The age reset is way too harsh and jarring

[Bobs]

One minute I'm Rome and doing nicely, and then I'm forced into some fake decline. After that is over I'm then forced to choose between the likes of the Ming, the Spanish, or oddly some native American civ (I think).

So now I'm Augustus leading the Spanish with Spanish music (because the Ming would be ridiculous). All my units are shuffled around or gone. I've jumped forward nearly a 1000 years. All my cities are reverted back to Towns. Other Civs are also some weird combination. I then have apply some magical points like I'm in some RPG....it's just so odd and weird. Completely removing me from my game and forcing me to be something I never wanted to be.

This entire Age thing needs a complete overhaul. Keep cities as cities, keep my units where they were. Have Civs at least follow a natural historical progression, Romans to Ming? Come on.

[Tricking Trapster]

Normally you can't get to Ming via Rome, but if you managed to snag 3 silk during antiquity you unlock it for the next age. A lot of civs unlock like that (3 horses gets you the mongols, for example) so that's why they were available to you despite playing rome. Other than that some leaders will also get you access to them.

[Arnstein86]

And you can keep all your cities as cities if you achieve an economic golden age (i.e. finish the legacy path of economy in first age). At least going into exploration. So there are ways to play, tactics to plan out keep legacies you want directing how the next age start could be.

[Cas]

Facts. It is too jarring.

[Simmeon]

I agree, it's stupid. The whole idea with Civilization was to see if you could lead a civilization from the ancient era and make it last until the Space Age. This way, I feel like I've lost agency with my Civ.

[Judicant]

So you notice how you wanted to keep things relatively sane and chose Spain over Ming?

Choice is a good thing, why do you want to remove other people’s ability to be Benjamin Franklin who starts as Greece and changes to Hawaii?

[Simmeon]

Originally posted by Tricking Trapster:

Normally you can't get to Ming via Rome, but if you managed to snag 3 silk during antiquity you unlock it for the next age. A lot of civs unlock like that (3 horses gets you the mongols, for example) so that's why they were available to you despite playing rome. Other than that some leaders will also get you access to them.

Which is stupid because what does having 3 silk have to do with Rome turning into the Ming dynasty??

[Sesikee]

Absolutely agree, can't even build a civilization to "withstand the test of time." They've completely destroyed the formula that made this series successful.

Ed Beach need to stop playing Fortnite and Assassin Creed, he's trying to make Civilization 7 to be their baby. It blew up in his face and he deserves to be called every offensive name that can be uttered.

[(Rúna)]

I like the civ switching, and its a great concept IMO. How it's implemented could really do with some tweaking though, from personal experience. Too many times has an age ended with 1-3 turns left on a wonder, or a couple of treasure fleets that would have secured me a victory out of actions points literally as its entered my waters.

The jarring of being sometimes a very different culture on offer, with the most tangential links? I can understand why it irks you, though it doesnt bother me as much.

If it is any consolation, this will obviously become less jarring as more civs and leaders are released, and more potential options to that make sense are on offer.

The currently limited roster seems to be a major cause of this complaint

[Simmeon]

Originally posted by Judicant:

So you notice how you wanted to keep things relatively sane and chose Spain over Ming?

Choice is a good thing, why do you want to remove other people’s ability to be Benjamin Franklin who starts as Greece and changes to Hawaii?

This wasn't a thing in any Civ to date. Why are we forced to have to have such a jarring separation from the core of how a civilization game is played. Make it a setting to allow random leaders that is something you can turn on or off.

[JerBeware]

I've had to learn to like certain aspects of it. But therein lies the issue.

I agree. It is very jarring. And while aspects may be Civ-like, it does not feel like a mainline Civ game. More like an expansion or spin-off. I've said it elsewhere, but if this was sold as Civilization Shuffle (or Shift or whatever other title you'd like), I'd have been more accepting and welcoming of the changes - but not as the main mode in Civ VII.

