I don't get it... in all the other Civ games, the timing of eras and when the AI hit it were relatively "on time," so to speak. In Civ 5 it just seems... way.. extremely off. I understand that given certain map conditions, a certain civilization can prosper tremendously, but it still seems very, very wrong to hear that some civ entered the Medieval Era, in 1000BC. Really? That's a whole 2 millenia prior to the actual dark ages, and now their medieval? seriously? I don't just mean in certain games on diety, I mean in general, on any difficulty. Probably the fault of a weird tech tree that skips back and forth through time.
I don't expect 100% historical accuracy, or even 50% accuracy, but when that sort of thing happens, especially when you get the message "Unknown Civ has entered the Renaissance Era" in 500AD, I just sit there and go, "WTF, really? really? is this a sick joke?"
There's a fine line between probable and possible. Is it possible the Mayans could have survived and not been destroyed by the Spanish? Sure. Is it probable that the Mayans could have fought back and conquered Spain with groove-bored rifles? No way Jose, yet that seems to be the way most games go.
Heck, I'm even bothered by my own civilization hitting industrial in 1000AD. Seems to me like yet another example of how Firaxis chose to spend waaay too much time on making the game "pretty" and not nearly enough time on back-end mechanics. Don't get me wrong, Civ 5 is fun, in it's own right, but stripped of the Civilization title, it's just another mediocre hex-based strategy game. Semper Fi FTW.
I think it's just an issue of how an Era is "defined."
In Civ V, as soon as you reach a single tech of that era, you are considered to have entered that era. That means beelining can usher in eras far earlier than you would otherwise expect.
Normally, when we think of Eras, we don't look at just the most advanced tech they have, we look at the technology level overall.
I mean, if a civilization has mastered Theology and the Compass but hasn't figured out the Wheel or Mining, I don't think that we would consider them that advanced....
Taking a cursory look at some of the techs:
The first compass has been attributed to the Chinese Han Dynasty (circa 206 BC)
Steel was discovered pretty early (1400 BC or earlier), though mass production of steel is still far off.
Gunpowder (a Renaissance tech in Civ V) was discovered in the 7th Century.
There are also some who argue that ancient technology (Damascan steel, Roman glassware) used nanotechnology. I doubt that we would consider them to be in the Information Age (with Nanotech being in that era in the game).
Yeah, specially on higher difficulties, AI get bonuses and you too from trades and spionage. Teching goes so fast a unit can get to obsolete in less than 10 turns. Is a little disturbing to me on the turns side mrioe than on the historic accuracy.
Nah, it is still off. The techs that seem to be at fault are the classical and medieval ones. For you to "stay on pace" with historical accuracy, you'd need like 25 science going into classical and 80 science at turn 200 (1400AD). Even with keeping universities as the very last tech, you will still bypass that.
As far as keeping pace, the classical/Medieval techs need to be doubled. Outside of mass GS bulbing, the later techs pace well.
I know all this, 'cause it bothers me, too Some of the mods I've worked on try and make it a bit more accurate, unfortunately it is more difficult than it sounds.
Without beelining I always find myself getting to classical in ~1600BC, medieval in ~500BC and renaissance in ~1200AD. If you stay true to history then it should be around 1000BC, 500AD and 1400AD.
Not that it bothered me much. At later eras it seems to get closer to the historical timeframe if you are researching at a normal rate (like indus. in 1700s, modern in late 1800s, atomic in 1940s and information in 1980s).
But if you play on higher difficulties you better drop the "accuracy" stuff and try to get to renaissance at 500AD like the AI. Or earlier.
If everyone progressed into each era at around the same time then there would be no indication of who is performing better. Yeah, entering Medieval era at 0 AD is ridiculous, but that's the player's reward for playing well.
There's a fine line between probable and possible. Is it possible the Mayans could have survived and not been destroyed by the Spanish? Sure. Is it probable that the Mayans could have fought back and conquered Spain with groove-bored rifles? No way Jose, yet that seems to be the way most games go.
I wholeheartedly disagree. If the events of the entire world were different beginning in 4000 BC, then the Mayans and Spanish could have entirely switched spots in history. There is no way to reasonably predict the outcome of several millennia and say "nah that just is in no way probable."
Besides, CiV worlds are even more unrealistic because every civilization is alive at the dawn of man and are only wiped out, never created, which makes these arguments moot.
