This game could really use an age between "classical" and "medieval"

[Boris Gudenuf]

Well, no. But this is the future. The next step in a logical development. Or back to the beginning again. We started with civs being completely the same, only their names and colours differentiating them and you as the leader (civ2). Then there came traits for the civs and Unique units (civ3). The went further with giving several leader traits, thus allowing for more variation AND repetition (civ4). The next escalation is completely unique abilities, as well as added buildings and biases (civ5) as well as leader agendas. The next step would be to have completely unique civs but fewer unique units/buildings (Age of Empires). Same tree, but different unlocks. That allows also the "War Elephant" to not be unique to one culture...

The next step in that design is to not make the English spawn close to an ocean, but make the civ that is close to the ocean become the English. But the danger here lies in too much dependency: not only on the map, but also other factors such as social movements (like Religions). It needs to be a game and that means player control. If I want to play as the Romans but the map in game 1favoured the Mayans, someone else took them in game 2, game 3 I needed the Goths to defend and in Game 4, it would be better to go with Persia, but hey, I want to play as Rome? Now imagine that the Romans required the Etruscans or the Myceneans or for you to conquer a certain number of close by city states as well. You'd never get to play them. That's just not fun.

Precisely what led me away from the idea of a 'deterministic' Civ model. Even if you could determine all the factors that go into producing a particular 'unique' Civ/Faction and cram them into a game, it would not produce a fun game. I don't think it is unique among gamers to want to play a particular Civ/Faction: Role Playing, explicit or implicit, is a part of almost every game of any kind" some days you just wanta be Caesar (or, if you are seriously warped, Caligula)

So it needs a balance between "a logical tree" and/or "context factors" as well as a freedom of choice. It is fun to go Olmecs-Rome-Khmer after all. But I am very much looking forward to that game. It is a total departure from Civilization, but I am very much looking forward to that. The main difference: a dynamic understanding of history AND a reactive understanding of gameplay. The latter is very important, maybe comparable to Crusader Kings, in that it targets a different type of player than the boardgamey civilization does.

We'll know more, hopefully, after the playthrough next week, but as far as I've been able to gather from the numerous snippets, in Humankind playing a succession of, say, Agricultural Factions might be the worst possible strategy. It seems that since each different Faction has a different type of 'bonus' that carries over, mixing Agricultural, Expansionist, Mercantile, etc as needed will compile a better set of 'residual bonuses' - especially since the Fame Stars that allow you to progress through the Eras and win the game are scattered so that a concentration on a single aspect of the game will only help with a fraction of them - a broad approach will (apparently) be a better game strategy.
This might be the complete opposite of a gamer's wish to 'build on strength' and try to continue playing the same type of Faction or a 'historical progression' (all Chinese Dynasties, as has been speculated at length on these forums!).

I'm waiting for more information on that aspect of the game design with Extreme interest.

 

[grug]

I read somewhere that the Late Antique period could be best characterized by the rise of orthodoxy. If they came out with a DLC overhauling religion (from what I've seen in the gameplay analysis videos, religion is present in the game right now but not fully developed yet), adding a Late Antique/ Post Classical/ Migration Era/ Early Medieval Era for the 200s-800s (or 900s, depending on when they start the Early Modern period) could give a chance to explore the development of world religions better.

