Would Age Transition Be Fun If Each Age Was One "X" of "4X" Rather Than A Reset?

[tman2000]

I continue to make posts on very specific topics which I think hone in on dark chaos plaguing the Civ 7 game design and controversy in the community. I'd hope for and would like the game to be changed then become fun and popular in the end. I don't think anyone has really figured out how that would happen yet, so Firaxis would have their work cut out. There have been lots of interesting and fun ideas though.

Here's one I'd like to ask about, even to the age-transition skeptics.

What if there were 4 ages, and each was limited to one "X" of "4X". Rather than reset the age at the end, you add a new "X" to the mix. Would that be fun? Here's how I see it:

1. Explore - Antiquity - Scouts, finding resources, geography, wonders, other players, barbarians. Your goal is to develop a picture of your long term strategy and alternatives, and start building them. City size and settlement limits will be harsh. Military units are mostly for fighting barbarians, but you might take a city or two or overwhelm a weak player. You'd fight for a key location or resource, one or two only.
2. Exploit - Medieval - Religious systems, expanded exploration, complex social and cultural systems you commit to, economic infrastructure defining your long term resource commitments, expanding and empowering cities and filling in your interior after your border is established. Here is where you gain a sense of what your final strategy will probably be, and build up the infrastructure to support that strategy. This is a very constrictive age with minimal exploration, and therefore an emphasis on military defense.
3. Expand - Exploration/Colonization - Ocean travel, complex alliances, advance military and siege equipment, emphasis on tactics, global trade networks, the ability to massively break past settlement limitations, unequal military power leading to the fall of many powers and rise of a few empires. The early consolidation of resources into massively productive monopolies. This era introduces more chances to explore and also adjust your strategy (exploit) if you need to pivot or change your fortune. While Act 2 introduces "systems" the Act 4 features will less be systems and more a kind of thermometer or measuring stick on your success that rewards you. For instance, you will not build a rail network, but rather your colonial resources and Act 2 policies maybe modified by Act 3 will pool into an aggregator menu that then moderates the growth of your industry. This is very much a shift in pacing and tenor leading into World War. It won't be a hard interruption or reset, but the game will start to provide fewer options for pursuing alternate strategies and there will be fewer meaningful choices and more executing on the results of your strategy.
4. Exterminate - Modern/World War - Use your global colonial presence and resource access to fund industrialization then leverage into military strength for a final battle royale of alliances. There is low flexibility in this age, but depending on the strategy you've set up since Act 2, you might be able to leverage scientific, cultural or economic power to win in spite of the World War going on around you. This is a tactical age, where culture can be leveraged against economics, economics on military, and so on and so forth. However, there is no more strategic planning. You are deploying pooled resources in a dynamic and finite way.

There wouldn't be a reset between ages, but nevertheless each age transition would be global and features would be limited until you enter the next age, and then towards the final age, introduced features (like religion) will again be limited.

Right now Civ 7 is three mostly parallel ages with the same cadence and the same inadequate and interrupted 4X experience jammed in. Would you accept a "hard" age transition system if instead the 4X experience was explicitly divided between the ages?

For what it's worth, there are rumors that Firaxis's first expansions would have involved more religion, maybe crusades, and also a piracy expansion. If this is true, splitting Exploration and Medieval might be the easiest major addition for Firaxis to accomplish, since the content was prepared to make it large enough to be split. If they have four ages, they might be able to adjust settlement limits, social systems and diversify tech to produce a "4X, 4 Ages" calibration.

For instance, they could create a single line tech tree for Modern that's maybe 7 upgrades. Modern would be a race during World War, and little more. It could be intentionally shorter or smaller in scope even if sometimes Modern wars lasted long. That would correct for the snowballing concern.

Finally, they could make all civs "bridge". So all Civs have the potential to exist in up to two acts for which they are suited. Egypt and Rome could each exist in Ancient and Modern. The Normans in Medieval and Exploration. Great Britain in Exploration and Modern. This sort of idea. Providing a bit more strategic and gameplay flexibility even while maintaining age-based civs. This raises an interesting question of what is the nuanced difference between an Expand and Exterminate civ versus an Exploit and Expand civ.

