4 distinct ages

[Mewtarthio]

Question: If Ancient territory is determined only by what you used, then what's to stop the enemy from marching right next to your gates before declaring war? Obviously, you can't tell that massive stack of Armaggedon military to go away if you have no territorial rights to where they're standing.

 

[Pirate]

First, I don't think more ages would help. WWI was really just late industrial - the threshold to the modern era. I think if you subdivide ages too much then there is no real progress from the early industrial age to the late industrial age. Each age should be a new experience and a quest in its own way.

Second, @mewtarhio, you wouldn't be able to stop them unless you set up outposts or sentry units, etc... That's the point. In ancient times you couldn't just sit comfortable behind national borders that extended into land over which you had no real influence. You need to be strategic in how each city-state protects itself. Or you could be strategic on the offensive and lay siege to other cities. The balance is that with production and support limited to each city, stacks of doom in the ancient ages might be more difficult to amass.

 

[Pirate]

Here's some age triggers I have come up with. Depending on how religion and civics are introduced into the game these may need to be adjusted. In addition to achieving all required techs the following civilization milestones need to be satisfied before progressing onto the next age:

Ancient=> Middle Ages: The agricultural revolution allowed establishment of cities and the delegation of specialists (craftsmen, soldiers, beuracrats) to begin the Ancient age of civilizations. During the Ancient Age your cities would act like independent city states, cooperating through loose alliances and trades. The transition to the Middle Ages era occurred with the creation of systems to sustain a large-scale political and social orgianization between the city-states that evolved during the Ancient age. To leave the ancient era, a civ should need to establish a capital city (I suggest you don't begin the game with one) with a palace and/or courthouse and at least one cultural and one economic improvement to prove your civilization's ability to cultivate more complex institutions.

Middle Ages => Industrial: During the Middle Ages, trade and empire building unified the identity of many civilizations and allowed for technological improvements that made industrialization possible. To progress to the Industrial Age, 80% of your civ's cities should be connected in a single trade network. I am hesitant to add a minimum culture requirement since military conquest did as much to promote unity as shared culture did. Perhaps there is a 'victory point' threshhold that can be reached by both culture and military victories.

Industrial => Modern: This transition is difficult to pin down. Modern societies are considered thoroughly industrialized. Communications, popular culture and mass media are far reaching. Economies are primarily service based with decreasing focus on agriculture and manufacturing. Technology progresses rapidly. Institutions react to the squalor of industrial cities and promote health, prosperity, ecology. This transition may have to depend on other game concepts that need to be introduced. For example, your population can be split between urban and rural dwellers. You cannot transition to the modern era until at least 50% of your total pop lives in cities. In the city screen, rural dwellers work the non-urbanized tiles on the map. Urban dwellers are specialists or work urbanized tiles. (urbanized tiles are another improvement beyond mining and railroads - they produce no food or shelds but are high commerce and reduce unhappiness due to overcrowding)

Am I missing anything here? I think these are general enough to relate to any civilization.

 

[judgement]

Ancient=> Middle Ages: The agricultural revolution allowed establishment of cities and the delegation of specialists (craftsmen, soldiers, beuracrats) to begin the Ancient age of civilizations. During the Ancient Age your cities would act like independent city states, cooperating through loose alliances and trades. The transition to the Middle Ages era occurred with the creation of systems to sustain a large-scale political and social orgianization between the city-states that evolved during the Ancient age. To leave the ancient era, a civ should need to establish a capital city (I suggest you don't begin the game with one) with a palace and/or courthouse and at least one cultural and one economic improvement to prove your civilization's ability to cultivate more complex institutions.

Hmmm... this doesn't match up to my understanding of history. Ancient times in RL included plenty of city states, but they also included huge empires (Rome, for example). You say that the Middle Ages occurred with the creation of large-scale political systems, but Merriam-Webster defines the Middle Ages as 500 to 1500 AD... in other words, they began about the time of the collapse of the Roman empire (an ancient age large-scale political entity) and during most of their span, Europe was governed feudally, which is much more similar to city-states than the government of the Roman Empire.

Regardless of its correctness, the transition you describe sounds much more like the transition from one form of governent to another than from one era to another.

 

[Evie]

Actually, what Pirate presented makes sense.

It's the whole stupid notion of having an age named "Middle Age" in the tech tree that's the problem, not Pirate's idea.

Replace Middle Age with something else (say, classical age to represent the age of large political structures and well-organized society that came with Rome, late Greece, Persia, China, etc, then rose again in Europe after the throwback to the ancient (ie, feudal) age that was the medieval era), and his system works damn right.

Europe would thus have undergone the following steps :

Ancient (Etruscans, early Rome, early Greece, Celts, etc)
Classical (Rome, Late Greece, etc)
Ancient (Conquest by less-advanced tribes, ie the barbarian invasions - although the Byz. empire remained in Classical)
Classical again (late middle age, renaissance, so forth, with the kings seizing back power over their realms from the feudal lords)

Then Industrial-Modern are pretty obvious.