Christianity at the end of the Classical Period was a minority religion, but by the Late Medieval period was the unquestionably dominant religion of Europe. It came into conflict with the Roman Empire after the Crisis of the 3rd century, then saw a dramatic reversal of fortunes with emperor Constantine's conversion and emperor Justinian's reforms, so that by the time of the final Byzantine-Sassanian war Christianity was an integral part of Byzantine identity. It was part of the conflict between the Western Romans and the occupying Goths as well, as "heretical" Arian Christian Goths clashed with the Catholic Romans, which along with cultural differences was part of why even though the Goths attempted to continue Roman-style governance they were never fully integrated into the culture of the people they conquered. And then at the end of the period, you see the Franks convert to Catholicism, helping to establish Catholicism as the dominant Christian sect in Western Europe. So if you wanted to show the development of Christianity, from a seemingly inconsequential decision in the Classical Era (in-game, maybe an event on whether to execute a rabble rouser), to a growing force that was distinctly separate from the will of the Roman Empire in the new In-Between Era (in-game, it would have to be able to spread despite persecution), to the dominant religion inseparable from culture and politics in the Medieval Era (in-game, the defining characteristic of diplomacy and ideology), including another era would make a lot of sense. Including the Franks and Byzantines after the Romans but before, for instance, the Teutons and Norman English, could also show the political changes Europe underwent as successors of the Roman Empire diminished in power.

Hinduism and Buddhism also had major developments in this period. Buddhism, in a similar vein to Christianity, was founded in the Classical Era, then spread to distant regions in the In-Between Era. But it was not the established dominant religion of most of India by the time of the Late Medieval Period. Instead, Hinduism saw a resurgence. This was in part due to the work of Adi Shankara in unifying Hindu thought at the end if the 700s, which resulted in a decline in patronage for Buddhist monasteries in India. It was also in part due to political changes on the subcontinent, as the centralized control of the Gupta Dynasty gave way to regional powers like the Pratihara Dynasty, who resisted the Islamic Conquests, the Chola Dynasty, who became a naval power in the Indian Ocean and were one of the world's longest lasting dynasties, and the Delhi Sultanate, who resisted the Mongols. Throwing in the Cholas, or one of their trading partners like the Sri Vijayans or Majapahit, in the Late Medieval Era alongside the Khmer could also show the Indian Ocean trade and the spread of Hinduism and Buddhism through trade routes.

Judiasm also was radically altered to establish a new orthodoxy during this period. The destruction of the second temple in the Classical Period was followed by the codification of Rabbinic Judaism in the In-Between Era, so that from the Classical to Late Medieval Eras Judaism had changed from a temple religion to a religion of the book.

And of course Islam emerged and radically changed during the In-Between Era. The enforcement of Islamic Law under the Umayyad Caliphate was not the same as under the Abbasid Caliphate, due partly to the nature of the Islamic Conquests. The Umayyads kept Arabic culture, and to a lesser degree language, separate from the culture of those they conquered by continuing to live in the Amsar garrison towns, a cultural separation that was part of what led to the Abbasid Revolution by the Persian Abbasids. The Umayyads also relied on the jizya tax on non-muslims, which meant that in some places Islam was treated as an elite religion more than a universal religion as it would be under the Abbasids simply to keep tax revenue flowing in. In fact some groups of Persians attempting to convert from Zoroastrianism to Islam were rejected, in part because the Umayyads needed the tax revenue. 800 or so could be a good marker for ending the In-Between Era and separating the beginnings of Islam from its establishment as a universal religion. Adding the In-Between Era could also separate the Pre-Islamic kingdoms of Africa, namely the Aksumites and Ghanaians, from the post-conversion cultures of Mali and the Swahili.

There are obviously religions that don't fit this narrative of reform in the In-Between Era and established orthodoxy in the Late Medieval Era so neatly, like Zoroastrianism, Jainism, or Manichaeism, but these religions did still see radical change due to their exchange and conflict with other religious beliefs in the In-Between Era, in addition to the political changes mentioned elsewhere in this thread.

This is longer than what I set out to write, but my point is that an increased focus on religion in a DLC could justify adding in the era this thread is discussing, with different religious mechanics unlocked in the different eras.

 

[Krajzen]

I've made a thread devoted to this subject in civ sugestiom forum as well https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...0-900-ad-early-medieval-migration-age.660000/ although I don't expect it to be popular.

Humankind would benefit from this split much more, with its era - specific unlocked cultures and general larger focus on history.

