Civ needs more eras, because for example ancient times poorly done... its just ''spears and despotism''. The ancient times needs to shared into (atleast)
two eras: Late stone age and the antiquity. Well anyway, the game needs at least seven eras:

Late stone age
Kind of tribal era. Migrations, lack of metals, no proper cities...

the antiquity
Hoplites, legions, philosophy... Kind of awakening...

Middle ages
Middle ages. Knights, pikemen... but no gunpowder units, nor exelent ships.

Age of discovery
Gunpowder units, colonialism, better ships.

napoleonic age / early idustrial age
Early industrial era... age of nationalism, line infantry...

Idustrial age
first and second world war type era.

Modern Age
you know... you live in it. ;)

Suggestions? criticism? :) :D

I always thought that eras were contrived. I'd rather they scrap the idea and go back to the way Civ1, Civ2, and SMAC did it i.e. one huge tech tree that you can pick and choose from (personally I'd like them to add a random factor in so that you couldn't guarantee the One True Path through the tech tree every game).

I agree with Warpstorm. Eras are meaningless.

No more eras, four is fine. Just expand on them. In Rise and Rule you go crazy with 200 techs and 33 or 50 great wonders, "more is not always better", Soren Johnson. The game is very balanced as it is, that's what has us coming for more.

I agree with Warpstorm. Eras are meaningless.

Yeah they are.

Yeah, not only are eras meaningless, but they tend to make me feel like I'm jumping through European history. I'd like to rewrite my own history.

I hope civics changes some of that -- where not everyone can discover Democracy. Or where you might be able to discover Democracy, but it takes time and energy to bring your nation into it. The idea of rewriting history means that someone can be very progressive in one way, while being very conservative in another way. A King with Nuclear Weapons. Or a President of a country that hasn't even industrialized, really.

I think the ancient era should be split into 2 eras like naziassbandit said, but the others era r fine.

I agree with dh_epic- it'd be good to have a game with a tech tree like that- where not everyone discovers feudalism, not everyone discovers religion (or stays polytheistic) etc. Maybe even a country with computers but no industrialisation!

The entire tech tree does feel very European/ western at the moment, especially with the unit graphics/ tech names as they are.

I never really liked eras in the first place and tried to create a Civ3 mod without them, but I never had the time to finist it. I would like to see a few more eastern styled techs.

(personally I'd like them to add a random factor in so that you couldn't guarantee the One True Path through the tech tree every game).

:thumbsup:

Also not being a 100% which one you will discover, a la SMAC.

Seemed to me, in CivIII, eras were both opening up a new techtree, and changing the city graphics. On that note... why not change city graphics as various technologies are discovered? (e.g., beginning of game, your cities look like little more than a cluster of mud huts with thatch roofs, discover bronze working and masonry, and they turn into stone buildings akin to grecoroman design, or something to that effect...time passes to industrial age, metropoli look like industrial age cities, but prior to researching something like "city planning", they look like whatever the art of that period dictates looks good - not very likely to be organized in any predictable fashion, but looks nice save for the grime associated with the Industrial Age.. research City Planning, and it looks much more organized.. street layout in a cartesian grid system(NYC, Portland Oregon), or maybe polar grid system(Paris?).

sry nazi
rewritting history is part of the game.
but there should be a realistic future era after all modern technologies have been discovered. (the age of the unknown)

The era concept should definitely be dropped. However, the scope of the techs should be broadened a little and deepened a lot. I don't want to jump from guys with clubs to guys with bronze armour and long spears with nothing in between. The way military units advance in technology is like some bad stop-motion animation.

I'll join with everyone else in the just-drop-the-eras-already faction. They are a needless addition to the game that set too much in stone regarding the needful research path.

The old-style tech trees were great.

I think that the tech tree in Civ III is an improvement over how it worked in Civ II. More flexibility is a good idea as well. Slightly different tech trees depending on which culture your country belongs to could also work. And yes; I wouldn’t mind an Age of Discovery.

The "Ages" are nothing more than names for sections of the tech tree. They don't really add anything to the game.

It's also a catch 22 for other cultures. China never had an age of discovery. Heck, you can't say it had a middle ages with monotheism. But on the other hand, giving each culture it's own eras pigeonhole it -- why CAN'T china have an age of discovery?