 

[Xandinho]

I’m not so sure about that. I think that if the civilization-switching system is already highly controversial on its own, adding even more transitions is far from the best way forward. Anything that undermines the player’s sense of identification with their civ will never be a good idea. The best way to reduce the backlash against the system (if that’s even possible) would be to make the swaps feel less abrupt, with historical connections that genuinely make sense and, if possible, allow players who perform well with their civilization to carry it into the next era. After all, I don’t think every empire needs to collapse—or collapse at the same time. And of course, making the eras feel less scripted would also go a long way toward improving all of this.

 

[Vandlys]

I continue to make posts on very specific topics which I think hone in on dark chaos plaguing the Civ 7 game design and controversy in the community. I'd hope for and would like the game to be changed then become fun and popular in the end. I don't think anyone has really figured out how that would happen yet, so Firaxis would have their work cut out. There have been lots of interesting and fun ideas though.

Here's one I'd like to ask about, even to the age-transition skeptics.

What if there were 4 ages, and each was limited to one "X" of "4X". Rather than reset the age at the end, you add a new "X" to the mix. Would that be fun? Here's how I see it:

1. Explore - Antiquity - Scouts, finding resources, geography, wonders, other players, barbarians. Your goal is to develop a picture of your long term strategy and alternatives, and start building them. City size and settlement limits will be harsh. Military units are mostly for fighting barbarians, but you might take a city or two or overwhelm a weak player. You'd fight for a key location or resource, one or two only.
2. Exploit - Medieval - Religious systems, expanded exploration, complex social and cultural systems you commit to, economic infrastructure defining your long term resource commitments, expanding and empowering cities and filling in your interior after your border is established. Here is where you gain a sense of what your final strategy will probably be, and build up the infrastructure to support that strategy. This is a very constrictive age with minimal exploration, and therefore an emphasis on military defense.
3. Expand - Exploration/Colonization - Ocean travel, complex alliances, advance military and siege equipment, emphasis on tactics, global trade networks, the ability to massively break past settlement limitations, unequal military power leading to the fall of many powers and rise of a few empires. The early consolidation of resources into massively productive monopolies. This era introduces more chances to explore and also adjust your strategy (exploit) if you need to pivot or change your fortune. While Act 2 introduces "systems" the Act 4 features will less be systems and more a kind of thermometer or measuring stick on your success that rewards you. For instance, you will not build a rail network, but rather your colonial resources and Act 2 policies maybe modified by Act 3 will pool into an aggregator menu that then moderates the growth of your industry. This is very much a shift in pacing and tenor leading into World War. It won't be a hard interruption or reset, but the game will start to provide fewer options for pursuing alternate strategies and there will be fewer meaningful choices and more executing on the results of your strategy.
4. Exterminate - Modern/World War - Use your global colonial presence and resource access to fund industrialization then leverage into military strength for a final battle royale of alliances. There is low flexibility in this age, but depending on the strategy you've set up since Act 2, you might be able to leverage scientific, cultural or economic power to win in spite of the World War going on around you. This is a tactical age, where culture can be leveraged against economics, economics on military, and so on and so forth. However, there is no more strategic planning. You are deploying pooled resources in a dynamic and finite way.

There wouldn't be a reset between ages, but nevertheless each age transition would be global and features would be limited until you enter the next age, and then towards the final age, introduced features (like religion) will again be limited.

Right now Civ 7 is three mostly parallel ages with the same cadence and the same inadequate and interrupted 4X experience jammed in. Would you accept a "hard" age transition system if instead the 4X experience was explicitly divided between the ages?

For what it's worth, there are rumors that Firaxis's first expansions would have involved more religion, maybe crusades, and also a piracy expansion. If this is true, splitting Exploration and Medieval might be the easiest major addition for Firaxis to accomplish, since the content was prepared to make it large enough to be split. If they have four ages, they might be able to adjust settlement limits, social systems and diversify tech to produce a "4X, 4 Ages" calibration.

