Title, anyone else think it's a bad idea ?  The idea of not having the opportunity of really playing the affinity you want really feel bad, it also feel like bad game design, restricting a player option feel like being punished for nothing and the choice of not including Aesthete really doesn't make sense imo. 

I have the same idea as you, unless aesthetes will never appear in the future(The remaining three eras).

I was surprised by this, mostly because it seemed before that the game wanted us to choose how we "left our mark on Humankind". We don't know how powerful the trait abilities are but we do know that you get more Fame from the Era Stars of your trait, which means we're limited on that regard for this era at least. Who knows if they will be the same case in future eras.

IMO not including a certain affinity can actually push players to look for other options like switching to other affinities or transcending, instead of sticking with one affinity you like. So while it could be bit disappointing, I think this decision would be a deliberate one that will improve general flow of the gameplay.

Yeah, I definitely agree. It's weird to have a game that's supposed to be about the choices you can make with the cultures you pick, and how they allow you to adapt to different situations and then just exclude one of the play styles for the medieval era. If you needed to generate more influence in the medieval era or use it better after what you'd done in the previous two, or if you just wanted to try that gameplay style, well you can choose a culture that's got an EQ or legacy bonus to influence but that's not going to be as optimal. You're just forced to pick something else. And it's not like being forced to pick something else is in itself bad, it can happen if someone else gets to the culture you were planning on first, but then it's your own fault for not getting there in time. This is just taking a choice away for what doesn't seem like a good reason.

Also to be honest, it kind of leaves me questioning why even have the broad orientations in the first place then? Why use them if you're not going to use them to diversify the options per era, but instead to goad us away from a playstyle? And it's clear that these aren't minor things. They give you big boosts and abilities and they influence how you can get the points that help you win the game.

It's also made worse by the other culture picks to be honest. We have three militarists instead, which in itself seems kind of excessive, but one of them would be more fitting as expansionist anyway (Vikings) and another isn't even all that medieval (the Aztecs). And it can't be blamed on them having to make the best choices for the cultures they picked because the Byzantines are right there and would work perfectly well as aesthetes. It just seems so unnecessary. We could've had aesthete byzantines, we could've had something else instead of one of the militarists. What's even the point of having three militarists and no aesthete? Just force more conflict during the middle ages? You could've just had one less merchant then. 

If one type is reintroduced and seven types are guaranteed, I can also think it is a good choice.Because that will give people a sense of progress of the times.But it's not a good idea to lack basic choices and force players to make other choices.

Then there will be three East Asian civilizations in the next era. I think about it now and I will have a headache

I've made sure that if the Middle Ages kept aestheticists out of the original, and then added aestheticians to the new paid packages, it would be widely criticized.

Arkalis wrote:

I was surprised by this, mostly because it seemed before that the game wanted us to choose how we "left our mark on Humankind". We don't know how powerful the trait abilities are but we do know that you get more Fame from the Era Stars of your trait, which means we're limited on that regard for this era at least. Who knows if they will be the same case in future eras.

My point exactly, I don't feel like the catchphrase make much sense anymore. It kinda feel like "So, what are you waiting for ? Leave your mark on Humankind ! PS : You'll be limited and won't have access to every archetype so I hope you do believe in the Medieval Dark Age Theory!" 

No one is locking you out from going for Aesthete era stars, you don't get Aestethe affinity to stick around AFTER the Medieval era. Your ultimate culture gets its traits and the EQs you've built to stick around. Having more militaristic cultures imo makes for a more aggressive midgame, not having Aesthetes while being limiting, it isn't all that gamebreaking. You would still need to get 4 era stars from other affinities to get to the next era, I don't think you can fully go all Aesthete in any case, you would still need to do other things, perhaps doing some Builder Era stars, or Scientist. If you picked Aesthete culture/s in the prior eras it would make sense to think about getting a bit of Builder, or Merchant for example. If you are lagging on military Medieval era is the chance to fix that. Again, no one is locking you out of any particular Era star gain. You won't get more fame from prioritizing Aesthete stars, yes, but you could still go for your second best affinity to make up for that.

As vips in discord said, it isn't all that much of a problem not having an Aesthete culture in Medieval era.

no aesthete = no bueno ;)

I'm curious for the next era, there will maybe new affinity which don't exist in the era we actually knows for exemple.