The point isn't to choose one or the other but to abandon eras in favor of a more abstract, dynamic tech tree.

I'm going to cast my vote with the "drop the eras altogether" camp. The eras used are too Eurocentric, first of all. Secondly, it's entirely too contrived to force us to discover a specific set of techs in order to "complete" an era so we can move on to the next.

Thirdly, most of the era names would have been meaningless to the people who actually lived at the time. The eras are named retrospectively by historians to help us more easily discuss the past. No one in the Greek city-states thought of himself as living in "Ancient" times. No one in the Carolingian Empire thought of himself as living in "Medieval" times. No one in Lorenzo the Magnificent's Florence thought of himself as living in "the Renaissance". To all peoples, in all times, their own period was simply "modern times". We call our era "modern", but historians two hundred years from now won't. They'll have their own name for our era, and probably one we wouldn't recognize or even really understand without knowing what comes after us.

I like having the city graphics, leaderheads, and so on update as time goes by. But it should be based on specific techs rather than some arbitrary system of "eras". In Civ II, when you discovered Industrialization, your city graphics changed to an industrial look, but nothing else changed. You hadn't suddenly graduated into the "industrial" era with a whole new set of techs to discover. They should revive that system for Civ IV. Have certain techs that can change the look of things, but without sharply dividing it all into pre-set "eras".

There is flexibility in the tech tree! You don't HAVE to research Democracy, Free artistry, Music Theory, or printing press in the middle ages meaning you can be an ultra oppressive monarch for the whole game. You don't have to research Monarchy or Republic so you can be a despot or feudal lord (Which puzzles me as to why Monarchy comes before Feudalism). You don't have to research anything in the Modern age and you don't have to pursue the political section of the tech tree in the industrial age. Ages are there so that you can't get tanks in 1000ad or Airplanes in 1200a.d.

If you are good enough your in the modern era by 1000 AD anyway. But besides the point, there was way more flexibility with the Civ 2, Civ 1 tech trees, and blind research made the SMAC tree very effective. While there is some flexibility, it is pretty rigid compared to previous titles.

I always thought that eras were contrived. I'd rather they scrap the idea and go back to the way Civ1, Civ2, and SMAC did it i.e. one huge tech tree that you can pick and choose from (personally I'd like them to add a random factor in so that you couldn't guarantee the One True Path through the tech tree every game).

I second that fully !

The "Ages" are nothing more than names for sections of the tech tree. They don't really add anything to the game.

It's also a catch 22 for other cultures. China never had an age of discovery.

China had an age of discovery, but it was very short. :)

And really the age of discovery was more a of a need than intellectual growth for Europeans. The rest of the world was profiting nicely while the Europeans got the short end of the trade stick.

As a few others have said the whole point of the civilization games is:
TO REWRITE HISTORY :)
the all out tech-tree is 100% for me!

I'd like to see the tech tree much more open so people can choose their course and really customize their development. In addition to that, I think it would be a positive thing to have a modified tech tree so that each cultural group of civilization have its own pool of ancient techs, wonders, etc. It would be nice to see cultural diversity reflected and to show the evolution of history through more than the European experience.

I agree Arturus. But why define it by culture group? Why not let France take a very Chinese path of progress, moving towards collectivization in the industrial era? Why not let India quickly veer down the Mayan path, with a celebration of human sacrifice and so forth?

These little "mini-branches" that diverge for half an age, and then converge again later would make the tech tree way more fun.

Yeah, somewhere along the lines like that, Maybe something like certain cultures have turn discounts on certain techs, or maybe it could go by civilization. :)

Drop the Eras!!!!

Give me a tech tree that has more than one path down it, and that I could not possibly research EVERYTHING in a game. I'd like the variance and the uncertainty. It would make tech trading much more in depth.

Maybe add "independent techs" that once you cross a certain threshold on the tree, you can research, but they are not dependent on a specifice prerequisite tech. This might open up whole new avenues of tech research.

Change the city graphics and unit graphics as certain technologies are discovered - don't just arbitrarily drop me into the "middle ages" ... my worlds do not and should not develop like the real world in that extent.