For instance, they could create a single line tech tree for Modern that's maybe 7 upgrades. Modern would be a race during World War, and little more. It could be intentionally shorter or smaller in scope even if sometimes Modern wars lasted long. That would correct for the snowballing concern.

Finally, they could make all civs "bridge". So all Civs have the potential to exist in up to two acts for which they are suited. Egypt and Rome could each exist in Ancient and Modern. The Normans in Medieval and Exploration. Great Britain in Exploration and Modern. This sort of idea. Providing a bit more strategic and gameplay flexibility even while maintaining age-based civs. This raises an interesting question of what is the nuanced difference between an Expand and Exterminate civ versus an Exploit and Expand civ.

Ugh. Being forced into war every time? No thank you. I would stop before the modern age at all times then. I love playing peaceful, and oftentimes only wage war to challenge myself or if I'm attacked first.

 

[GeneralZift]

I kind of think your idea was sort of baked into the game itself in the past. No transitions, but think about it - the medieval era is when you get a lot of improvements. You can't cross ocean until the exploration era. Once you hit modern is when you develop heavy artillery, bombers, etc.

The game seems designed to pivot you like this in the first place. Like Civ5 ideology would pit you against others once you hit the Modern era, it was pretty explicit.

I think subtlety works best, I don't like hamfisted transitions personally, of any type, in a game like this.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

What if there were 4 ages, and each was limited to one "X" of "4X". Rather than reset the age at the end, you add a new "X" to the mix. Would that be fun? Here's how I see it:

1. Explore - Antiquity - Scouts, finding resources, geography, wonders, other players, barbarians. Your goal is to develop a picture of your long term strategy and alternatives, and start building them. City size and settlement limits will be harsh. Military units are mostly for fighting barbarians, but you might take a city or two or overwhelm a weak player. You'd fight for a key location or resource, one or two only.
2. Exploit - Medieval - Religious systems, expanded exploration, complex social and cultural systems you commit to, economic infrastructure defining your long term resource commitments, expanding and empowering cities and filling in your interior after your border is established. Here is where you gain a sense of what your final strategy will probably be, and build up the infrastructure to support that strategy. This is a very constrictive age with minimal exploration, and therefore an emphasis on military defense.
3. Expand - Exploration/Colonization - Ocean travel, complex alliances, advance military and siege equipment, emphasis on tactics, global trade networks, the ability to massively break past settlement limitations, unequal military power leading to the fall of many powers and rise of a few empires. The early consolidation of resources into massively productive monopolies. This era introduces more chances to explore and also adjust your strategy (exploit) if you need to pivot or change your fortune. While Act 2 introduces "systems" the Act 4 features will less be systems and more a kind of thermometer or measuring stick on your success that rewards you. For instance, you will not build a rail network, but rather your colonial resources and Act 2 policies maybe modified by Act 3 will pool into an aggregator menu that then moderates the growth of your industry. This is very much a shift in pacing and tenor leading into World War. It won't be a hard interruption or reset, but the game will start to provide fewer options for pursuing alternate strategies and there will be fewer meaningful choices and more executing on the results of your strategy.
4. Exterminate - Modern/World War - Use your global colonial presence and resource access to fund industrialization then leverage into military strength for a final battle royale of alliances. There is low flexibility in this age, but depending on the strategy you've set up since Act 2, you might be able to leverage scientific, cultural or economic power to win in spite of the World War going on around you. This is a tactical age, where culture can be leveraged against economics, economics on military, and so on and so forth. However, there is no more strategic planning. You are deploying pooled resources in a dynamic and finite way.

There wouldn't be a reset between ages, but nevertheless each age transition would be global and features would be limited until you enter the next age, and then towards the final age, introduced features (like religion) will again be limited.

