counting and caring. Not 'can count'.

 

[luca 83]

Because you can not change civilization automatically with a snap of the fingers must be political cultural movements , economic , to determine the end of a civilization. , or the beginning. But no firaxix the Netflix of video games puts states and civilization known only by paleontologists native American tribes , would need a historical consultant, not a linguist shawnee

 

[aelf]

Because you can not change civilization automatically with a snap of the fingers must be political cultural movements , economic , to determine the end of a civilization. , or the beginning. But no firaxix the Netflix of video games puts states and civilization known only by paleontologists native American tribes , would need a historical consultant, not a linguist shawnee

I have no idea what you're saying.

 

[luca 83]

I have no idea what you're saying.

civilizations must have a birth growth death cycle, this is only possible with simulated events and ideologies, it is necessary to be able to historically justify the reason for a religion, a government, a war

 

[Sagax]

I have no idea what you're saying.

This specific user’s posts have been hard to decipher, I assume because they use machine translation to convert what they write in their native language (Sicilian?).

The general gist of what they’re trying to convey in pretty much every single comment in every thread is: civilizations and leaders are nothing but a product of circumstances and grand historical events - and as such, neither should be presented to players on a silver platter. For example, you can’t have America just because you settled in Distant Lands, instead it must be a result of complex game mechanics revolving taxation, loyalty shifts, and so on. Their bigger argument is in regards to leaders: that none of them should be presented as core playable characters. Napoleon shouldn’t exist in the game by himself, he’s just a product of the French Revolution, and if the game wants to give you a Napoleon, then they should make mechanics to replicate the latter. Hatshepsut shouldn’t exist in the game by herself, because she is a product of a civilization that developed in the area of hot climate and fertile river delta, which chose to adopt monarchy with a path to leadership for women - and if you want a Hatshepsut, you must be able to replicate those exact circumstances via game mechanics. And so on.

While I understand the premise of their argument, I’m not sure to what extent a Civ game can or should emulate this.

 

[Tanel]

This specific user’s posts have been hard to decipher, I assume because they use machine translation to convert what they write in their native language (Sicilian?).

The general gist of what they’re trying to convey in pretty much every single comment in every thread is: civilizations and leaders are nothing but a product of circumstances and grand historical events - and as such, neither should be presented to players on a silver platter. For example, you can’t have America just because you settled in Distant Lands, instead it must be a result of complex game mechanics revolving taxation, loyalty shifts, and so on. Their bigger argument is in regards to leaders: that none of them should be presented as core playable characters. Napoleon shouldn’t exist in the game by himself, he’s just a product of the French Revolution, and if the game wants to give you a Napoleon, then they should make mechanics to replicate the latter. Hatshepsut shouldn’t exist in the game by herself, because she is a product of a civilization that developed in the area of hot climate and fertile river delta, which chose to adopt monarchy with a path to leadership for women - and if you want a Hatshepsut, you must be able to replicate those exact circumstances via game mechanics. And so on.

While I understand the premise of their argument, I’m not sure to what extent a Civ game can or should emulate this.

Yeah Civ is a game with historical elements but it has never tried to model history so in depth with such complexity and historical accuracy. And I don't think any game with the scope of Civilization could feasibly do so. The closest you get to this type of historical simulation are Paradox games but those focus on one era and even they are limited in complexity compared to real history.