So after playing a few games and also having read a few of the feedback threads. I wanted to give some feed back on the Age system. Specifically its pacing.
I will preface this is based on the following assumption about the design ethos behind the Age system:
- To provide system by which the players get to rise through a feeling of growth and dominance before a decline caused by a series of crisis' that lead to the inevitable collapse of society
- To provide a means by which the game is broken into more manageable chunks
With that assumption in mind I make the following observation:
-
The current Ages pacing and duration are not managed such that all players feel like their civilization is on the brink of collapse by the end of the Age. For the player leading they are often in a position where they are reducing their success in one victory condition such that they can achieve others without driving the Age forward. As such when the Age ends players can be left feeling like it was an arbitrary point, rather than having spent several turns fighting to avoid drowning as their Civ collapses. I felt the best in my first Antiquity age end when the Crisis began to pile up with massive happiness penalties, and cities were in open revolt. Then the Age transition hit and it felt right to move on as a culture.
-
Ending an Age having seen only 1 Crisis policy is intensly jarringly weird
-
A lot of people appear to play Civ in an entirely non competitive fashion, where the aim isn't to "Win" but just to vibe.