It is an interesting idea. But your description does not really sound like each Age would be strictly limited to only one X. In the Antiquity Age, the focus might be on early exploration but there would still be some eXterminate since you are fighting barbarians. There would still be some eXpand since you would presumably build a few more settlements. And there would still be some eXploit as you manage your settlements and build some tile improvements to get resources like iron. So Antiquity would still have all 4 Xs. just maybe eXploration would be the more dominant X. Same for the other Ages. Medieval would still have some eXploration, some eXpand and some eXterminate, it is just that eXploit would become more dominant. Similarly, the Modern Age would see eXterminate reach its climax in a world war where the military tech in the game becomes the most destructive. So it sounds more like each Age would have a special focus on one particular X, not that it would be limited to only one X.

I would argue that you can put a focus on a different X or introduce new mechanics during the game that develop one of the Xs without Age transitions at all. In fact, many 4X games already do this by design:

The early game tends to focus on eXploration anyway since the player needs to explore their surroundings to see where to expland, discover resources to exploit or discover any potential enemies. Once you explore enough of the map around you, the focus shifts to eXpand and eXploit as you build more cities and start to develop them. So the mid game tends to focus on eXploit. Also, once your borders push against your neighbors, competition for space tends to provoke wars. so eXterminate becomes a bigger focus. And eXploration and eXpand tend to diminish in the second haf of the game as the map becomes fully revealed and filled up by all players.

And as you go through the tech tree, you naturally open up new options in the 4X. For example, you unlock the ability to travel the deep ocean which allows you to eXplore more of the map. You get new military units, including getting sea and air units, that unlock new strategies to eXterminate. The religion system can start pretty basic with just pantheon beliefs and shrines that you build in your cities, but later you unlock temples and missionaries. A tech unlocks merchant units which give you a new strategy in eXploit.

I think if you tried to force each Age to only be one X, that would be a mistake. It would be the same mistake as civ-switching. It tries to force the player to follow the same strategy or path. The whole point of 4X is to let the player develop their own strategy and follow their own path for how they want to build their empire and win. So the player needs to decide what X they want to focus on. If the game restricts the player in what X to focus on, then it takes away from the strategy.

 

[UWHabs]

Yeah, the whole point of 4X is that all 4 of them are effectively in competition with each other. The game is about a balance of them all, figuring out which of them needs your effort the most, and then using them together to get ahead.

Sure, some ages can be more focused one one than the others. But, for example, a big reason why right now the modern age always feels weak is that you lose pretty much all of the explore and expand parts of the game.

 

[King Flevance]

This feels even more restricting than 7 currently is. I would like Civ 7's ages to feel more distinct in the way of maybe trade routes in exploration no longer copy resources but now give a bonus to happiness, gold, and food to both cities with increase trade route range. Maybe adjacency bonuses now effect different buildings. Making small changes like this that will change your overall strategy would feel fresh and still offer player agency. Rather than telling the player "Now, you will do this, because I said so."

 

[Crashdummy]

I continue to make posts on very specific topics which I think hone in on dark chaos plaguing the Civ 7 game design and controversy in the community. I'd hope for and would like the game to be changed then become fun and popular in the end. I don't think anyone has really figured out how that would happen yet, so Firaxis would have their work cut out. There have been lots of interesting and fun ideas though.

Here's one I'd like to ask about, even to the age-transition skeptics.

What if there were 4 ages, and each was limited to one "X" of "4X". Rather than reset the age at the end, you add a new "X" to the mix. Would that be fun? Here's how I see it:

