The reasion why we have eras

[ColonelHess]

I have been giving this a lot of thought today, I'll be honest I don't engage much in steam discussions normally but Civ7 really has me thinking...

They say they added the era system in to give people a chance to catch up, but I think that on its own shows the problem with their design, Civ was made to simulate civilisations in a way that was fun, and in real life they fall behind and fail, thats part of what it means to be a civilisation, its part of the struggle. By making it so no one falls behind it removes a basic tension that makes Civ what it is and detached it from the basic subject of the game which is to capture the essence of that history long struggle for survival.

I think a lot of us here struggle to put into words whats wrong but most people agree that something is off, I think its that taste issue, you know, if you eat a piece of cake and it leaves a weird taste in your mouth its hard to say why, but you know its there.

My thought being that perhaps the main underlying problem here is they focused on making a new civ game, and thought a lot about the old civ games, but forgot the basic subject matter, kind of like-

Looks at history - Makes a game about it < looks at game - makes a game about that game

A bit like cloning a clone lol

Now this can be ok as well, after all Icecream cake is not "cake" per say but we still like it for the most part, I think this is kind of like that, but while its nice I think the problem in the end is it was supposed to be a normal cake.

They said they did a lot of weird stuff in civ6 to see if people were in to it and got passive hostility in response and decided to go all in in civ7, I think perhaps that was the wrong move.

But still, some people like ice cream cake, and now we all need to learn to like it too. :P

[WeirdWizardDave]

I speaks to me of the increasing focus on Civ as a competitive game between players and less a sandbox game about playing a civ though time. You only need a catch up mechanic if you care about fairness and balance, which of course history does not. The old meme of a horseman vs a helicopter gunship maybe somewhat extreme but significant mismatches did and to an extent still do occur between nations and people. Yes technology tends to spread but having the whole world technologically reset to the same level off screen between ages is so incredibly gamey.

They only compound the mistake by calling the second age "Exploration" and basing it on the European colonial era where, famously, Europe was hugely advanced compared to the places they were colonising. Yet in Civ 7 the "unexplored distant" continent is populated with nations starting from exactly the same level of technological and social development.

[Lord451]

I think there are much better ways to address things like this as well. If you wanted a "maximum amount you can be behind" other civs, there's ways to do that rather than having rails limiting where you can go to such a degree, and then throw all of it by the wayside every time.

[Mightymagyar]

Originally posted by WeirdWizardDave:

I speaks to me of the increasing focus on Civ as a competitive game between players and less a sandbox game about playing a civ though time. You only need a catch up mechanic if you care about fairness and balance, which of course history does not. The old meme of a horseman vs a helicopter gunship maybe somewhat extreme but significant mismatches did and to an extent still do occur between nations and people. Yes technology tends to spread but having the whole world technologically reset to the same level off screen between ages is so incredibly gamey.

They only compound the mistake by calling the second age "Exploration" and basing it on the European colonial era where, famously, Europe was hugely advanced compared to the places they were colonising. Yet in Civ 7 the "unexplored distant" continent is populated with nations starting from exactly the same level of technological and social development.

That would make sense if they didn't totally abandon multiplayer at launch.

[parent child bowl]

Ages allow them to sell more civs.

[MONZUN]

well.. i can speak out of experience when i say that the catching up seems to work.

so i'm still on my first game. first era i was pretty good and kept up with the best ai's (was even a bit better and "won" the era)

second era i completely fell behind. i still don't know why but 3/8 civs massively surpassed me (like 3x the ressources etc.) i thought i wouldn't ever have a chance in this game anymore (before it wouldn't be possible in older civ games from what i know with such a huge gap)

now i'm nearing the end of the 3rd era (still like 30% of the era left) and i not only caught up to them but surpassed them by far now. felt quite good tbh, even though this happened due to their fault. two ai's made an alliance and then attacked me because i was basically the weakest player in the game. i fought a hard and loooong war (like 3 realtime hours), focused everything on first defending myself and then actually attacking them.. by the time i "won" the war i got 3 new cities and now i might even win the entire game as i've caught up in terms of goals to them and now even surpassed them (thanks to my railroad network which i build parallelly to fighting the war)

still don't have the best clue about the game but it seems to work as intended

[ColonelHess]

Oh its not about the eras not working, we're mostly talking about the idea of it being right for civ or not, not really whether the mechanic works or not, that said I dont condemn it either, at lest not too far, just trying to talk it out somewhat.

Good to hear you could work it out in your game, in my current game the AI is feral as hell and attacks me in groups over and over again, every time there is a peace they build up on my boarder again and attack as soon as they can make it a normal war. Not sure why im being ganged up on so much, I'm still working out the details. (btw I was being peaceful and staying in my corner this time, so not really doing anything to annoy them), its almost like they remember my last play through and their trying to beat me down before the war machine gets going.

[Mentally Unstable]

It is a mixed bag, made worse by the fact that they left out the information age....no doubt to sell as dlc later.

