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?

[deuteros]

MISS, BUT maybe necessary as civ iterations is always in danger of going stale.
For me it is the lack of creativity during the transitions. Not fun enough yet. I would like instead of abruptly stopping war the age transition force a diplomatic peace deal. It could be weighted with military pressure, influence, independent standings, alliances etc. So you can then lose(if they are more powerful and have more influence) settlements or gain before next age. I don't know, just something that make me feel like there is an active part in the transition based on where i am.

[Rhapsody]

İlk olarak deuteros tarafından gönderildi:

MISS, BUT maybe necessary as civ iterations is always in danger of going stale.
For me it is the lack of creativity during the transitions. Not fun enough yet. I would like instead of abruptly stopping war the age transition force a diplomatic peace deal. It could be weighted with military pressure, influence, independent standings, alliances etc. So you can then lose(if they are more powerful and have more influence) settlements or gain before next age. I don't know, just something that make me feel like there is an active part in the transition based on where i am.

You should consider dropping that idea in the feedback section just in case. Too many people only bemoan the existing mechanics instead of having constructive critique.

[Darkboss]

100% a miss

[jorgen_cab]

For me the game is a miss... mainly it is the flow of the game and the legacy system. To me the game just feels like a fancy mobile game with dopamine rewards every time you reach a legacy milestone or gain some retarded leader level and gain some reward.

The whole game just feels off...

I don't mind the age mechanic in theory but it's implementation is very bad and not fun in my opinion.

[Yglika]

I supported this game with founder's edition purchase. I don't regret it, because I wanted to see the basic game and how it plays. I also want this beloved franchise to thrive. Imho it can still turn into a good Civ game after two (or so) more expansions. Just like every one before did.

However, for buying those I have now a non-negotiable condition: Eras - as they are now - have to go. No ifs, no buts. They got the money, they can definitely do it. It's up to them if they want... or not. My DLC purchases will be however based solely on that. Because with the current eras system I have zero desire to play this game.

[cheetah1546]

One of many misses but give 'em time.

[wildmick]

its different, but no less fun and addictive.

[Anakior]

Clearly, the age transition system is killing the fun for me, and no, this is not historically accurate (sorry, but the Exploration Age is clearly a Western approach to this period).

The problem with age transition, even if we remove the really annoying reset effect, is that it forces you into a specific type of gameplay.

In previous Civilization games, sometimes your start would lead you to conquer a continent, explore, or move from island to island, etc. You had to adapt to your situation and live your story.

In this one, you're forced to play exactly as the quest (and the devs) ask you to do. You're in the Exploration Age, so you have to go on a ship and explore. There's no choice, even if you want to focus on winning the military section during this age.

Everything feels forced, and you always follow the same path. So, every game is the same over and over... Whatever the map is, you will always have another continent etc etc


And as a side note, it really feel like the age system is here to sell us more and more dlc... Like they did with nation in the previous iteration.

[WeirdWizardDave]

İlk olarak Anakior tarafından gönderildi:

sorry, but the Exploration Age is clearly a Western approach to this period

This point has been really been bothering me too. Its just so narrow and frankly regressive a view of that period of history. Regardless of who you are playing as or what's going on in the world you hit this arbitrary point and suddenly get recast and have to play a European colonialism game.

[Larkis]

İlk olarak Anakior tarafından gönderildi:

Clearly, the age transition system is killing the fun for me, and no, this is not historically accurate (sorry, but the Exploration Age is clearly a Western approach to this period).

The problem with age transition, even if we remove the really annoying reset effect, is that it forces you into a specific type of gameplay.

In previous Civilization games, sometimes your start would lead you to conquer a continent, explore, or move from island to island, etc. You had to adapt to your situation and live your story.

In this one, you're forced to play exactly as the quest (and the devs) ask you to do. You're in the Exploration Age, so you have to go on a ship and explore. There's no choice, even if you want to focus on winning the military section during this age.

