New Ages System - Hit or Miss?

[z3rk]

As per title, i wonder what are your thoughts?
I'm not going to focus here on bugs, price, UI, customization etc, because these are 'additional' mechanics, they can be fixed with patches, sales, DLCs etc,
My concern/focus is the Ages System, because it is a core mechanic, and I fear that as such, it won't be fixed, it can't be fixed (unless they decided to make completely new game mode)

So, let's start, for me this new system is a MISS:
I've been playing civ games for a long LOOONG time, and while next iterations had some changes or even innovations, the body/core remained the same.
One could argue that starting with Poland (or any other civ) in 2000 B.C.E. and playing until the end of times was historically innacurate.... but it was great. You had a one nation, YOUR nation that you could build, expand and tailor as you like.
A never ending war with Germany starting in ancient era and ending in Information times? Sure
An England empire on a map without seas, building their Man-O-Wars on lakes for gigles? Why not
Ghandi capturing London with his ELEPHANTS (because why not, why should I upgrade them even?) AFTER droping a nuke there? Be my guest.
Babylon mining Coal in Classical Era? Right this way
Etc,
For me the game, each civ up until Civ 7 was ONE long run, no breaks, no forced changes, just me, my leader and my ONE nation, that could and will stand the test of time.

I'm not bashing the Civ 7 or saying that 'it's my way or highway', i'im kind of sad and disappointed that the genre that was part of my gaming life is no longer for me, that it is more like a Humankind 2 (on a side note, i really tried to like Humankind, spent some time there but in the end, i couldn't relate to my ever changing nation in the long run). But hey, that's change i guess.

But, what do you think? Is this a great change or a poor one? a Hit or Miss? A good direction or a dead-end? Will IT, stand the test of time?

[WimpyTheWarrior]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย strategic_panda:

They could have handled it differently, like making AI nations form alliances strategically.

Historically, superpowers often collapsed from within, so they could have simulated that instead.

EXCELLENT SUGGESTIONS!

[Larkis]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tech Enthusiast:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย The Doctor:

Civ has never been a historical simulation

And that is where you are wrong.
It started like that and moved away from it with each new version.

Will never forget that historic accurate simulation game, when rome defend america with its tanks against the germans medieval knights in the shadow of the great pyramids of japan.

Seriously, when you think civ was ever a historic simulation, you need some help. In thr best case its about "what-if scenarios". But in reality its just a toybox with somd historic influences where you can do your own stuff. Total war is much more a historic simulation, then civ. Cause Total War at least tried to be authentic.

[hannibal_pjv]

It works just fine. It would be better if all transitions would be more historical, but that will require a lot more civs to each era. When we have 30 civs in each era it will make transitions smoother. But as an mechanics, is is working as intended and is good new thing to have in the fransise. I can allway play civ3 to civ6 if I need one country from start to end. Has not been missing that part at all!
Automated scouts… yeah those I miss. More info in tooltips… but otherwise, no problems.
I would hope that civ8 makes religion less clicky… but that has been too clicky as long as I remember it…

[Tech Enthusiast]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Larkis:

Seriously, when you think civ was ever a historic simulation, you need some help. In thr best case its about "what-if scenarios".

There are SEVERAL thousand grey areas between "historical 100% accurate simulation" and "it was not historical accurate at all!" - try aiming at one of those.
Pretty much THE ONLY thing NOT accurate in the beginning, was the way civs evolved. Because, you know... game. Obviously civs evolved differently, because they where placed at random and played by the player / AIs.

Back then, wonders were actually the wonders, not whatever project sounds fancy like today. In Civ 7 every second slightly bigger hill is a world wonder, just to name one example.
And a war, where the aggressor is sieging the capital, has already cleared all defences and only needs to "walk in" to take it... turning into a peace, with all military reset and equalized, is certainly a punch in the face of anything even remotely "accurate". That is just a sledge hammer approach to a gaming issue that has no basis in reality at all.

But then again: The hate for the system is certainly not coming from the lack of realism or accuracy, as I said. Very few people even mention that as a sub reason, let alone their only reason.

Most reviews just talk about the obvious issue. The slap in your face approach that resets your progress in a way that most of what you did is meaningless. Why even upgrade your units, you get em for free. Why even care about losing a few troops in a war, you get new ones for free. Why build an army, it will get deleted and equalized. Why push science after you have what you need, it will also get deleted and equalized.

All that matters is hitting those milestones that actually carry over somewhat. Once you hit em, just stop caring for that path and focus on the next. You actually get punished for going all out on culture or science, since you will lack in the other 3 categories. Someone doing all 4 paths at 50%, will be MUCH superior to anyone focusing on something.