1. Explore - Antiquity - Scouts, finding resources, geography, wonders, other players, barbarians. Your goal is to develop a picture of your long term strategy and alternatives, and start building them. City size and settlement limits will be harsh. Military units are mostly for fighting barbarians, but you might take a city or two or overwhelm a weak player. You'd fight for a key location or resource, one or two only.
2. Exploit - Medieval - Religious systems, expanded exploration, complex social and cultural systems you commit to, economic infrastructure defining your long term resource commitments, expanding and empowering cities and filling in your interior after your border is established. Here is where you gain a sense of what your final strategy will probably be, and build up the infrastructure to support that strategy. This is a very constrictive age with minimal exploration, and therefore an emphasis on military defense.
3. Expand - Exploration/Colonization - Ocean travel, complex alliances, advance military and siege equipment, emphasis on tactics, global trade networks, the ability to massively break past settlement limitations, unequal military power leading to the fall of many powers and rise of a few empires. The early consolidation of resources into massively productive monopolies. This era introduces more chances to explore and also adjust your strategy (exploit) if you need to pivot or change your fortune. While Act 2 introduces "systems" the Act 4 features will less be systems and more a kind of thermometer or measuring stick on your success that rewards you. For instance, you will not build a rail network, but rather your colonial resources and Act 2 policies maybe modified by Act 3 will pool into an aggregator menu that then moderates the growth of your industry. This is very much a shift in pacing and tenor leading into World War. It won't be a hard interruption or reset, but the game will start to provide fewer options for pursuing alternate strategies and there will be fewer meaningful choices and more executing on the results of your strategy.
4. Exterminate - Modern/World War - Use your global colonial presence and resource access to fund industrialization then leverage into military strength for a final battle royale of alliances. There is low flexibility in this age, but depending on the strategy you've set up since Act 2, you might be able to leverage scientific, cultural or economic power to win in spite of the World War going on around you. This is a tactical age, where culture can be leveraged against economics, economics on military, and so on and so forth. However, there is no more strategic planning. You are deploying pooled resources in a dynamic and finite way.

There wouldn't be a reset between ages, but nevertheless each age transition would be global and features would be limited until you enter the next age, and then towards the final age, introduced features (like religion) will again be limited.

Right now Civ 7 is three mostly parallel ages with the same cadence and the same inadequate and interrupted 4X experience jammed in. Would you accept a "hard" age transition system if instead the 4X experience was explicitly divided between the ages?

For what it's worth, there are rumors that Firaxis's first expansions would have involved more religion, maybe crusades, and also a piracy expansion. If this is true, splitting Exploration and Medieval might be the easiest major addition for Firaxis to accomplish, since the content was prepared to make it large enough to be split. If they have four ages, they might be able to adjust settlement limits, social systems and diversify tech to produce a "4X, 4 Ages" calibration.

For instance, they could create a single line tech tree for Modern that's maybe 7 upgrades. Modern would be a race during World War, and little more. It could be intentionally shorter or smaller in scope even if sometimes Modern wars lasted long. That would correct for the snowballing concern.

Finally, they could make all civs "bridge". So all Civs have the potential to exist in up to two acts for which they are suited. Egypt and Rome could each exist in Ancient and Modern. The Normans in Medieval and Exploration. Great Britain in Exploration and Modern. This sort of idea. Providing a bit more strategic and gameplay flexibility even while maintaining age-based civs. This raises an interesting question of what is the nuanced difference between an Expand and Exterminate civ versus an Exploit and Expand civ.

I think the design ov Civ 1-6 is superior to this one. I dont think Civilization needs MORE restrictions to the player, i think it needs to give the players their freedom back

If you want to exterminate in antiquity, you should be able to attempt it, and if you succeed, great. If instead you want to poay for the long game, thats great too

Civilization should be about having options and play the way you want instead of restricting and trying to streamline the game for the player. Players dont need Devs holding their hands telling them what to do in each Age

The best design was the one we already have and Civilization needs to make new games around that design, a design of FREEDOM OF CHOICE

We need to stop thinking on how we restrict or hold the hands of the players

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I think the design ov Civ 1-6 is superior to this one. I dont think Civilization needs MORE restrictions to the player, i think it needs to give the players their freedom back

If you want to exterminate in antiquity, you should be able to attempt it, and if you succeed, great. If instead you want to poay for the long game, thats great too

Civilization should be about having options and play the way you want instead of restricting and trying to streamline the game for the player. Players dont need Devs holding their hands telling them what to do in each Age

The best design was the one we already have and Civilization needs to make new games around that design, a design of FREEDOM OF CHOICE

We need to stop thinking on how we restrict or hold the hands of the players

1000% Yes!!

