Civ 7 Needs a future age.

[WiggyWoz]

That's one thing that's always missing in Civ Games. Where are the rail guns/rail gun tanks/battleships, high energy weapons "lasers", drone swarms, mini nukes, mechanized soldiers, human implants, nano technology? How can modern age be something that's not so modern anymore?

[lmr]

Messaggio originale di Steve:

Messaggio originale di lmr:

Why do you continue asking for a toggle for the Ages feature, when that is not possible if the game is going to release on Feb 6th?

Because I never thought I'd have to, tbh. I'm still a little skeptical that the game would ship without a reversion option, but we'll see.

Which brings me back to my question: Why make such a drastic change that no one's seriously asked for?

I can't answer that, because I'm not Ed Beach, or whoever had the last word on that decision. What I can do, maybe, is convince you to stop asking for the Ages feature to be toggleable. This is a list of things that would have to be changed, or toggleable, for that to happen. All 31 launch civilizations would have to be completely rebuilt, as they are all designed and balanced around existing in a specific age. The win conditions/legacy paths would have to be completely rebuilt, for the same reason. Every tech tree would have to be rebuilt. Every unit would have to be rebalanced. Many more minute details would also have to be remade or significantly reworked. What you're asking for is for them to build a second game that exists alongside Civ 7. It would also have to be balanced individually, so they'd need two balance teams. Every expansion would have to work with Ages, and without, so again, every expansion would essentially be two parallel expansions.

[lmr]

Also, again, I am seriously asking for the Ages system. So at least when you're talking to me, or about me, I would appreciate it if you could stop referring to it as a system that "nobody" is asking for. That is extremely rude, and it's why I have chosen to address you in a similarly blunt manner.

[Steve]

Messaggio originale di lmr:

Also, again, I am seriously asking for the Ages system. So at least when you're talking to me, or about me, I would appreciate it if you could stop referring to it as a system that "nobody" is asking for. That is extremely rude, and it's why I have chosen to address you in a similarly blunt manner.

Okay. Why did you ask for it?

To be fair, I've asked you a few times and all you do is give me attitude despite the fact that I'm very clearly not going to bite the bait and I'm going to continue to show you common courtesy. I'm hopeful that'll be returned at some point, but I'm losing hope.

So, why did you ask for it? Honest, sincere, genuine question.

[lmr]

Messaggio originale di Steve:

Messaggio originale di lmr:

Also, again, I am seriously asking for the Ages system. So at least when you're talking to me, or about me, I would appreciate it if you could stop referring to it as a system that "nobody" is asking for. That is extremely rude, and it's why I have chosen to address you in a similarly blunt manner.

Okay. Why did you ask for it?

To be fair, I've asked you a few times and all you do is give me attitude despite the fact that I'm very clearly not going to bite the bait and I'm going to continue to show you common courtesy. I'm hopeful that'll be returned at some point, but I'm losing hope.

So, why did you ask for it? Honest, sincere, genuine question.

Mate, I've only given you what you've been giving everyone on this forum who disagrees with you. But I will do my best to answer your question. I think it's cool to see one civ evolve into another civ, while still having a lasting effect, through legacy buildings and tradition civics. I think it's cool to start a campaign with a plan of which three civs I'll play, and have the option to change that plan in response to the game state. I like that every active civ in the game will exist in approximately the same historical period. I think it opens up a lot of cool strategic possibilities, for instance, you might want to play Han China into Ming China into America for whatever reason, and you could do that by taking Ben Franklin as your leader so America is default unlocked in Modern, but you might be passing up your option to take a leader that's better early game with the China civs. I think it adds to the "mental narrative". Telling a story about how you played Aksum as a powerful trade empire, built up your funds and then became the Normans to conquer territory is a more interesting story to me than conquering a lot of land as the Aztecs and then coasting for 300 turns. There are probably a few more reasons I'm forgetting as I'm typing this.

[lmr]

I've seen a lot of talk, not just from you, about how Ages will make the game less immersive. For me, the least immersive thing in a civ game is seeing the Aztecs running around in the 1950s. So for me, it will be much more immersive.

[Steve]

Messaggio originale di lmr:

Messaggio originale di Steve:

Okay. Why did you ask for it?

To be fair, I've asked you a few times and all you do is give me attitude despite the fact that I'm very clearly not going to bite the bait and I'm going to continue to show you common courtesy. I'm hopeful that'll be returned at some point, but I'm losing hope.