Here my thoughts:
1. Neolitic - Someone talks about a nomadic age but before civilization rise there are already sedentary people and late stone age (naziassbandit) sounds very primitive, so I think this make more sense.
2. Rise of Civilizations - Substitute the Ancient Times, start when a civ discover the writing this means that not alls pass to this era at some time.
3. Imperial Age - Start when the discovery of Iron Working or/and Horseback Riding, wich give an extremelly advantage to armies wich this tech. The interactions between civs and with barbs are more intense. Think in Hittites, Persia, Carthage, Rome, etc.
4. Cultural Diversity Age - Replace the Medieval Ages. The world is now much fill of civs and rest even litle land to be civilize, however the interactions between cultures of the civs is little.
5. Discovery Age - Starts once Astronomy/Magnetism is discovery, wich allow travell in sea/ocean squares. The civs started have a more intense interactions between thems.
6. Industrial Age - Start with discovery of Industrialization.
7. Ideological Age - Start with discovery of Communism and take parts of Industrial Age and Modern Times. Blocs are formed since civs embrace communism.
8. Rising of Space Exploration - Starts with Rocketry or/and Space Flight techs.
9. Clashing of Civilizations - Blocs formed in a cultural groups basis and by consent in majority. So # of civs are much more less.

This give us the double of eras, wich mean each era are more easilly achieved, since they are about 6-12 techs, and therefore less bowred, and is also less eurocentric.

0) Neolithic Period (or 'stone age'): No cities yet, no settlers. Only nomads. You have to saty alive in a barbarian wilderness until you develop agriculture, which allows you to set-up cities

1) Ancient Times: The dawn of civilization: Egypt, Sumeria, Maya, Aztec, Inca and the like (pyramids, the wheel, stone working, bronze working, etc.)

2) Classical Age: Later ancient civilzations: Greece, Rome, the Han empire and so on (philosophy, iron-working, siege craft, etc)

3) The Middle Ages: Feudalism, castles, chivalry (stirrups), etc.

4) The Renaissance: Early gunpowder units, free artistry, astronomy, caravels, etc.

5) The Baroque Era Theory of gravitation, magnetism, better ships, military tradition (cavalry tactics), calculus, etc.

6) Industrial Age: For the sake of simplicity, we'll define this as everything from the French Revolution to the first world war

7) The Modern Age: You already know.

3) The Middle Ages: Feudalism, castles, chivalry (stirrups), etc.


No middle ages.

Because, ''middle ages'' were only dark ages and were only lived in europe. The rest of the world lived as they had lived before... well execept the middle east.

Maybe there can be some way that you can lapse into dark ages

5) The Baroque Era Theory of gravitation, magnetism, better ships, military tradition (cavalry tactics), calculus, etc.


Should really be "The Enlightenment" or "The Age of Reason".

Seemed to me, in CivIII, eras were both opening up a new techtree, and changing the city graphics. On that note... why not change city graphics as various technologies are discovered? (e.g., beginning of game, your cities look like little more than a cluster of mud huts with thatch roofs, discover bronze working and masonry, and they turn into stone buildings akin to grecoroman design, or something to that effect...time passes to industrial age, metropoli look like industrial age cities, but prior to researching something like "city planning", they look like whatever the art of that period dictates looks good - not very likely to be organized in any predictable fashion, but looks nice save for the grime associated with the Industrial Age.. research City Planning, and it looks much more organized.. street layout in a cartesian grid system(NYC, Portland Oregon), or maybe polar grid system(Paris?).

After reading all of these. This is the best idea so far , I think. :goodjob:

Now for my idea.

Lay out all of the techs in the game. One huge tree. A very wide one. With many many many techs. Maybe over 100. You can choose any path you wish, Not just a strictly European, Asian, Middle Eastern, or American.... You OWN UNIQUE path. make it so one civ has horsemen and catapults, the other with only warriors. Then after they see each other in battle, the develop those techs also... Why not? Isn't that what the American tribes did once all of the European tribes came and started taking over?

I mean Maybe over 1,000... :)

And by warriors i meant spearmen, Swordsmen, ect.

This was the Civ 2 and SMAC system, both ones I would not mind going back too. Bring back the one tech tree and eliminate the repressive eras.

hey i got an idea. Lets keep the ages but remove the tech limit thing. :king:

wait, thats the same as the old system, only equally euro-centric. at least it removes tech barriers. mite as well go all the way.

Corvex
Classical, Renaissance and Baroque? it's to eurocentric and meaningless.
Antiquity and Modern - as someone says a roman in Roman Empire live they modern times.