This attempt to restrict strategies and railroad the player is a major reason imo why civ7 fails compared to its predecessors. I am not sure if it is because they have to release the game on consoles at the same time as PC. So maybe the devs have to cater the game to console players that are perhaps less sophisticated than PC players. But I think civ players are smart. They don't need the game to hold their hand and guide them to how to play. There should be counter-mechanics that slow down spamming units or cities too fast. That creates more interesting strategies. But the game should not have these forced restrictions like having to switch civs at a fixed point in the game or havinh to play a certain X during a certain Age.

I hope Firaxis learns this lesson and when civ8 is released that it goes back to giving players more freedom and letting players craft their own strategies with no arbitrary forced limits.

Get rid of legacy paths!! They just railroad the player to pursue certain goals. Let players craft their empire the way they want. If they want to build wonders, fine. Let them build more than 7 in the Anquity Age if they want. Or let them build wonders in the Exploration Age. If they want to conquer, fine. But don't force them to build X wonders or settle X cities in a given Age to reach certain pre-determined milestones.

And if the devs insist on keeping something like legacy paths, then let the player choose them from a big list. Or let the player get score points from different aspects of the game (collecting diplomatic influence, amount of gold, # of cities and/or population, # of wonders, # of techs discovered, # of enemy units destroyed etc, similar to Humankind's Era Stars. That way the player can pursue whatever strategy they want and still earn score points. But to only have 4 legacy paths in each Age that are always the same, is terrible.

 

[GeneralZift]

1000% Yes!!

This attempt to restrict strategies and railroad the player is a major reason imo why civ7 fails compared to its predecessors. I am not sure if it is because they have to release the game on consoles at the same time as PC. So maybe the devs have to cater the game to console players that are perhaps less sophisticated than PC players. But I think civ players are smart. They don't need the game to hold their hand and guide them to how to play. There should be counter-mechanics that slow down spamming units or cities too fast. That creates more interesting strategies. But the game should not have these forced restrictions like having to switch civs at a fixed point in the game or havinh to play a certain X during a certain Age.

I hope Firaxis learns this lesson and when civ8 is released that it goes back to giving players more freedom and letting players craft their own strategies with no arbitrary forced limits.

Get rid of legacy paths!! They just railroad the player to pursue certain goals. Let players craft their empire the way they want. If they want to build wonders, fine. Let them build more than 7 in the Anquity Age if they want. Or let them build wonders in the Exploration Age. If they want to conquer, fine. But don't force them to build X wonders or settle X cities in a given Age to reach certain pre-determined milestones.

And if the devs insist on keeping something like legacy paths, then let the player choose them from a big list. Or let the player get score points from different aspects of the game (collecting diplomatic influence, amount of gold, # of cities and/or population, # of wonders, # of techs discovered, # of enemy units destroyed etc, similar to Humankind's Era Stars. That way the player can pursue whatever strategy they want and still earn score points. But to only have 4 legacy paths in each Age that are always the same, is terrible.

I don't think console players are unsophisticated, it's just tougher to play a complicated strategy game with a controller. Even RTS goes on console nowadays but they had to give the players automation for the harder parts of the game.

 

[tman2000]

I think if you tried to force each Age to only be one X, that would be a mistake. It would be the same mistake as civ-switching. It tries to force the player to follow the same strategy or path.

Yeah, it does seem like forced ages just don't work.

 

[Krikkit1]

Yeah, it does seem like forced ages just don't work.

I disagree, "forced ages" Could provide a transition in gameplay without saying "only one X"... but instead have it so all (or some) of the 4Xs work differently in each age.
[although honestly no civ had any eXploration in the "age" more than a couple dozen turns after ocean travel was possible.]

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

If the next era/age whatever, means the AI gets a tech/civic boost to equal the player ... nope.