To be honest, I'd frankly argue that Late Rome (since Aurelian, 270 AD) was so different in most aspects from Classical Rome (pre incredible chaos of third century crisis) that we could have West Rome in this era, separate from classical era Romans. And analogically - East Romans here and Byzantium in medieval.
Really, it was so different.
- Christianizing Rome vs old Pagan Rome
- Entire army organization, focus and strategy. From legions, praetorians and auxila to comitatensis, schoale palatinae and foederati.
- Republic and "Republic" vs eastern - influenced bureaucratic divine monarchy.
- Even in terms of Humankind focus, it would go from Expansionist to either Miliarist (as in "defending the established empire") or Aestethe (as in "massive cultural and religious focus and influence").

Meawhile East Rome in this era would be "Justinian's Byzantium" with Tagmata and Expansionist/Aestethe (religious) focus, while Byzantium in medieval being "Macedonian" or "Komnenian" Byzantium with a Varangian Guard and a Merchant focus.

Slightly strange naming, I know, but this game needs some creative puzzle solving to maximize its brilliant but demanding eras - factions relationship

Oh, almost forgot to mention.
"Achaemenids" in classical - Immortals, Expansionist focus
"Sasanians" in early medieval - Aswaran (super heavy cavalry) and either Merchant or Aestethe focus (massive global influence in both).

On top of that, such era split would be a motivating factor to put simultaneously Maurya (clas) and Gupta (EM) or Tang (EM) and Song (med, normally they'd both fall under medieval)

 

[Gwydden]

It would be nice, wouldn't it, but I doubt it'll happen as it would require a significant post-release revamp of the current system. I'm already glad half the eras are premodern, as opposed to CIV's gazillion eras to represent the last century or two. Wouldn't want to be greedy.

The naming itself is not an issue. We already have Early Modern, and I would very much like "Industrial" to be renamed to Late Modern if only for consistency's sake. Early Medieval and High/Late Medieval should be fine.

 

[Krajzen]

An example of Old World cultures which could fit three era division instead of two era division.

Classical: (600 BC - 250 AD)
Han, Maurya, Tamils, Magadha, Xiongnu, Scythians, Parthians, Achaemenids, Sabaeans, Nabateans, Carthaginians, Kuhorsehockyes, Greeeks, Romans, Celts, Dacians

Early Medieval: (250 AD - 850 AD)
Byzantines, Goths, Franks, Lombards,
Anglo - Saxons, Irish, Welsh, Picts, Slavs, Norse, Bulgarians, Huns, Khazars, Armenians, Sasanians, Himyarites, Makurians, Axum, Tibetans, Gupta, Pala, Tang, Silla (Korea), Srivijaya (Indonesia), Umayyads, Abbasids

Medieval: (850 AD - 1450 AD)
Fatimids, Moroccans, Moors, Yemenis, Seljuks, Samanids, Turks, Timurids, Mongols, Song, Goryeo (Korea), Heian Japan, Khmer, Vietnamese, Bagan (Burma), Majapahit (Indonesia), Chola, Georgians, Abissynians, Somalis, Swahilli, Zimbabwe, Mali, Hausa, Yoruba, Hungarians, Kievan Rus, Poland, Bohemia, Venetians, Teutons, French, English, Scottish, Flemish, Danish, Swedish, Castillians, Aragonese, Normans, Sicilians


See, the insane amount of cultures in "medieval" camp is one of main reasons why this could be split imo

 

[Elhoim]

Ku****es

At first I thought they were using the F word, but I believe it's the S word jajaja

 

[Catoninetales_Amplitude]

Ku****es

At first I thought they were using the F word, but I believe it's the S word jajaja

The common issue of language filters, also known as the S****horpe Problem (named after an English city facing this problem, which happens to be not to far from the city of Penistone... There's a whole list of these...)

 

[CivLuvah]

Penistone

That doesn't seem to be censored here