I just cannot for the life of me understand why there are so many people who want civ to stop being a game that rewards players for progress and want it to be more like a National Geographic documentary.
Agreed on the Civ being just a game bit, but the problem with your argument is "doing well" and entering an era early is not one and the same. Or to put it another way, I don't find choosing Rationalism instead of any other tree as rewarding. I don't find ignoring all specialists except for scientists rewarding.
IMO one of the problems with Civ5 is too much variance with science with much of that variance based on arbitrary decisions that have little to nothing to do with the actual gameplay. Any high-level game and this is proven time and again: Hiawatha with his massive empire, endless resources, and ten times your military strength, yet you pull out a win because you "played well" by picking Rationalism.
And all this is surprisingly on-topic. If Civ5's science system was better controlled, the dates given could be more accurate. As it is now, there is a good 150+- difference in game times purely due to the science system. The added benefit, which I think is more beneficial than historically accurate dates, is that it would put the eXpand back into 4X, which is what genre this game is marketed as, but currently lacking.
Can i point out that it is impossible for the game to simulate real world technological progress due to two major things:
1) The dark ages. A huge period of time when there was no technological progress. Things actually went backwards from where they were in the Roman period (ie, technologies were forgotten). Unless they somehow simulate this no Era date is accurate.
2) Different places. The Chinese had gunpowder in the 7th Century, the Romans had clockwork and the first steam engines...in the modern era we still have places with almost no technology. If they were a civ game the Medival Era would have ended for the Romans in 500AD, yet the Inca could still be in the classical Era in 2013.
3) Empires. progress in the real world changes dramatically as empires rise and fall. In Civilization (all games) work on the idea that empires tend to last continuously for a good 6000 years (unless playing domination). How advanced would we be if the Roman empire had never collapsed and was still around today?
Yes, many players prioritize Writing and Philosophy, and build the National College ASAP. So expert players will have a much larger science output than "on average."
Maybe a better metric is to see how quickly the computer AI's progress through the ages (they are slow to build NC but even AI's beeline) or to play a non-beeline game without the NC?
There's a fine line between probable and possible. Is it possible the Mayans could have survived and not been destroyed by the Spanish? Sure. Is it probable that the Mayans could have fought back and conquered Spain with groove-bored rifles? No way Jose, yet that seems to be the way most games go.
If the Mayans/Incans/Aztecs had discovered Europe first, then things could easily have been very different:
- Maybe the Mayans/Incans/Aztecs would have spread virulent diseases and wiped out most of the European population rather than vice versa? (While gunpowder was a nice edge, it really wasn't the deciding factor).
- If the Aztecs had discovered Spain, then it's far less likely they would have bought into the Hernan Cortez = Quetzalcoatl belief.
- The Incans fell so easily to Pizarro because they just happened to be having a war of succession at the time.
Wow, sure opened up a can of worms over night didn't I!
lol great to see lots of people with similar and differing standpoints on this. It's not a big deal, I mean, it is a game, and for all the huff, puff, and clout the AI throws around with it's latest-tech units, i'm never worried unless I see someone hit atomic, when i'm just getting into the renny myself
Below is a FRIENDLY rant. Civil, non-bashing, Zezima.
Spoiler:
Zezima:you are right when you say there's no way to predict what would happen if it all were a little different in 4000BC, but you should also consider the terrain said civilizations started out on. Spain is a very lush region, with lots of hilly terrain, minerals, rivers, and is also next to a very large landmass, which has always been filled with strife and "barbarians" due to the landlocked nature of many regions, and scarce resources. Spain, and most of Europe for that matter, were very delicious looking to people waaaay back then, because the lands were resource rich, and where they were coming from, the land pretty much sucked. Natural reaction? Sack Europe!
The Mayans though, they always get the short end of the stick (unless of course one of the things that's different is them not living in a hot, steamy, disease filled rainforest) simply because of where they live. Their choice? Not exactly, not any more than you can pick your parents. Given the best of circumstances there's every reason to believe the Mayans could have "out-teched" anyone, but given the circumstances of history, the fact that they evolved in a jungle setting, means it is very difficult to blossom a civilization there. Look at south america now, aside from the northern parts which are questionably civil (mexico), sure some people have cars, and a lot have guns, but neither of those things are their own making, they were brought in by outsiders. If the Mayans decided to migrate north for a few centuries or so, past mexico, and moved into arizona/colorado/california, then the America that the colonists settled could have very well already had paved roads and lots of high population citites around, with a Mayan army at the ready to boot.
it's a game, it's not history. Sorry to rant about it, I just half-disagree with you. To sum it up: 4000BC Spain/The Spanish could have easily turned out vastly different with a small change. The Mayans staying in the jungle? Not much a small change would do.