[Bobs]

Originally posted by (Rúna):

I like the civ switching, and its a great concept IMO. How it's implemented could really do with some tweaking though, from personal experience. Too many times has an age ended with 1-3 turns left on a wonder, or a couple of treasure fleets that would have secured me a victory out of actions points literally as its entered my waters.

The jarring of being sometimes a very different culture on offer, with the most tangential links? I can understand why it irks you, though it doesnt bother me as much.

If it is any consolation, this will obviously become less jarring as more civs and leaders are released, and more potential options to that make sense are on offer.

The currently limited roster seems to be a major cause of this complaint

I don't think it would be so bad for me if it was a much more historical progression.

Rome for example, should branch to Byzantines or the Visigoths for example. Who would then branch off to the Russians, British, French etc. This is a natural progression to me which I could learn to accept even if I don't fully like the concept. But Rome to Shawnee? Having Harriet Tubman leading Ancient Greece? Just so very odd.

[VGhost]

As far as the age transition, I have to agree. As far as the game's tagline, why am I supposed to "believe in" something I'm not going to keep? The crisis mechanic is a complete flop for me, especially since it doesn't seem tied to anything I've done or not done - and wrecks you if you don't actively plan for it. The age transition/legacy choice UI is less than clear in showing its effects, too.

It almost seems like each "age" is supposed to be just a round like in a lot of board games, but they didn't commit hard enough to the bit. To really make that work would need shorter ages - work through e.g. stone age, bronze age, iron age, classical age, imperial age, middle age, renaissance, exploration age, enlightenment, industrial age, romantic era, age of ideology, modern age - or however you divide it. I think you could also make the transition less intrusive but if this was something popping up every 10-20 turns to spend your achievement/legacy points it would actually be a more integral part of the game.

I might disagree about switching civilizations, though. If it's a forced game mechanic anyway (and to be clear I don't like it) then I'd want there to be more choice, but the other option could be a "civilization tree". Which I think there is effectively anyway, but the UI doesn't make that clear.

[Judicant]

Originally posted by Simmeon:

Originally posted by Judicant:

So you notice how you wanted to keep things relatively sane and chose Spain over Ming?

Choice is a good thing, why do you want to remove other people’s ability to be Benjamin Franklin who starts as Greece and changes to Hawaii?

This wasn't a thing in any Civ to date. Why are we forced to have to have such a jarring separation from the core of how a civilization game is played. Make it a setting to allow random leaders that is something you can turn on or off.

If you want a game that plays exactly like an old Civ game… play the old Civ game.

Civ has had a lot of reasonably successful challengers that do things differently, I don’t think a strategy of releasing the same game yet again with minor tweaks (and still having ‘missing’ content at launch, that’s a constant in today’s world) would have worked out well at all.

[Judicant]

Originally posted by Bobs:

Originally posted by (Rúna):

I like the civ switching, and its a great concept IMO. How it's implemented could really do with some tweaking though, from personal experience. Too many times has an age ended with 1-3 turns left on a wonder, or a couple of treasure fleets that would have secured me a victory out of actions points literally as its entered my waters.

The jarring of being sometimes a very different culture on offer, with the most tangential links? I can understand why it irks you, though it doesnt bother me as much.

If it is any consolation, this will obviously become less jarring as more civs and leaders are released, and more potential options to that make sense are on offer.

The currently limited roster seems to be a major cause of this complaint

I don't think it would be so bad for me if it was a much more historical progression.

Rome for example, should branch to Byzantines or the Visigoths for example. Who would then branch off to the Russians, British, French etc. This is a natural progression to me which I could learn to accept even if I don't fully like the concept. But Rome to Shawnee? Having Harriet Tubman leading Ancient Greece? Just so very odd.

It’s always Tubman with you people, no one ever picks on Machiavelli.

[Akarin]

Really shows that the devs never played their own game, makes sense given most of the current civ devs hate this style of gameplay.