A single, unified, ageless Tech Tree is imperative. Also, it would be nice to include a toggleable "Blind Research" feature that lets you choose from categories to research, as in SMAC.

For those who haven't heard about SMAC's system, all tech were divided into four categories: Build, Explore, Discover, and Conquer. You could only choose which category to research, then you would get a random tech from that category (assuming, of course, that you had the prerequesite techs, which could be from many different categories).

If you can think of a better name for modern times than 'modern times,' mhIdA, please post it. The 'information age' springs to mind, but it does not accurately describe the situation of the great majority of the human race alive today who have no regular access to information technology.

The Englightenment really only referred to bunch of snooty white guys in Europe, but it is still appropriate for European history. Same with the Renaissance. This is the age of true information saturation, the point where information cannot be deciminated at the rate it is produced.

If you can think of a better name for modern times than 'modern times,' mhIdA, please post it. The 'information age' springs to mind, but it does not accurately describe the situation of the great majority of the human race alive today who have no regular access to information technology.

It's kind of a moot point, since I don't like Ages (as demonstrated above), but how about the "Petroleum Age"?

If you get rid of the idea of eras as a game concept, you avoid needing to find names for them.

I agree with rhialto, eras were experimented with and ultimately proven less fun than an open tech tree. Lets move on, eliminate eras, and learn from previous mistakes.

Corvex
Living in present time we have lack of a perspective to define our days. there was many features who can describe these days and specially due the monts of information that we are bomber every days (atomic age, modern times, post-modern times, infomation age, cold war, post cold war, globalization, changes of social and people's atittudes, etc). In former communist block we also see an increase of religion thought - la revenche de Dieu. So the dificulty of see what it's really important and what's not, and stay out of timeline
Think what really important to mankind as whole, since when civilization starts it was only to a little few people of the world, but that era as assumed like dawn of civilization, the same to industrial age.

Classical Age
This age have great empires, so my idea of called Imperial Age, if we consider the greek philosophy and thought and the roman law as the more important achievements of this era. Or if in India and China they consider this era as a classical age, so could be nammed like that.

Cultural Diversity Age
I prefer this name instead of Middle Ages, since while Europe is in Dark Ages Arabia, Mongolia, Aztecs and Incas are in their Golden Age.

Industrial Age
At same time French Revolution happens, we have the Industrial Revolution. The first give us the nationalism (self determination and nation state, wich we have consumate in european colonies independence), secularism (Europe is a very paganized continent: Pope Words) and the republic ways of government, wich I think is now the main form of rule. The second give us the industrialization (wich continued in our time in China, India, and etc). So what is more important the Nationalism, Secularism, Republicanism or Industrialization? Assuming that the industrialization is the more thing that era begans in late 18 century. So on game we could assume when Steam Power or Industrialization became available.

Ideological Age
The Ideological Age (who started with Communism and Printing Press techs or Russia Revolution) to me is the best way to express our times until fall of Berlin's Wall, and the end of the last european empire, the russian even in the USSR form. This means, the Communism tech allowed the Russian Revolution, but what is more important the possibility of have a comunist revolution (1848 - The Communist Manifesto) or the revolution itself, 1917? In game when the Communism tech is available. And now we have yet the Cuba, China and North Korea, so communism is not completelly death.
Is not only abiut the conflict between democracies and comunism, but also this 2 against Fascism/Nazism.


Globalization Age
Starts with Internet tech wich allow WTO or Davos Forum wonder.

Or instead Globalization we could have 2 more eras, wich I prefer:

Rising of Space Exploration
We tend to see our era as modern times, since the great changes we see in the second half of XX century. But when started, really? After WWII, WWI. But after that and as result of it (eurpean countries were exhausted) it happens the independence of european colonies, the end of Imperialism. So what is the breakpoint of our times. To me is not the Apollo Program and arrive the man on Moon, but the begin of space exploration (solar system in first place) who wich take longer than we could thinking, so as a result I called to that era Rising of Space Exploration (wich is a long expression how we use to be, but who define better our days).
But if we assume that is an interpenetration of Ideological Age and this era between 1957 and 1989. To the game I like more the Space Flight or Rocketry techs, wich means the 1957 year.
This age is a mix of present days and near future who could end when man arrives at Mars.