 

[Pirate]

Thanks Oda. Yes, I think that since the ancient age ends with the discovery of the major governments, the implementation of them (i.e. the Roman Republic) really begins the so-called "Middle Ages" in the game.

My point with the triggers is not to make them too debilitating, but to add to the realistic infrastructure requirements of a civilization. Most likely people will reach those triggers before getting all techs anyway.

 

[dh_epic]

I really like the idea of trying infrastructure and certain technological improvements together.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I've actually been giving thought to what has been said here, especially in light of other threads regarding dark ages and the 'snowball effect' etc.

If we do agree that both 'technological' and 'socialogical' factors are neccessary for progression to the next age, then a model for 'dark ages' and their consequences becomes readily apparent.
Basically, we accept that there would be FIVE ages-at least-in the game:

Ancient, Classical, Middle, Industrial and Modern. It might even be possible to break it up further into Ancient, Classical, Imperial, Colonial, Industrial and Modern-but lets stick to the five ages for simplicity.

Anyway, if you achieve the prerequisites for passage from one age to the next is achieved, but later you fall BELOW that prerequisite-either through natural disasters or conquest, then there should be a % chance each turn of lapsing back into the previous age-i.e. a DARK AGE! Doing so should have broad technological AND sociological effects-though I'm not entirely sure what these should be. An obvious one would be losing many of the techs you've achieved in the age you're currently in, but other effects might include the downgrading of governments and infrastructure efficiency!
Anyway, just a thought. I'd be intrigued to hear what other people think!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Garbarsardar.jr]

I defer my answer here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=1890421#post1890421, since there is already a discussion on that
BTW I think the addition of the Classical is a must...

 

[Latvian "Hound"]

I sure liked this idea its great Especaly first 2 ages. Thats more like rea life. Hope it will be putted in Civ4

 

[dh_epic]

but later you fall BELOW that prerequisite-either through natural disasters or conquest, then there should be a % chance each turn of lapsing back into the previous age-i.e. a DARK AGE! Doing so should have broad technological AND sociological effects-though I'm not entirely sure what these should be. An obvious one would be losing many of the techs you've achieved in the age you're currently in, but other effects might include the downgrading of governments and infrastructure efficiency!
Anyway, just a thought. I'd be intrigued to hear what other people think!

This is brilliant and maybe one of the best ideas I've heard to keep the game interesting even when you're far ahead... and tying it into other solid suggestions and concepts.

I do disagree with the loss of technologies, however.

I think technology should slow down. (e.g.: more corruption and waste... or perhaps you have to spend 32 turns researching a "rennaisance" to recover whatever you lost. you can't have a rennaisance without a dark age, and to some extent vice versa) Everything should ultimately slow down, though.

What if one of these sociological requirements was a certain level of relationships with your neighbours, or your neighbours' status? One that reflects Rome compared to its barbarian neighbours -- and encourage people to trade and share to prevent this kind of gap (or else face a potential dark age?) This is more crazy and contraversial for sure.

 

[mitsho]

I agree totally on the HISTORIC (renamed ancient, showing the fact, that this is the time, from when we get 'written' knowledge) - CLASSICAL - INDUSTRIAL - GLOBALIZED (instead of the 'modern' term) age path. That's great. And It should take a really good idea from Call to Power (or was it the same in Civ2, I don't remember clearly): the throughgoing tech tree. Meaning you can research a modern tech even if you are in the industrial era.
The change from era to era should be based on the facts: science, society and military. Rome broke up and 'fell' back to historical/ancient not because they weren't good in science or society, but they lacked the military to protect it! (and the society wasn't on its bright day, because christianity and other factors began to destroy it.)

Another thing which could bring a feeling of the 'being in the historical/ancient' age which I really would like to be included is: when you begin a game, the gamer doesn't have all options you have now in the 'advisors' (military, cultural, ...) This options come by discovering new techs, an example is that you get the minimap only with mapmaking. the luxus-slider you only get with 'I-don't-know-insert-a-tech-name-here', and so on and so on.

mfG mitsho

 

[Evie]

Aussie Lurker - now THAT's a dark age idea I could agree with!

 

[Pirate]

Aussie, good idea about the trigger for a dark age. Not only do you have to achieve a certain level of civilization to progress to the next age, but you have to maintain that level or be punished by a technological and efficiency setback. But how do you get out of them? I'm sure there are other threads about the effects of a dark age, but my suggestion may be that you don't lose technology, but rather lose the ability to research new technology until the infrastructure condition for the age is rebuilt. Then the corruption and inefficiency stay put until a new technology is researched (or a certain military goal is achieved?). Once you've rebuilt and learned somthing new, that spawns a 'renaissance' and you're back on track.

