#We have to talk...

19 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

waxen prawn
#

Why should I build a building, in 10 turns, that will disappear after 20 turns when the era changes? Pointless. Ages too short. Either lengthen the individual eras or drastically reduce the production cost of units, buildings, technologies and civics. Please then, soft-reset means that units, cities (not countries) and merchants MUST REMAIN! Finally, change era AFTER discovering all technologies and civics. NOT BEFORE! Shall we say that era progress begins with the development of future techs and civics?

mystic herald
#

You can change the length of the Age in game option to be long and it will give you plenty of time to get through everything.

vale stirrup
#

"Why should I build a building"

Umm cause thats the literal point of the game, you build things that maximise your progress towards a victory condition or goal. Thats the point. Some buildings are useful to maximise your start in the next age, some are designed to maximise your effect in the current age.

Whether any one building will have an impact is entirely based on your strategy. Will it impact your ability to achieve a goal? If the building won't have an effect then don't build it, but 10 turns of effect seems like it could be worth it.

"Please then, soft-reset means that units, cities and merchants must remain"

Units do remain, they get converted to the lowest level of the next age equiv and places in a town. Cities, these remain but are reduced to Towns but are pretty cheap to upgrade. This again is kind of the point (you don't have to like it, but thats a different question). You are now rising from the ashes of the dark age that came before, rebuilding in the ruins of the previous culture. New goals, and new directions.

"Finally, change era AFTER discovering all tech"

I mean this is soft of true (in that researching the future tech/civic speed up the era progress. The aim is to try and be the one that gets their first so as to cut off your opponents ability to gain valuable progression points by ending the age before they are ready. The aim is to get what you can whilst your culture is in acendence before the decline hits.

I haven't personally had any issues with the Ages not being long enough on standard length ages. Plenty of time to finish the tech trees or get those other victory conditions.

I have also rushed specific conditions to end the age early and catch my opponents of guard

waxen prawn
# vale stirrup "Why should I build a building" Umm cause thats the literal point of the game, ...

OK, I understand your point of view, but this is no longer Civ, where I can decide whether to take it easy and build when I decide and what I decide or whether to simply do an obstacle course. I've played at least 10 (very fast!) early access games up to the modern era and I can tell you I've experienced the anxiety of the passage of time quite heavily.

To answer another comment, of course I put the age of progress on long, but I never managed to complete the technology or civics trees! I basically play half the game, all the time. it's a race against time, not against opponents and that in my opinion is the ugliest aspect of the game.

I don't criticise the eras and the change of era (about the cost of cities you are right, it can make sense) but I do criticise the fact that I don't have time to do everything I feel like doing. It would make sense if, in the 200 turns at standard speed, it would take me 3 or 4 to build something.

There is no dynamism. There is a slow march towards the end of the era. it's sad and boring at times. Not always, but often. Not to mention very few diplomacy options. Mind you, I'm not talking about the influence system which I find very interesting, but for example I can't trade gold, cities only in war (if I want to surrender a city in peace I can't do that), I can't liberate cities conquered by others but only take them for myself or destroy them, losing my old advantages and I could go on. It is a 75% game.

Even Civ 6 was completed after two DLCs and it's OK to wait. Graphically I love it. But there's a lot to do. I hope this time they really listen to the feedback from the community and don't ignore it like the asset issue of 6.

jaunty wigeon
#

The game tries to compromise with the base yields sticking around between ages. It does matter a lot if you put out a few gold buildings before the end of the age so that way because of their native 4 gold or whatever that sticks around after the transition to convert towns to cities. I will say I usually have the opposite problem which is that my capital has built everything I want to or can build and so I just end up running projects or building walls for the last 20 turns of an era

#

I have played one game on long eras which basically guarantees the sudden death victories happen in modern (this is good and needed) but it makes the middle eras a slog because you need the rollover to access new research, civics, and infrastructure

quick dune
# waxen prawn OK, I understand your point of view, but this is no longer Civ, where I can deci...

What speed and difficulty are you playing on? Lower the difficulty if you want to chill and build everything. Some of the challenge comes from opportunity cost decisions. Against human players or diety ai you have to specialize into maxing out a tree to then reap the rewards of future tech/civics (given your land can support it).

The race is getting your modern age victory prep work done first to then progress the age as fast as possible to screw over the other players.

The way civ handles AI difficulty is going to make it that ages are WAYYY faster on higher difficulties because the AI get science and culture bonuses that will always dwarf your capabilities so they get to churn out more future tech/civics in each age. On lower difficulties you should be able to max out both trees no problem with plenty of time to spare.

vale stirrup
#

So I think if I understand you correctly, your issue is really that Ages end after a certain number of turns regardless of the progress made by the players.