Or other exemple no more expansionist affinity in the last era ... We can't really know, for now

Why not just make Byzantines into Aesthetes? Their architecture was absolutely gorgeous, their art was leagues ahead of anything of the time, they had plenty of writers and historians, and were even deeply religious, which seems to also be tied to Aesthete. They are literally one of the best picks for Aesthete. We already have a merchant culture in medieval anyways, do we really need two for the sake of Aesthete? I mean if you absolutely have to, you could play the unexpected card and make Vikings trader instead, so we wont have to have three militarists. I honestly think even Aztecs were an ok Aesthete candidate: Poetry was a big part of their culture, so was religion and art. And their city planning and sanitation greatly exceeded anything of the time in Europe. Isnt Aesthete defined partly as culture focused on citizen well-being? What fits more than sanitation and advanced city planning? Not to mention the ballcourt game for entertainment. That would make a very good Aesthete quarter, instead of a religious quarter, which we already saw in both the Olmecs and the Mayans.

If you chose an Aesthete in a previous era then you can choose to not advance your culture and keep your Aesthete culture from the previous era. Additionally they will be adding more cultures in DLCs and I imagine a medieval Aesthete will be in the first DLC. This will only be a minor inconvenience for the first few months after launch.

Rubliko wrote:

Why not just make Byzantines into Aesthetes? Their architecture was absolutely gorgeous, their art was leagues ahead of anything of the time, they had plenty of writers and historians, and were even deeply religious, which seems to also be tied to Aesthete. They are literally one of the best picks for Aesthete. We already have a merchant culture in medieval anyways, do we really need two for the sake of Aesthete? I mean if you absolutely have to, you could play the unexpected card and make Vikings trader instead, so we wont have to have three militarists. I honestly think even Aztecs were an ok Aesthete candidate: Poetry was a big part of their culture, so was religion and art. And their city planning and sanitation greatly exceeded anything of the time in Europe. Isnt Aesthete defined partly as culture focused on citizen well-being? What fits more than sanitation and advanced city planning? Not to mention the ballcourt game for entertainment. That would make a very good Aesthete quarter, instead of a religious quarter, which we already saw in both the Olmecs and the Mayans.

I very much agree that the culture traits could easily be reshufflled, and that the Byzantines could easily fill the role of Aesthete. My theory (and hope) is that the devs are already planning to make this change, and the culture cards that have been released are simply outdated. (Similar to how they announced that the Bronze Era would be renamed to "Ancient Era" in the final release)

Obviously, this kind of planning is implying that the middle ages are different from those before. However, due to the improper arrangement of publicity, we can not know what special arrangements the designers have. Many theories are not in line with reality, for example, the creators avoid the emergence of militarists in modern times.

It also seems strange to me the absence of aesthetes in the Middle Ages.

After three eras, we get: science - 3, builders - 3, aesthetes - 3, agrarians - 3, expansionists - 5, merchants - 6, militarists - 7.

Obviously there is a certain imbalance in the types of сultures.

Perhaps in the next eras there will be fewer merchants? I see no reason for this. Fewer militarists? Perhaps, but this is cunning - there have been wars at all times. Fewer expansionists? It makes sense. Especially if it implies a peaceful expansion of unoccupied territories.

In any case, I would like to know the reasons for this decision from the developers. I'm very interested.

Salterius wrote:

No one is locking you out from going for Aesthete era stars, you don't get Aestethe affinity to stick around AFTER the Medieval era. Your ultimate culture gets its traits and the EQs you've built to stick around. Having more militaristic cultures imo makes for a more aggressive midgame, not having Aesthetes while being limiting, it isn't all that gamebreaking. You would still need to get 4 era stars from other affinities to get to the next era, I don't think you can fully go all Aesthete in any case, you would still need to do other things, perhaps doing some Builder Era stars, or Scientist. If you picked Aesthete culture/s in the prior eras it would make sense to think about getting a bit of Builder, or Merchant for example. If you are lagging on military Medieval era is the chance to fix that. Again, no one is locking you out of any particular Era star gain. You won't get more fame from prioritizing Aesthete stars, yes, but you could still go for your second best affinity to make up for that.

As vips in discord said, it isn't all that much of a problem not having an Aesthete culture in Medieval era.

Affinity Star counts as more fame, it's definitely irreplaceable given fame the ultimate winning condition. What you said is always for someone who played Aesthete BEFORE Medieval Era, but why can't someone play as, for example, Scientist → Expansionist → Aesthete? Why waiting until Medieval to burst influence is out of the table? Can you justify