Why era change is so much controversial

[Lazy sweeper]

At this point I could type a lot of text in capital letters, all of which would be not suitable for publishing, but I'll just say, my immersion is completely shattered and my would be pleasant evening of Civ7 on this new 1.2.0 build is totally ruined. I'll go and seek tranquility in some ot

Nordic tribes and Nomads looted Rome to the ground multiple times, slaves revolted, coins were made of lead, and only the rich families got enough gold left to keep some private army... The Medici family in Florence is just one example of what survived that transition... All of Europe followed suit... the Kings from the North and distant kingdoms flourished, but not Rome or any territory of what is now Italy had Kings. Burgundy and Savoy was mostly french speaking, a branch of them became the future King of Piedmont, Savoy and Sardinia... anyway... the cutoff is felt differently from civ to civ...
Global Economy halted... civs with very weak internal sustainability suffered the most.
Maybe these victory conditions could change in future updates. Maybe a Meteorite could strike the Ocean and wipe out 99.5 of your civ in one blow. Mountains of Mud over your old libraries and only traditions written in clay or Stone would survive... it appears there has been way worst "Age" transition for many Civs in History than the rampant corruption and currency total collapse others felt...
Myceneans being one of them...

Maybe you should be forced to burn to the ground all your cities like Nero... then get a random event... more decisions making events nodes that could unlock more random nodes...
Should you have more power over these nodes choices based from your gameplay decisions or not so much?
I'd lean over the first half, but the floodgate is open...
I'd prefer happiness and resources, science achievement, would be more relevant than policies, or governors choices influencing these, and zero.one is better than none...
more governors or personas could open new possible scenarios... all is possible

 

[Krikkit1]

Nordic tribes and Nomads looted Rome to the ground multiple times, slaves revolted, coins were made of lead, and only the rich families got enough gold left to keep some private army... The Medici family in Florence is just one example of what survived that transition... All of Europe followed suit... the Kings from the North and distant kingdoms flourished, but not Rome or any territory of what is now Italy had Kings. Burgundy and Savoy was mostly french speaking, a branch of them became the future King of Piedmont, Savoy and Sardinia... anyway... the cutoff is felt differently from civ to civ...
Global Economy halted... civs with very weak internal sustainability suffered the most.
Maybe these victory conditions could change in future updates. Maybe a Meteorite could strike the Ocean and wipe out 99.5 of your civ in one blow. Mountains of Mud over your old libraries and only traditions written in clay or Stone would survive... it appears there has been way worst "Age" transition for many Civs in History than the rampant corruption and currency total collapse others felt...
Myceneans being one of them...

Maybe you should be forced to burn to the ground all your cities like Nero... then get a random event... more decisions making events nodes that could unlock more random nodes...
Should you have more power over these nodes choices based from your gameplay decisions or not so much?
I'd lean over the first half, but the floodgate is open...
I'd prefer happiness and resources, science achievement, would be more relevant than policies, or governors choices influencing these, and zero.one is better than none...
more governors or personas could open new possible scenarios... all is possible

The transition itself wasn’t the problem
The problem was, in his game Rome was a despotism for the entire Ancient age…but in Exploration the Narrative referenced their people’s longstanding resistance to Despotism…. That should not apply… ie immersion broken

 

[Lazy sweeper]

The transition itself wasn’t the problem
The problem was, in his game Rome was a despotism for the entire Ancient age…but in Exploration the Narrative referenced their people’s longstanding resistance to Despotism…. That should not apply… ie immersion broken

Well what would you suggest for a crisis ending paragraph?

The proud roman people rejected the idea of having a King as their ruler but their love for Despotism and Tyranny endured through the Ages.
Despite that, rampant corruption destroyed any functionality of the old bureaucratic system and people lost all their gold. The Army is no more
except some loyal commanders and newcomers find no resistance occupying the void left in the power structure. A change is due... ????

Or

The people revolted against the Tyranny and Despotic rule that brought them to ruin. Maybe a King would have saved them, but they hate that idea
too... their distrust versus the authoritarian rules has reached a breaking point... Who will take the power now??? Will the Roman East Empire save the last remnants of glory of Rome and bring back together the shattered pieces of the West Empire and unite again under a single banner?? What destiny awaits the old Roman Republic? (Or this should be changed to the government of choice used in the play like - the old Roman Tyranny? etc)?