Clash of Civilizations
And then it start this new era. Once Fusion, Integrated Defense (What we have now on that issue it's a joke) or Space Weapons have been discovery.

But if we could add more eras, disable them or even the possibility of a blind research a la SMAC, everyone will satisfy.

The problem is that you have the last hundred years divided into three separate eras, whereas the first four thousand years of the history of civilization is crammed into a single era (the classical age). You're overestimating the importance of recent events. As for your near future era:
1) I'm not sure if 'clash of civilizations' is the right name for it
and
2) It seems like it would be easier to just throw a few likely future techs at the end of the "modern" age.

But then, let's just get rid of the eras anyway. They're unneccessarily troublesome.

No eras, no future tech, maybe even cut off the game at Nationalism. That would make a good expansion, when they figure out how to make the nationalistic time and beyond different kind of play.

Corvex
Industrial Age - (1780-1850 ) 70 years.
Ideological Age - (1850-1990) 140 years
Globalization Age - (1990- ?) ? years
or
Industrial Age - (1780-1850 ) 70 years.
Ideological Age - (1850-1960) 110 years
Rising Space Age - (1960- 2030) 70 years
Clashing of Civilizations Age - (2030-2100) 70 years => It's about regional blocs on a cultural basis.

Most of techs are discover in past century. Think in real life 20 years ago without massification of PC's, ended Cold War, mobil phone, internet, etc.
But after all eras are a way to join techs in a consistent and meaning way.

But after all eras are a way to join techs in a consistent and meaning way.

Civ II tech tree had plenty of meaning, and bee lining actually made for some interesting historical progression. Felt more like the 'recreating' history that Civ III kind of lost.

I agree with Sir Schwick. By forcing people to advance through eras, you were forcing them to enjoy the same euro-american milestones achieved throughout history.

The tech tree needs more freedom, not less. Not that you should be able to invent nuclear weapons in the ancient age, but you should be able to diverge from your neighbors -- even if you ultimately reach the same end goal.

Clash of Civilizations Age is a la Samuel Huntington, wich is a feature I liked see in Civ.

Eras as I see in Civ is a way to group techs tied to a time period of history, even same times I don't get many accuracy on same choices.
For me are to much techs by era and to little eras, so I like more eras with less techs in each era. Maybe I'm wrong, but is a thing who give us a sense that we not evolve or evolve slowlly in a game.

dh_epic
We can change our tech tree path so there same kind of freedom, but we can't have an entirelly free tech tree, .
What you mean when say that we should be able to diverge from our neighbors?

It was not a problem in Civ II. In fact it was one of the best parts of the Civ II/SMAC tech tree. You could have Iron-clads yet not have discovered theology, or Riflemen without map-making(maybe?). it was all plausible, and made for interesting evolution. Usually the prohibative part was technology cost, not some artificial requirement.

Also, almost all history was about clashes within or between civilizations. Really you could have claimed the Early Modern Ear(1500 - 1800) was very much that era. It was when everyone had a shot at greatness, but there could be only one.

However eras are based on actual Earth history and ignore the what-ifs of Civlization history.

And I will say it again, stop the game at Nationalism until we can agree on a way to simulate the industrial and beyond world more accurately. Would make for a really good expansion pack(Civilization IV: Nations and Beyond).

Sir Schwick summarized it pretty eloquently. In Civ 2, it was more strategic, realistic, and personal to be able to make an "end run" for one technology, while ignoring a bunch of other technologies on the side. For example, a society that is very advanced militarily, but socially "backwards" -- brutish and so forth. Getting rid of eras permitted this kind of "lopsidedness" that sometimes occurs in the real world.

I just created a new thread (finally) where I talk about all the thoughts I've had on tech tree divergence, and finding ways to differentiate yourself from your neighbors. It has both strategic implications, and implications for those who like to "role play" in Civ.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=113307

I also had hoped that with the introduction of culture in Civ 3, the cultural techs would have enough power and significance it would be worth beelining that way sometimes as well.

Tech Tree=ghey.

I better change that... (that was a dumb remark)

Eras=Ghey.

