Different civs would hit those at different times and you would strategize around hitting your new era at the right time. Crises are also totally valid: if your civ is too large and there’s too much corruption you could have a civil war.

I like those ideas. Have you suggested them to the developers?

If they're not in at release time, maybe the usual expansion/rework DLC will add them. :P

[–] firadin@lemmy.world 21 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I don't think Firaxis would agree with any of my feedback because I think I disagree with them in a fundamental sense about how the game should be oriented. Mandatory disasters appear to be a fundamental part of the Civ 7 game philosophy: you build your civ, face the crisis, reset your civ in a new era, and start over with some amount of carry-over. I get the motivation: by forcing these soft resets, Firaxis is making it so you can't snowball so far ahead that the mid/late game is a chore of uninteresting gameplay. An advantage in the first/second eras won't put you in so far of a lead in the third era that it's just a rush to hit the next turn button. On the other hand... that also means that everything you do in the first/second eras counts way less, and that feels bad.

Granted I obviously haven't played the game yet; this is just my read from demos and press around the game/design philosophy. We will see if I'm right or not.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

The biggest issue I foresee is just how short eras are. If they're going to do these resets then eras need to last way longer relative to unit production and movement.