Either ways seems completely plausible to me... imo.

 

[AD1730]

Well what would you suggest for a crisis ending paragraph?

The proud roman people rejected the idea of having a King as their ruler but their love for Despotism and Tyranny endured through the Ages.
Despite that, rampant corruption destroyed any functionality of the old bureaucratic system and people lost all their gold. The Army is no more
except some loyal commanders and newcomers find no resistance occupying the void left in the power structure. A change is due... ????

Or

The people revolted against the Tyranny and Despotic rule that brought them to ruin. Maybe a King would have saved them, but they hate that idea
too... their distrust versus the authoritarian rules has reached a breaking point... Who will take the power now??? Will the Roman East Empire save the last remnants of glory of Rome and bring back together the shattered pieces of the West Empire and unite again under a single banner??

Either ways seems completely plausible to me... imo.

With the the design of Civ 7, Firaxis is running up against the same sort of issue that Bethesda did with Fallout 4: defining the player-character too much in a franchise where players are used to doing that themselves.

 

[MutilationWave]

Well what would you suggest for a crisis ending paragraph?

The proud roman people rejected the idea of having a King as their ruler but their love for Despotism and Tyranny endured through the Ages.
Despite that, rampant corruption destroyed any functionality of the old bureaucratic system and people lost all their gold. The Army is no more
except some loyal commanders and newcomers find no resistance occupying the void left in the power structure. A change is due... ????

Or

The people revolted against the Tyranny and Despotic rule that brought them to ruin. Maybe a King would have saved them, but they hate that idea
too... their distrust versus the authoritarian rules has reached a breaking point... Who will take the power now??? Will the Roman East Empire save the last remnants of glory of Rome and bring back together the shattered pieces of the West Empire and unite again under a single banner?? What destiny awaits the old Roman Republic? (Or this should be changed to the government of choice used in the play like - the old Roman Tyranny? etc)?

Either ways seems completely plausible to me... imo.

I think you're relying too much on history. In fact I think that's one of the biggest arguments right now among fans and detractors. Some people seem to want to get as close as possible to simulating what we know of world history. That's f&z$ boring. Let it be what it always has been, a fantasy game with references to real world history.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I think you're relying too much on history. In fact I think that's one of the biggest arguments right now among fans and detractors. Some people seem to want to get as close as possible to simulating what we know of world history. That's f&z$ boring. Let it be what it always has been, a fantasy game with references to real world history.

While I agree with you, there are different ways to play and enjoy the game. I was surprised with TSL popularity, but it actually is, many people play the same map over and over again just because it's historically accurate.

But yes, while trying to simulate real world history is possible with civ games, it never was a primary intended way to play them.

 

[Pedro P]

I think you're relying too much on history. In fact I think that's one of the biggest arguments right now among fans and detractors. Some people seem to want to get as close as possible to simulating what we know of world history. That's f&z$ boring. Let it be what it always has been, a fantasy game with references to real world history.

Odd that you say that when I think the opposite is true, civ change is there to please the people who had an issue with bronze age George Washington among other things.

One of the main problems I have currently with this game is that no matter what, if I am playing a Native American civilization, I am necessarily colonized, there is no escape. Because IRL these people were genocided, and denied a level of independence unlike anything seen in another continent, well, they too vanish in the game.

Didn't happen in any other game. Never had "real history" be so exclusive before. Civ 1 didn't go "hey Aztecs, your time is up, go to the grave."

Oh sure I can imagine in my mind if I like go from Inca to Nepal but man, I didn't have to imagine stuff before. And don't get me started on the colonial nations, stuff like Shawnee to US (but you imagine the US wasn't genocidal) might as well be Mutapa to Rodhesia (but you imagine there is less aparthaid)

 

[sixty4half]

One of the main problems I have currently with this game is that no matter what, if I am playing a Native American civilization, I am necessarily colonized, there is no escape. Because IRL these people were genocided, and denied a level of independence unlike anything seen in another continent, well, they too vanish in the game.

Last time I played Shawnee in Exp age I got a ton of Narrative Events in Modern Age. Each event gave me two options on whether my civilization would embrace the culture of the Shawnee or force their peoples to assimilate. It's actually done very respectfully and shows that your civ choices do matter.