If we need discover every techs of an era, or at least remain 1 or 2 to go next era, I agree is very restritive, after all to a continental civ far from ocean Map Making and ships are useless.
But for me eras wouldn't be only that, but something tied to world history. In Neolitic Age we acquire the techs who allow us become a civ. In Dawn of Civilization starts civilization, but civs have little contact betwenn others civs and struggle to face barbs and nomads. In Imperial/Classic Age, mainly due the Iron and Horses, and once civs are more close each other (there less barbs and nomads), we have the first really interactions among them (culturally, military, diplomatically). And so one.

But those and changes should occur gradually and because of technology. Saying we need eras to simulate that is saying there are serious deficiencies in Civ technology. You should know you are in a different era simply by comparing the methods avaliable to you know and some point in the past. All those things you described can be simulated by an era-less tree, maybe even more accurately because you research according to your needs.

I suggest that there should be different types of techs:

Religious and ideaological: MOst of them cannot be traded like Fascism, communism, monotheism.

Mechanical and Agricultrual: Can be traded. Techs like pottery, construction, engineering, masorny, Sanitation...

Skill techs: They spread automaticly. Horseback riding, Archery (maybe), chivarly (it could be ideological)...

Scientific techs: Can be traded. Electricity, electronics, physics, alchemy, mangetism...

Maybe some other types too...

Sir Schwick
When I say Imperial/Classic Age starts with discovery of tech who take available Iron and Horses, so the era is tied to techs, if I understand what you mean. But if you talk about the game itself you're right, there are space to Civ improve, in this sense.

@mhIda

The idea of resource requesites for techs/eras has been discussed and I agree. However you do not need eras to achieve that, maybe certain branches could require certain resources. Besides resources, certain branches should require infrastructural and developement goals(minimum of 10 cities or whole starting landmass connected by roads, etc.). HOwever it would be better if all branches were avaliable, but some techs within those branches required resources/requirements.

On organization of branches and such:

I think an interesting idea would be if branches each were like mini-techtrees, only a lot smaller and simpler. Most branches would be like clusters, with a couple techs leading to more advanced sub-groups within that cluster. In order to move to the next branch from there, there would be requirmeents. In a sense this is actually tons of mini-eras that can be running simeoultaneously. Also, supposed you couldn't get a tech within a branch because of requirmeents, but then gained those requirements. There is a good chance your society will then discover that tech.

First off, DROP THE ERAS!!!!!

Now that I have that out of my system...

Give me a huge tech tree that makes it IMPOSSIBLE to research all the techs... Let there be many different paths to different parts of the tech tree. Let new discoveries "unlock" independent paths, that may (or may not) lead to a new branch in the tree (a random seed decided when the game begins). This will get rid of the ONE TRUE PATH, and also make it so the tech tree isn't the same. Plus, it will give everyone the option to research as the please, and write their own history.

Of course, you can always trade for technologies, too, if you have the prerequisites (even if you have the prereqs on a different path than your trading partner).

Include more social, cultural, and NON-militaristic technologies. Let the game last longer in each "period" ... early-game discoveries like Agriculture, Stoneworking, Human Sacrifice Rituals... not that I'd have to discover the vast majority of early game techs (and not that I'd want to either).

Get it balanced so that there are many different good research strategies, dependent on what situation you find yourself into. I don't want to be locked into a small pattern. I wouldn't mind double or triple the amount of tech advances, as long as it added this kind of CONTENT to the game.

Oh, and give each civilization relatively unique unit/city/improvement graphics. Cities should evolve as certain techs are discovered - a morphing as time goes on. I'm not a very talented programmer, but that shouldn't be TOO hard to implement...

Anyhoo..

Darwin420 and Naziassbandit have some great thoughts on techs.

I particularly like Naziassbandit's breakdown of the different kinds of techs and moreover the differences between them -- some tradeable, some not-tradeable, and some that spread more naturally to neighbors (perhaps these techs cost 50% less if a neighbor has it). I wish I'd come up with that myself.

And Darwin420's overall way of articulating the "multiple branch" idea. We're sick of one true path. We know that a tree generally grows upwards, but it can bend slightly to one direction or another on the way. A branch can veer off to the left or the right for a while before another offshoot appears going straight up. Let the tech tree reflect this.

Dropping eras is a step in the right direction. Eras force you to finish all/most of the techs in one era before you can move to the next. The only reason people like them is because they give convenient names to the four "quarters" of history -- not because they offer any gameplay improvement.