I am aware this is a game, not looking for 100% historical accuracy like I said in my OP. I just think the timing of eras is off, that's all. Thanks everyone, for a great discussion!
EDIT: Hmm, I think i may be thinking of a different civilization.. always get that region mixed up. Maybe replace all above instances of "Mayan" with "Incan," if that makes more sense.
I can agree that the science "metagame" within the game needs a rework. Currently, any civ can win by completely ignoring gold or culture or faith or economy by focusing entirely on science, but the same cannot be said for a civ that ignores science in favor of another facet. Science should not be the only thing that dictates a win in civ, regardless of chosen victory condition. As it stands, culture and faith are merely tools to usually improve your science in one way or another, be it increased production to build science buildings quicker, more gold to rush buy science buildings more often, or more food to grow bigger populations for... more science.
I don't entirely like the game's severe focus on science, but at the same time it does make mildly logical sense. A civilization that is technologically advanced but has poor culture and economy would survive and just be viewed as barbaric. A technologically deprived civilization with a booming culture would probably be wiped out in the course of history, if not protected by allies or mutual enemies, as history sometimes shows us.
Regardless of how you structure the tech tree or the science mechanic, the era timing is always going to be a benchmark for a civ's technological progress to be weighted against another civ. If you made the requirements of entering new eras more difficult, then instead of tech-heavy players entering eras very early, you'd have tech-lite players entering eras very late. And that doesn't solve the problem you are addressing.
Spoiler:
To Bobi, I apologize if I came off as aggressive or bashing, the entirety of my comments weren't directed at you or anyone in particular. I simply chose to express my opinion through sarcasm, which I should understand doesn't translate well over the internet.
To somewhat address your point, when I play civ, I don't connect the Mayans that I encounter shortly after the dawn of man with the historical Mayans. Therefore, I don't assume that they also deal with the same terrain-based problems as the historical Mayans, which is why any civ is capable of anything in a single game of Civ V: the context that they are born into is entirely different with each roll.
I just think that it is a poor example to compare anything in Civ V to a specific and truly historical event, such as the Spanish conquering of the Mayans or Incans or what-have-you, when in Civ V, any civ can be born into any context and evolve in any way possible. In Civ V, the Mayans may end up with the lush, resource-rich start location and the Spanish may wind up smack in the middle of a resource-less jungle, stunting their progress.
You do bring up an interesting point, though. The Spanish were successful in large part due to their terrain and their environment. It molded them into what they became, much like the Mayans were molded by their terrain. I think if you ran this scenario in Civ V (legendary start Spanish against jungle-trapped stunted Mayans), you would see an outcome similar to history. But at this point I'm just digressing.
Edit: The concept of a 'dark age' sounds very intriguing. I like that golden ages improve the quality of your empire, they can really give you a 'golden age' feeling (especially if you are Darius ). I think a forced dark age for every civilization that could be triggered by some specific event, which temporarily throws all of your progress into reverse, could be a very fun game mechanic, at the very least for a scenario.
@Zezima I didn't think you were trying to bash me, but like you said about misunderstandings over the interwebs I just wanted to make sure you understood I wasn't trying to bash. It's nice when people can disagree and agree on things in the course of a discussion while refraining from the human tendency to get defensive/angry.
I appreciate your input, and the concept of Dark Ages does sound very fun indeed! Something that could feasibly be avoided, and at the same time something you could inflict on others. From my understanding the Dark Ages were brought on by a combination of warmongering, climatic disaster, and general unhappiness of the people.
I am *SO* glad that those annoying "such-and-such mountain exploded, but spared the city" events from Civ4 are gone, but i do think hitting a certain level of unhappiness in your empire should trigger a dark ages effect. As it stands now, you can have 30+ unhappiness, and the worst that happens is halted growth, lower production, and "revolts," if barbarian spawns can be called that. I'd think if your population was really upset, they would not want to have specialists, much less invest their personal time in researching things, yet they still will. Your science only suffers when you are broke, and that seems a little cheese-balled to me.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Some of the mods I've worked on try and make it a bit more accurate, unfortunately it is more difficult than it sounds.