 

[Civinator]

Eras in civ games exist since Civ 1 - but the function of eras has changed with Civ 7.

While in all former versions of the civ series, eras had their main function to show special parts in the techtree, the main function of eras and especially the era change in Civ 7 is to connect several otherwise not fitting separate scenarios to a campaign.

You have to accept, that the core for Civ 7 exists since Civ 3 Conquests (C3C) and the conquests in that Civ 3 expansion. In those conquests, 9 completely different scenarios (different in civs, units, techs and many other settings from Mesopotamia up to WW2 in the Pacific) are connected to a campaign by a point score for finishing each of those scenarios and a final point score for finishing all scenarios of the Conquests campaign.

In 2013 I answered in a German civ forum a question about doing "a C3C scenario about Frundsberg (the father of the Landsknechts) with many different historical battles in it, that the best way would be to achieve this by connecting several different scenarios about those battles to a campaign.

The Polish hacked Civ 3 editor shows the function in the C3C scenario properties that connects the different scenarios to a campaign. This function is not visible in the normal Firaxis C3C editors:

As the C3C conquest campaign was developed by Ed Beach and the Breakaway Games, the thought is obvious, that this mechanism also is the base of Civ 7.

With this understanding, in Civ 7 it should be possible to have much more than 3 eras, as even the base mechanism in C3C allows at least the connection of 9 different scenarios (=eras). I have not tested, if there is a limit for connecting different scenarios to a campaign in C3C. The effortful part seems to adapt all the secundary programming around those "eras" that should mask, that the eras in Civ 7 now are used to connect separate scenarios that otherwise are not fitting together.

Btw: The great C3C conquest "Age of Discovery" holds treasure units, that must be transported from the Americas to Europe.

 

[queenpea]

Last time I played Shawnee in Exp age I got a ton of Narrative Events in Modern Age. Each event gave me two options on whether my civilization would embrace the culture of the Shawnee or force their peoples to assimilate. It's actually done very respectfully and shows that your civ choices do matter.

Which Civ did you choose for Modern?

I pay very little attention to the narrative events and find them kind of annoying. I just choose whichever bonus is best.

 

[iammaxhailme]

I like the idea of era change. I like the antiquity and exploration eras. But the modern era really needs some work. Cultural victory is way too easy and you can build the worlds fair and win faster than you can do even half of any other victory, even if you weren't playing cultural at all for the rest of the game. Any time I try to win any other way, I find a nagging thought in my head "just beeline hegemony and you basically win, why are you trying to do anything else?" It's a real disencentive to research my civ's unique civics

 

[queenpea]

I like the idea of era change. I like the antiquity and exploration eras. But the modern era really needs some work. Cultural victory is way too easy and you can build the worlds fair and win faster than you can do even half of any other victory, even if you weren't playing cultural at all for the rest of the game. Any time I try to win any other way, I find a nagging thought in my head "just beeline hegemony and you basically win, why are you trying to do anything else?" It's a real disencentive to research my civ's unique civics

That’s interesting, I’ve found the changes to cultural victory to have really increased the difficulty. AI civs are pretty good at competing here. I guess it all depends on the context. In some games, I’m unstoppable with culture by mid Exploration and the game feels already over.

 

[MutilationWave]

Odd that you say that when I think the opposite is true, civ change is there to please the people who had an issue with bronze age George Washington among other things.

One of the main problems I have currently with this game is that no matter what, if I am playing a Native American civilization, I am necessarily colonized, there is no escape. Because IRL these people were genocided, and denied a level of independence unlike anything seen in another continent, well, they too vanish in the game.

Didn't happen in any other game. Never had "real history" be so exclusive before. Civ 1 didn't go "hey Aztecs, your time is up, go to the grave."

Oh sure I can imagine in my mind if I like go from Inca to Nepal but man, I didn't have to imagine stuff before. And don't get me started on the colonial nations, stuff like Shawnee to US (but you imagine the US wasn't genocidal) might as well be Mutapa to Rodhesia (but you imagine there is less aparthaid)

I went Shawnee to France, because many natives allied themselves with France against the colonies in the French and Indian war. My thought was that they won, and the French, which didn't have much colonial ambition in the Americas, used the alliance (in my head canon) to defeat the colonies. So the natives got their land back, but retained French cultural influence.