Not something I see people bring up a lot yet, but it will be brought up soon I guess. Every new playthrough will be the same, since you just get the same milestones and all of them, no matter what civ or leader you pick. You can't snowball culture, so might as well do science and wealth too and be just as great at them as the poor guy trying to max out wealth alone.

[Bear]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Evrach:

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tech Enthusiast:

Uhm, so you like being on rails in a game like this?
Like... what? Why even play the first two ages, if they have little impact on the final result...

How can they have no impact on the finale result ^^;
It’s where you build your cities, your economy, do all your settings for the final act. A player that did poorly on the first age will clearly be disadvantaged in the later one... you focus too much on the few things you lose by advancing age, and not enough on what you keep/transform.

wait, but its already exists in previous civs. you already build your cities, your economy, do all your settings for the «final act». A player that did poorly on the early game will clearly be disadvantaged in the late game.

and...its change for what? to the developers in civilization 8 to say - wow, we give you a cool change - now you play one endless game instead of 3 separate ones?

[Bear]

or even better — enjoy great one new paid DLC for civ 7 with very developed endless mode?

[jorgen_cab]

Civ is and has always been a historically themed game and never about recreating history in any way shape of form. It is just a 4x game in a historically themed world so that we can identify ourselves in the mechanics, units, buildings etc..

Claiming that some things is historically inaccurate in a game like this from a gameplay perspective make no real sense, the game does not try to emulate history in any way.

The reason for the ages is not to make the game more historical. It is a mechanic that are suppose to "fix" that players don't quit mid game and that each age feel engaging. The historical flavour are just added on top and is a recursive explanation to the mechanics and not one supporting it.
I don't even think they managed to make people finish the game more than before, for me it actually make me end sooner than I otherwise would as ending the session after an age end is more likely now as each one come to a conclusion and if you are far more powerful you are likely to just quit and restart at that point, that is what happened to me... I only kept playing into the Exploration age once and quit half thorough it as I was a bit too powerful versus all other AI. I never really cared for victory conditions in previous civs either so having the legacy system forced down your throat is not a positive for me personally.

[Larkis]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tech Enthusiast:

There are SEVERAL thousand grey areas between "historical 100% accurate simulation" and "it was not historical accurate at all!" - try aiming at one of those.
Pretty much THE ONLY thing NOT accurate in the beginning, was the way civs evolved. Because, you know... game. Obviously civs evolved differently, because they where placed at random and played by the player / AIs.

Yeah with this argumentation you also could call Ace combat a simulator.

But ok i go with your argumentation. Whats the problem with civ change? Why is there no problem in civ 6 when crazy stuff happend, but it s a problem in Civ 7? Think about it.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tech Enthusiast:

And a war, where the aggressor is sieging the capital, has already cleared all defences and only needs to "walk in" to take it... turning into a peace, with all military reset and equalized, is certainly a punch in the face of anything even remotely "accurate". That is just a sledge hammer approach to a gaming issue that has no basis in reality at all.

Do ouy play the game? I do similar things. There is a village limit. If you have more villages, you get a penalty. The other option is to destroy the village. That also give a lot penaltys. So sometimes i just destroy the enemy forces to keep them under control and dont fight for the villages. Cause it doesnt bring me that much to overcome the penalties.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tech Enthusiast:

But then again: The hate for the system is certainly not coming from the lack of realism or accuracy, as I said. Very few people even mention that as a sub reason, let alone their only reason.

Most reviews just talk about the obvious issue. The slap in your face approach that resets your progress in a way that most of what you did is meaningless. Why even upgrade your units, you get em for free. Why even care about losing a few troops in a war, you get new ones for free. Why build an army, it will get deleted and equalized. Why push science after you have what you need, it will also get deleted and equalized.

Oh boy so much on this are wrong. You only loose units if they are not part of an army. And you only loose them, when you are about the limit of your villages. So play the game in the right way at it is intended, you loose no troops.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tech Enthusiast:

All that matters is hitting those milestones that actually carry over somewhat. Once you hit em, just stop caring for that path and focus on the next. You actually get punished for going all out on culture or science, since you will lack in the other 3 categories. Someone doing all 4 paths at 50%, will be MUCH superior to anyone focusing on something.

So you have o´no way to steamroll on a single victory path, why is that bad? It give you more challenges to do, more meaningfull decissions.

As many people has written the last week. In Old Civ you decide for a victory condition you want to get. Then you have some challenges in the first 50-100 rounds. After that you steamrolling and follow an automated path to victory. Everything else is a suboptimal game. So at least ad mitgame people are bored to death.