They claimed that they left out the information age in order to balance this new system. But then again, is it really a good system if it ends up having to chop off an entire age that has been a mainstay of the series? Effectively "shortening" the game.

[Decius Brutus]

Originally posted by WeirdWizardDave:

I speaks to me of the increasing focus on Civ as a competitive game between players and less a sandbox game about playing a civ though time. You only need a catch up mechanic if you care about fairness and balance, which of course history does not. The old meme of a horseman vs a helicopter gunship maybe somewhat extreme but significant mismatches did and to an extent still do occur between nations and people. Yes technology tends to spread but having the whole world technologically reset to the same level off screen between ages is so incredibly gamey.

They only compound the mistake by calling the second age "Exploration" and basing it on the European colonial era where, famously, Europe was hugely advanced compared to the places they were colonising. Yet in Civ 7 the "unexplored distant" continent is populated with nations starting from exactly the same level of technological and social development.

Europe being "hugely advanced" compared to the Incan and Chinese Empires is mostly the victors writing the history books. The colonial powers of Europe were very aggressive and militarily expansionist.

[Xenpo]

After playing it and seeing the Civ VII VR launch trailer from Meta, I still 250% believe the game at some point pivoted to be focused on VR play.

[Sesikee]

Get rid of the eras. it's trash system and it completely defeats the purpose of building a civilization. I'm tired of developers trying to act like they're clever when they're not.

They've completely trashed 30+ years of civ legacy.

[The Mau Corporation]

Originally posted by Sesikee:

Get rid of the eras. it's trash system and it completely defeats the purpose of building a civilization. I'm tired of developers trying to act like they're clever when they're not.

They've completely trashed 30+ years of civ legacy.

This kind of emotional yap happens every release. Adapt and see what the new format offers with fresh eyes, if you can. Change is good, just requires iteration.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

The reason for eras is to artificially extend competitiveness of the CPU players.

I honestly believe that, sadly, having taken the plunge and spent the $70 finally to give it a try (wasn't going to spend $100 or more, but $70 I can stomach I guess).

But the eras are mostly there just to keep the game from snowballing, something that could also have been achieved with better AI. It's hard not to see it that way now that I've tried it myself and see how much really does get reset. My troops moved, and not just to my nearest border, but into my army commander or cities... it effectively reset any troops that were positioned to be an imminent threat to another player.

The tech and civics trees are where this is most noticeable: the era switch doesn't just flip everyone back to square 1, but it erases any tech lead at all. Sure, I can get boosts that work in the next era, but those boosts will take a bit of time to pan out. In the meanwhile, everyone gets the same set of units again... the military tech edge goes to zilch.

I get why they thought eras might be a solution.

But it's the worst possible solution... just make the game one continuous experience with a better AI, not a 3-game set of Civ tennis, so to speak, where scores kind of reset.

Again... I know why they might have thought the eras would work. But if this was play-tested with long-time players of the series, they would have probably gotten an earful, and quickly.

[Sesikee]

Originally posted by The Mau Corporation:

Originally posted by Sesikee:

Get rid of the eras. it's trash system and it completely defeats the purpose of building a civilization. I'm tired of developers trying to act like they're clever when they're not.

They've completely trashed 30+ years of civ legacy.

This kind of emotional yap happens every release. Adapt and see what the new format offers with fresh eyes, if you can. Change is good, just requires iteration.

Nope, I want to build one civilization to withstand the test of time. Don't call it emotional because that's not what it is.

They lied about how it was going to work. They flat out lied.

If they want to have a franchise-shatter level changes, they need to call it something else and not Civilization. Most of us signed up to do what I said in the first place, build a civilization that withstands the test of time, not to be corralled into ages and being forced to try to hurry up a war or conclude it because we'll have a reset in the next age. It's absolute trash and removes every single strategy except one, which is do what the game tells you to do.

Get real

[Fluke]

One of the main issues with Civ and the devs also found this was that most games of Civ don't reach the end. If you snowball early then the game can be over by turn 100/500, you can continue to play and hit a win condition but you know 100% you will win. Personally once I hit this I get incredibly bored and a little bit annoyed. I know I will win but I don't want to spend 5 hours just to get to a victory screen but I do deserve the win.

So they are attempting to make the entire game feel like the early game, which would be great!

Now they may not have hit the mark with their first try but it could work out in the end.

I would like a catchup mechanic in which the smaller civs combine into a new civ or cooperate against the player. Usually I just destroy the AI one by one but if they all ganged up on me, that would be entirely different.

[Sesikee]

Corralling a player into ages and forcing them to play in certain ways is not the answer to try to get a player to play a game to a conclusion. If anything, that will just drive even more players away or actually, sadly in this case, attract dumb players because all they want is a set of checklist to check off and boom, they win.

Just put in a sandbox mode and if the dumb players rather have the instant-gratification of the ages, let them turn that on. *roll eyes*

This isn't building a civilization to withstand the test of time. That's the spirit of this franchise. The developers just trashed that completely, 20+ years of it.