 

[MutilationWave]

I like the idea of era change. I like the antiquity and exploration eras. But the modern era really needs some work. Cultural victory is way too easy and you can build the worlds fair and win faster than you can do even half of any other victory, even if you weren't playing cultural at all for the rest of the game. Any time I try to win any other way, I find a nagging thought in my head "just beeline hegemony and you basically win, why are you trying to do anything else?" It's a real disencentive to research my civ's unique civics

This is why I think we need a victory age after modern. It would make modern matter, which would make it fun. It could be your last push to get some legacy points and settle and conquer more territory. Then the victory age would be a short rush to better balanced victory types.

 

[MutilationWave]

That’s interesting, I’ve found the changes to cultural victory to have really increased the difficulty. AI civs are pretty good at competing here. I guess it all depends on the context. In some games, I’m unstoppable with culture by mid Exploration and the game feels already over.

Cultural is still by far the easiest. I can build three archaeologists at the beginning, be halfway smart about spreading them out, then world's fair. The only victory type that can come close in speed is military, but you can't really get started on it until ideologies are up and running. Don't get me started on how comparatively slow economic and science are. It's badly balanced. As I've said many times, we need a victory age after modern that would be a short scramble for balanced victory types, aided by legacy points you gained in modern. Make Modern Matter!

 

[sixty4half]

Which Civ did you choose for Modern?

I pay very little attention to the narrative events and find them kind of annoying. I just choose whichever bonus is best.

France.

I don't that with the goody huts but I try to read the narrative events

 

[uppi]

Cultural is still by far the easiest. I can build three archaeologists at the beginning, be halfway smart about spreading them out, then world's fair. The only victory type that can come close in speed is military, but you can't really get started on it until ideologies are up and running. Don't get me started on how comparatively slow economic and science are. It's badly balanced. As I've said many times, we need a victory age after modern that would be a short scramble for balanced victory types, aided by legacy points you gained in modern. Make Modern Matter!

It may be my playstyle, but in my games I get to the end of the military legacy path first and build Manhattan Project before researching Hegemony. The other 3 paths then happen roughly at the same time. I could probably shave of turns for Economic and Culture if I focused on those, though. For Science, probably not.

 

[queenpea]

Cultural is still by far the easiest. I can build three archaeologists at the beginning, be halfway smart about spreading them out, then world's fair. The only victory type that can come close in speed is military, but you can't really get started on it until ideologies are up and running. Don't get me started on how comparatively slow economic and science are. It's badly balanced. As I've said many times, we need a victory age after modern that would be a short scramble for balanced victory types, aided by legacy points you gained in modern. Make Modern Matter!

I find science to be consistently easier—a couple of city projects aided by allying city states—plus there is less micro with moving the archaeologists around.

 

[queenpea]

France.

I don't that with the goody huts but I try to read the narrative events

I think the devs dodged controversy by moving away from the “historic choice” narrative and instead referring to geographic ties between civs.

Smart choice to be honest.

 

[sixty4half]

I like the idea of era change. I like the antiquity and exploration eras. But the modern era really needs some work. Cultural victory is way too easy and you can build the worlds fair and win faster than you can do even half of any other victory, even if you weren't playing cultural at all for the rest of the game. Any time I try to win any other way, I find a nagging thought in my head "just beeline hegemony and you basically win, why are you trying to do anything else?" It's a real disencentive to research my civ's unique civics

This is why I think we need a victory age after modern. It would make modern matter, which would make it fun. It could be your last push to get some legacy points and settle and conquer more territory. Then the victory age would be a short rush to better balanced victory types.

I just finished an Immortal game and completed the World's Bank on the same turn as the World's Fair. I probably would have been a turn or two earlier on the bank if I hadn't spent money on 2 Explorers; instead I could have just bought more railways and factories as soon as available. If I clicked the World Bank button I won, if I clicked the End turn button I won.

But yeah, I didn't notice much difference between this Culture Victory and the one I did pre-1.1.0. The AI still sent multiple explorers to the same site. The AI still moved Explorers onto sites I was already digging. AI never caught up in Culture so I did all of the Investigations which gives the player an advantage too. It was actually quicker because I got a ton of antiques from Narrative Events and 4 from Nat Wonders.