Now you have a time limit. And you need to follow every victory path. You cant get everything, so you need to priotize. Do you try to go for 1 or for two golden ages? Or do you try to get something from every victory tree? Thats a challenge. That is interesting gameplay.

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย Tech Enthusiast:

Not something I see people bring up a lot yet, but it will be brought up soon I guess. Every new playthrough will be the same, since you just get the same milestones and all of them, no matter what civ or leader you pick. You can't snowball culture, so might as well do science and wealth too and be just as great at them as the poor guy trying to max out wealth alone.

So whats the difference to the old games? Snowball culture, then snowball science, then snowball religion?

[z3rk]

โพสต์ดั้งเดิมโดย WimpyTheWarrior:

It's a BIG miss for me.

DOESN'T BOTHER ME
Having mixed leaders and civs never bothered me; to me they are abstract buffs and nerfs. The names are meaningless to me; they could be Kang and Kodos for all I care.

I REALLY LIKE
Unlocking a civ (and their abstract buffs) based on gameplay, like improving 3 horses to unlock the buffs of the Mongol civ.

DON'T LIKE:

1. Almost finished wonders and buildings just vaporise, no gold or hammers.
   
2. Free upgrades for everyone! It's like an Oprah set: "You get an upgrade! You get an upgrade! EVERYONE gets an upgrade!"
   
3. Weird relocation of army units. Distant cities can suddenly lose their garrison and defensive forces.
   
4. Automagic global peace. Seems like a Coca-Cola commercial from the 1970s.
   
5. Rubberband bonus for lagging empires. I don't get credit for what I've accomplished, but what anyone has accomplished.
   
6. Resources and buildings should become obsolete based on new local knowledge, not some arbitrary global timer. The entire globe did not give up bronze for iron at once.
   
7. New resources should be discovered based on new knowledge.
   
8. Downgrading cities to towns. Cities have diminished throughout history, but due to some event like war, drought, disease, etc.
   
9. Loss of all Social policies.

ALL OF THIS LEADS TO GAMEY PLAY

• Why pay for upgrades from Spearmen to Phalanx, when I'll get free upgrades to Swordsmen?
  
• Disband Antiquity Age ships and siege units once no longer required to save maintenance since they vaporise at the age transition.
  
• As the Age transition approaches all my cities shift to 'Research initiative' or 'Culture initiative' to avoid losing partially completed stuff.

EDIT: 45 hours played at the time of this comment.

And this is what personally bothers me, it's a core mechanic, they've build this game around that. Ofc that people can adapt and they will,
However, even with improvements to 'don't like' points, the mechanic will stay there and in the end, it will impact the gamplay, one way or another.

And these great resets bothered me immensly, like it kills all the fun, even if the fun ends mid-game when i can say to myself "I've won, next please". It feels like you are participating in a marathon, you got a great start but at the 1/3 mark you are being stoped forcefully, to rest, waiting for other participants. The time spent waiting is your bonuses for the next 1/3 road, and all will start from the same new starting point.

[Darzil]

I think I'm enjoying it. The resets were a little disorienting in my first game, but I've given up so many other CIv games when it was obvious I had won early and had to play out for hours to actually win. Here I get three shorter sharper games with the same world.

[Bruno_Malta]

Miss.

[Mountain Man]

For me, the ages have been a big hit. Instead of a superfluous banner across the screen every once in a while, each age is its own distinct thing. It keeps the game fresh and interesting from beginning to end.

[because_of_you]

I just played one game and watched some tutorials on YT. My first impression is a good one. I disliked in former civs to play for another ten hours although I had already won. So a little reset is fine for me.
But to be honest I still have to learn a lot about the ages.

[R.E.D]

In its currently implementation its a miss for me.

Mainly due to forced legacy points and artificial jump in time and legacy point system making the new era feel like a new scenario..

The premise is not bad, but execution is not ideal for a lot of people and will get boring after a while and feel forced and predictable.

Some idea of options that could be added. Some are already being modded in. :)

1. Disable the whole legacy system or replace it with only bonuses for a timed duration.
2. Very limited changes during age transition to not break continuity. Make the legacy point spending optional, dont move units and just allow std upgrades with gold.
3. Allow option to fix civilizations to the same for all ages.

[Tricking Trapster]

I don't think it's that bad (I can enjoy the game despite it) but I definitely agree that the current implementation could use some heavy work to make it... Smoother, let's say. Being booted out of the game into the main menu for a split second to tally up your experience is entirely unnecessary and kills the flow even more than it already did, especially with the loading screen that follows for the next age. It's the exact same map, why is the extra loading screen needed? Switching ages was something that was already a thing in other civs so I just see it as an evolution of that, but I don't see the reason for being booted out every time the age switches.