I think that is a fair thing not to like. It is certainly a new thing and if you like playing a sedate game were you amble gentle until you decide you are done, then this game doesn't support that. It pressures you with the onward progress of time and doesn't support those players that just want to vibe

I don't think it makes it less of a Civ game though, just a different one. But I can see how this change would make people who just enjoyed a more sandbox experience less happy.

The issue here is that I think any sort of change (beyond adding a new "Longer age" option) massively ruins the point of the Age. The core conceite of the Age system is that "Time moves on, and your culture will eventually dwindle and fade into the past no matter how much you want to cling to your golden age", that feels like a core part of what makes Civ 7, Civ 7. Adding a "1 more turn" button, or making the ages longer stops it being Civ 7. It might be an enjoyable game for some, but it is no longer the game the developers set out to make.

Thats ok. Not every game is for every person.

shell bobcat
#

Transforming a licence that for years permits you to play in a sandbox to a game only based on victory (lol, I've beaten the computer I'm a hero) is a major change, at least for me 🙂

waxen prawn
#

I think the word sanbox is the key. Let it be clear. I'm enjoying the game, although I don't think you can tell much from what I write heheh. But I would have preferred a less ‘competitive’ and less ‘rush’ approach. Let me explain.

I play at the hardest level because at the lower ones the AI is passive and can't keep up with me. Ok. But I can't enjoy all the technologies and civics in the game. I haven't managed so far to play with the Roman cavalry for example. It comes in the last techs and the era change comes first.

I don't know if it's me taking it too easy or is it really hard to finish the tech tree (or civics) at least a 30 40 before the end. I understand the scoring thing, but that was also there in 6. Only in 6 you didn't reset almost everything you had done or units you had built. There is too much of a cut-off, although I understand the crisis issue, which I conceptually like very much!

There is the change of era, of civilisation, their progress as well as abandoning the old one to its fate. But it is all too sharp, too fast. It would really be enough to decouple the cost of production and tech from that of the progression of eras. But apparently this is not possible. Again, maybe it's my problem, but I can't enjoy it as much as in the other Civs. Thank you all anyway for the interesting exchange of views!

shell bobcat
#

Exactly, I've the same feedback of not beeing able to plan and really build my civilization like I want because anyway part of what I've done will be erased in the age transition (the worst thing is the cities regression to towns, it's a game killer for me...).
It would be easily corrected by having the ability to transform a town in 2 ways :

  • In a temp city like for now, at a lower price, for people prefering production versus money
  • In a complete city resisting the transitions, for a big cost, for people prefering to really build an empire and not a single town with some satellites
vale stirrup
#

Thats all fair. But I suppose the question is "Was Civ a game where sandboxing was an option or is it a core part of what makes a Civ game Civ". Because to me it was always an accident of design, not an intended feature set. To me the point of Civ is to beat it, to learn the mechanics and master defeating it. But then I mostly play Multiplayer so maybe thats a factor

#

I certainly agree that the pacing of the Crisis and Age end could be improved such that it feels less abrupt and more like a sudden decline. And I think they could do that by reducing the Age progression associated with certain actions and just have the Crisis based on those. So the longer you spend in the Age the worse the Crisis gets

shell bobcat
#

Your point of view is perfectly understandable concerning multiplayer context but historicaly Civilization was here far before the multiplayer competition did even exist, don't remember well but I'm not sure there where a lot of people on Internet at the launch of Civilization I 😄
The game was, before this version, mainly a civilization builder, not an arena...

waxen prawn
vale stirrup
#

So sure I play Multiplayer mostly, but my point still stands. Is the way you play the "Intended design" or is it "Accidental happenstance based on the implementations of prior civs"

Because for me the Core design of every Civ game I have played has been about building a Civ to win victory of some form. Not just to put buildings in hexes to get yields.

#

Tl:DR I don't believe that Civ was ever intended to be a Cvilization simulator sandbox (ala SimCity, Cities Skylines etc), it was designed to be a Competative game where you played to be the first to complete one of the various victory conditions (or survived to the end of the time limit)

vale stirrup
shell bobcat
#

4X = eXplore, eXpand, eXploit and eXterminate
In the current state Civ7 seems to be "eXterminate, eXterminate, eXterminate and eXterminate", but it's just a personal opinion I'm for sure to old to follow the competitive desire of the new generations 😛