Everything feels forced, and you always follow the same path. So, every game is the same over and over... Whatever the map is, you will always have another continent etc etc


And as a side note, it really feel like the age system is here to sell us more and more dlc... Like they did with nation in the previous iteration.

THat are the exact reasons i like it. It creates a challenge, it creates conflicts. I know what i will get, but i also know it will be challenging and full of interesting decissions. Sure you are limited in the general direction how the game will work. But on the other side, you allways have an ai that can also play that objectives and be a challenge during that period.

For example, i finished the first age a few minutes ago.

Add the end of the age i got the pest crisis and konfizius create a town right nearby of my main city and block the river that i need for my ships to leave the harbor. Cause of time limit, (it was on 80%) and lack of influence, i decide to start a suprise war. But there was some allies and some bad reputation, so it ended in a huge war with every civilisation involved. Tecumseh was very agressive, conquered one of my towns on an other island and doing a pincer manouver around one of my other cities with conquering 2 of the independent cities that was friends of mine. So finally i need to trade cities (give up the pincered city and get an small town on my coast preapring for the next age) to get finally peace.

At the end i lost complete control over the sea area i wanted to control. I prepared my home town to will be a huge fortress in the next age select a defensive civ and hopefully can ally tecumseh, or prepare a huge crusade to push him away.

It maybe not historical or realistic (i dont care) but it gives me a challenge, force me to take risks and handle the consequences. I had a plan what i wanted to do when i start that run. That plan is obsolete now. I need to adapt, to change, and i write my own history.

[z3rk]

When i created that thread almost 50/50 were for hit and for miss
Now, after a month, it seems that majority of repliers go with miss rather than hit.
So, it seems this feature does not grow on people, at least those who shared their mind here, curious.

[BelovedMonster]

100% a big hit.
I can't wait for the option to set the ending age so I can play 1 or 2 ages instead of 3 if I don't have much time.

[Larkis]

İlk olarak z3rk tarafından gönderildi:

When i created that thread almost 50/50 were for hit and for miss
Now, after a month, it seems that majority of repliers go with miss rather than hit.
So, it seems this feature does not grow on people, at least those who shared their mind here, curious.

You now your thread in a steam discussion is not representative?

[z3rk]

İlk olarak Larkis tarafından gönderildi:

İlk olarak z3rk tarafından gönderildi:

When i created that thread almost 50/50 were for hit and for miss
Now, after a month, it seems that majority of repliers go with miss rather than hit.
So, it seems this feature does not grow on people, at least those who shared their mind here, curious.

You now your thread in a steam discussion is not representative?

'who shared their mind here", read and react to what is written and not what you think is written.

[dbemont]

I'm pretty positive about the ages.

In the past, I rarely finished a Civ game. Always excellent entertainment early, then less so as the number of units increased and the importance of specific decisions decreased. Until by the modern times, it was boring for me. Which was tolerable, i would just start a new game.

The new age system breathes new life into the game at the start of each era. Getting Distant Land treasures going and getting railroads/factories operational each provides almost as much fun as early antiquity.

The downside is that the end of Antiquity feels rather gamey -- it does not surprise me that Ed Beach has a background in board games, because the stuff you are doing late in the era feels totally like a board game. Not a simulation of the time period, but strategy themed very loosely around history. This could largely be remedied with some tweaks, but I don't think it will be fixed because I don't think it looks wrong to the devs, and it's not really the focus of the public criticism.

However, as it is, I accept the tradeoff. I get more enjoyment out of the start of the second and third era than I lose from the gamey end of an era.

What has not changed, though, is that I find the game is best abandoned before the victory screen. True in 5, true, in 6, and true in 7 (for me, I can't speak for anyone else, of course). Once I have the factories running, it just feels like a chore to finish the game. Partly this is because the military side of Civ is a miss for me. Civ 7 makes this worse with the combination of the settlement cap, the long delay before conquered cities are productive, and the very limited ability to get anything other than non-useful cities in war. The age system does not help with this at all... so although the age system encourages me to play somewhat further into history, it does not encourage me to finish a game and see the victory screen.