So, why did you ask for it? Honest, sincere, genuine question.

I will do my best to answer your question. I think it's cool to see one civ evolve into another civ, while still having a lasting effect, through legacy buildings and tradition civics. I think it's cool to start a campaign with a plan of which three civs I'll play, and have the option to change that plan in response to the game state. I like that every active civ in the game will exist in approximately the same historical period. I think it opens up a lot of cool strategic possibilities, for instance, you might want to play Han China into Ming China into America for whatever reason, and you could do that by taking Ben Franklin as your leader so America is default unlocked in Modern, but you might be passing up your option to take a leader that's better early game with the China civs. I think it adds to the "mental narrative". Telling a story about how you played Aksum as a powerful trade empire, built up your funds and then became the Normans to conquer territory is a more interesting story to me than conquering a lot of land as the Aztecs and then coasting for 300 turns. There are probably a few more reasons I'm forgetting as I'm typing this.

No offense, but this sounds like a completely different kind of gameplay than the series has traditionally presented -- with resounding success -- for the past three decades.

To just completely change a foundational portion of the gameplay without even so much as a toggle to turn it off and play the way many, many, many, many, many, MANY people have played over 30+ years seems shortsighted, at best.

I don't think it's unreasonable at all for a long-term fan of the series to question why this particular change. And I definitely don't think it's unreasonable to want a version that plays the way it has for 30+ years.

I've always enjoyed and taken pride in a strong start to a strong finish with one of history's lesser-known players, ones that didn't get their shot to be big dogs very much in their eras or any other. I've always had that, and it's been taken for... what reason?

Just to shake things up strategically? I'd have just done a separate game mode for that but here we are.

Would you have any problem with them putting in a toggle AT SOME POINT IN TIME so that people like myself can play the game we enjoy? Because I wouldn't have a problem in the world with them doing that so we can both have what we want, if that's what it comes down to.

But if it's a forced choice between one or the other, then I'd have to ask why alienate so many long-term fans.

[Steve]

Messaggio originale di lmr:

I've seen a lot of talk, not just from you, about how Ages will make the game less immersive. For me, the least immersive thing in a civ game is seeing the Aztecs running around in the 1950s. So for me, it will be much more immersive.

It's a historical sandbox. The immersion comes, like I said, from leading one of history's lesser-known players into the stars and beyond.

Though I don't see how this:

Messaggio originale di lmr:

I think it opens up a lot of cool strategic possibilities, for instance, you might want to play Han China into Ming China into America for whatever reason, and you could do that by taking Ben Franklin as your leader so America is default unlocked in Modern, but you might be passing up your option to take a leader that's better early game with the China civs. I think it adds to the "mental narrative". Telling a story about how you played Aksum as a powerful trade empire, built up your funds and then became the Normans to conquer territory is a more interesting story to me than conquering a lot of land as the Aztecs and then coasting for 300 turns. There are probably a few more reasons I'm forgetting as I'm typing this.

...would be any less historically jarring to you, if the Aztecs running around in the 1950s would?

[lmr]

If it were possible to have a toggle, I would have no problem with that. I simply do not think it is possible based on the way the game is built. As for why they've chosen to build it that way, as I said earlier, you'd have to ask Ed Beach. All I know is that it appeals to me personally.

[Steve]

Messaggio originale di lmr:

If it were possible to have a toggle, I would have no problem with that. I simply do not think it is possible based on the way the game is built. As for why they've chosen to build it that way, as I said earlier, you'd have to ask Ed Beach. All I know is that it appeals to me personally.

Fair enough, as long as you won't hold it against me to continue to ask. VI took three years to get some needed features, so it may take some time.

I'm patient, though. Enjoy your Franklin-led Chinese! ^_^

[I return friendly fire]

I wish to return to alpha centauri

[Steve]

Messaggio originale di I return friendly fire:

I wish to return to alpha centauri

Civ: BE is as close as you're gonna get. But it's not bad, if that's what you're looking for. They even kinda recycled the old storyline.

It's also probably the last reasonably-priced Civ title.

[Salatmander]

the one and only thing i allways missed in Civ games is the option to found water citys on the ocean in the future age... (weirdly the only civ that did this was beyond earth oo). Really hope for this feature in the Future DLC!

[The Fool]

That'd be cool, hopefully put some better voice over work and quotable writing, with new tech, akin to alpha centauri - still the best 4x ever imho.