 

[Ryth]

Sorry - joining the thread late, but I have an idea for the Industrial>Modern trigger: A new building called Radio Transmitter, or the equiv. Maybe needs to be phone lines, or something, but a physical representation of the communication abilities of the era.

Also in reply to dh_epic's idea:
A crazy thought -- imagine in the ancient era that cities just popped up, as cousins of your civilization, but you had to win them over to cooperation by culture or military might. A bunch of independant city states united under the sword -- that's the history of a lot of peoples. China, Greece, even the Iroquois can be traced back to 5 nations... but this might be TOO drastic, even for Civ IV.
A very close idea has been mentioned in another thread (sorry, forget where) which basically has you starting out with lots of 'neutral' cities near by which you could conquer or convert. Its a good idea, but there's always going to be the worry about the placement of the city - just next to a good resourse?
I don't think more ages would add anything. Properly detailed certain techs would create the same effect as early vs late industrial etc.

Just as a side note, isn't it interesting to see just how inter-related a lot of the thread concpets are? Seperate ideas, but worked together, cIV could be a bigger step forward than Civ3 has been. I love it!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I admit that I was just 'throwing ideas around' on the idea of losing techs. Its just that, when I look at what happened to Europe after Romes collapse, it seems that ONLY tech loss can accurately mimic that! Remember, though, that the chance of entering a dark age and/or losing techs as a result would be fairly small and, if nothing else, would add extra encouragement for players to maintain ALL of their social and physical infrastructure. Secondly, remember that it would only apply to techs obtained in the most RECENT era you're in! All other techs would be exempt. Not to mention the fact that the number of techs you lose would be dependant on the 'strength' of the dark age!! Of course, this would mean that a late age dark age could be potentially devestating, wheras an early one would be a minor inconvenience. Lastly, it would only be TRULY 'devastating' if you are the most advanced civ, in the neihgbourhood, at the time your dark age occurs! Otherwise, you just need to go to your more advanced neighbour(s), cap in hand, and ask THEM for the technologies you lost (though you could only do this AFTER you have re-entered the appropriate age).
Another, final point I would like to make is that, with the bad there must also be a good. I've been thinking that, if you achieve the 'sociological' prerequisites for entry into the next era BEFORE you have the tech prerequisites, then you should be able to enter a 'Renaissance'. A renaisance would be much like a golden age-where you get large increases in research, culture and wealth for X turns-but one which is not Civ-specific! It can also be a way of reversing a previous dark age, as the penalties accrued from your dark age can be quickly reversed with a Renaissance.
Anyway, again this is just some rambling thoughts on my part. I'd be glad to hear what people think !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[kulgan]

This idea has real potential. I've use the change of the ages simply as a guide to where I am at as compared to the other civs, but they are never far away anyway, so the point of the ages seems wasted.

I think your idea of separate and distinct gameplay can be used to create short games. within the main epic. eg: I could start in whichever age I wished.

I could start at "modern age" with 12 other civs all with computer generated terrain and cities borders, units etc, and then play to the end of the game. (1950 - 2050) and be scored accordingly. Other people may enjoy an earlier age. But I can see some advantage in the game play - and possible add on futuristic expansions.

 

[mitsho]

I have to agree kulgan, this would be a perfect idea: new play modes. But sorry, this is another subject. Go and make an own thread (or search the one that's for this).

So, and this is enough of 'correcting' other people, sorry But I'm astonished (wrong word, isn't it?) nobody answered to my post.
Another random idea: 'sub-ages'. the tech tree is in the 4 ages devided, but they are larger (meaning more techs). and every age has a subage with individual graphics, individual leaders, etc. For example Egypt in the ancient age: In the 'city states' (first subage, no better name came to my mind), King Menes is the leader of Egypt, and when they have researched 90 % of the 'city states-techs', they get new graphics (perhaps?) and a new leader: 'Pharao Cheops', they are now in the ' early kingdoms' subage, after that, they enter the classical AGE and so the subage 'empires', Leader: Ramses (III.?), after this subage, the 'cultural empires' comes.

Perhaps this would be just for the look, but I'm sure that you can include some gameplay things... what do you think?

mfG mitsho

 

[dh_epic]

I'm a big fan of historical realism for the early game (many city states who are competing and cooperating, who either band together or fight) ... but I think this is too revolutionary. I'd love to see someone pull this off though. But I'm more interested in the well thought out plan by Aussie.

My favorite part of the plan is how it opens up a strategy.

e.g.: in order to hit the classical era, you need a granary in most of your cities

Hey Egypt. You see your Pyramids of Memphis?

Consider that city: RAZED.

Sucker.

 

[mitsho]

@dh epic you understood me wrong, 'city-states' is just a name of an era, nothing influencing the game play. I just talked of 'eye-candy' (a civ has more leaders, etc etc)

mfG mitsho